Village Voice Slams Our DART Campaign
December 1st, 2008 by Glenn Sacks, MA for Fathers & Families
Syndicated columnist Michelle Malkin and blogger king Glenn Reynolds of www.Instapundit.com recently praised our Campaign Protesting DART's Father-Bashing Domestic Violence Ads on TV. To learn more, click here.
Village Voice writer Roy Edroso didn't like this. In Rightbloggers' "Conservatism 2.0" Closely Resembles Earlier Versions (12/1/08) he wrote:
Last week top rightbloggers Glenn Reynolds and Michelle Malkin held a video conversation about "Conservatism 2.0." Their 1990s-Fast Company cognomen refers to a future direction for the Right, but from their discussion their new direction is rather like their old one...
They also discussed the "tolerance bullying" of gays angry about Proposition 8 [the CA. anti-gay marriage ballot initiative], who'd pressured a film festival director out of his job. While allowing that "people have a right to speak out," Reynolds said that he was "absolutely certain that had Proposition 8 supporters done this... we'd be hearing cries of McCarthyism." Then he mentioned the efforts of radio host Glenn Sacks and others to get some public transit ads about domestic abuse pulled. (Sacks was offended by the ads' suggestion that many boys grow up to beat women.) The Sacks squad "made a very big point about being polite about it," said Reynolds.
This politeness is evident in Sacks' own account, in which he said that "several financial contributors" to The Family Place, the service provider that placed the offending ads, "withdrew or reduced the financial gifts they planned for the end-of-the-year giving season" as a result of Sacks' efforts. But Sacks added, "I don't say this with pleasure -- I would have preferred that The Family Place do the right thing from the beginning rather than lose the funding they did." So Conservatism 2.0, it would appear, will distinguish itself from its gay enemies by getting their targets bankrupted rather than fired, and by acting sorry about it afterwards.
I voted against Proposition 8 and favor gays' right to marry, but I am disturbed by some of what I've heard about gay marriage advocates' post-election "bullying" tactics. However, to consider what we did to be similar "bullying" is quite a stretch.
We didn't seek to "bully" The Family Place's financial contributors. Instead, selected activists politely brought the ads to the contributors' attention and pointed out that they are unfair to fathers, bad for children, and an embarrassment to The Family Place. Many of their financial contributors agreed. It was executed very well.
On a larger level, I can't think of any kind of effective protest anywhere on behalf of any cause or issue that can't be criticized as rude or inappropriate or whatever.
Boycotts are often called "bullying," as are angry demonstrations.
Demonstrate on a bridge and you'll be crucified for blocking traffic.
Angrily protest and you'll be portrayed as bitter and half-crazed. Protest in a humorous way in costume (like Fathers 4 Justice does in the UK) and critics will label you clowns who aren't serious.
When the gays marched here in Los Angeles to protest after Proposition 8's passage, people got mad at them for blocking traffic. They were protesting in largely friendly territory, so people said "Why inflict this disruption on us? We voted against Proposition 8. Go protest in areas which voted for it." Of course, if they go to conservative areas (perhaps like Orange County) and protest, they're called bullies and residents will say they're afraid of them.
All in all, it reminds me of a sign a former colleague of mine posted over his classroom door:
Avoid Criticism
Say Nothing, Do Nothing, Be Nothing
To comment on the Village Voice article, click here and go to the bottom of the page.
"));
19 queries. 0.364 seconds.
December 1st, 2008 at 8:19 pm
Men's rights isn't necessarily "conservatism 2.0," and men's rights definitely isn't automatically opposed to gay rights. There are MRAs who support gay marriage, others who oppose it. Similarly there are plenty of MRAs who have more of a left-wing perspective.
December 1st, 2008 at 9:00 pm
i meant doesn't agree with their agenda
December 1st, 2008 at 9:02 pm
Stephen M Weiss Says:
December 1st, 2008 at 8:39 pm
LOL, I think I have heard of the Village Voice before. Is it not a crackpot rag?
__________________________________
From my recollection of the distant (1960's) past, the Village Voice was once a hippie rag. I don't know what it is today but I'd be surprised if it wasn't far left in all of its views.
December 1st, 2008 at 9:21 pm
perspicacious Says:
December 1st, 2008 at 8:09 pm
It is my understanding that gay protesters upset at the Prop 8 outcome entered a church during worship servces and disrupted the entire church service in a Mormon church.
Good for them, mormons live in this bizzare little world where they do no wrong and harm noone
It would do them some good to see the harm they caused "their fellow children of god"
Maybe some of them will renounce their fanatical devotion to a cult every bit as bent on world domination as islam
December 1st, 2008 at 9:21 pm
The sad part is their belief that is you are pro-men's rights that automatically means that you are (a) anti-women's rights, (b) anti-gay rights, (c) anti-minority's rights, and (d) a hard-core-conservative. When is doing right by someone regardless of their race/gender/sexual-orientation wrong?
The funny part: this guy actually thinks he is a liberal. Anyone - by definition - who believes in an orthodoxy is a conservative. In my experience, the vast majority of so-called, self-described liberals are actually about as conservative as they come. If you are true liberal, you work to maintain an open mind. These people have lost that long ago!
December 1st, 2008 at 9:27 pm
Many MRAs are critical of religious conservatives. Some of the harshest comments I've seen on this blog have been reserved for them.
December 1st, 2008 at 9:35 pm
Our isssues have nothing to do with gay issues. Our issues are our children and our rights to those children taken away by the state. This is nothing but these activists siding with their fellow feminist activists. They should go to Hell together. Our issues are not to be degraded because some gays are upset. Are issues aren't anti-gay; they're pro our children.
December 1st, 2008 at 9:44 pm
lujlp Says: Good for them, mormons live in this bizzare little world where they do no wrong and harm noone
Incidentally, this also sounds to me like every other religion in the world. Where's the news here? Again, who cares what they think? Embrace your religion (or not) as you see fit. It's not for you or me to judge.
December 1st, 2008 at 10:05 pm
Some of the worst attacks on men come from the right.
December 1st, 2008 at 10:25 pm
Funny how an abstract concept, money, affecting a large group slightly affects people's mob mentality more than single individual's pain and suffering. Or is it just a business that is using it's ability to broadcast news to make money off of hits while simultaneously being afraid that they will somehow lose money somehow because of a similar act, even if it is just.
December 2nd, 2008 at 4:04 am
I'm not in the habit of transplanting posts but this one needs wider viewing as much for it's comic nature as anything else...
Posted by: XXchick at December 2, 2008 2:58 AM
Oh whiners, you are just insecure that you have proven to be inferior when you can't rape and brutalize women as you have done throughout history. We have taken over education, we have taken over the political agenda, we will out earn you, we bear the children, and we control our destinies- freed from your patriarchal control. And yes you are inherently violent- criminals by your very innate nature. That is why you all need to be trained, and why the best institution for men who refuse the training is prison. We control the children and we control the social agenda, and we are gaining control of the courts. Fathers are completely unnecessary, and soon with technology, we will be able to reproduce without you. What too much estrogen in the water for ya boys, yep just peed out my birth control which can't be filtered so neutering and feminizing some more of ya? Your lack of respect and regard for women has been met head on by generations of women who don't respect or regard you very highly either, and we are winning the war of genders. So take your sore loser selves outta here and get back to menial menial work that lacks intelligence because that is all you are good for. I await your loser responses showing how insecure and threatened you are when faced with female superiority. Hah.
Pity feminists more generally aren't so moronic.
December 2nd, 2008 at 9:17 am
gwallan, that is a very telling comment.
It goes along with some of the misandry being spewed at the end of this article where (mostly) women/feminists come to the defense of tribes in New Guinea in which the women have been killing their male-babies for 10 years.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1090131/The-villages-mothers-killed-EVERY-baby-born-boy-years.html
December 2nd, 2008 at 11:19 am
lujlp Says:
And Lance I do get to judge this religion, not only because I was once part of it, but also because they presume to tell others how to live their lives.
-------------------
Yes you do get to judge. What you don't get to do is take action and attack them.
As far as Mormon's financing/supporting Prop 8, they have the same rights as any other group to affect legislature and bureaucrats.
What's interesting (and I don't know if you're an MRA, or an anti-male feminist like Jeanna, or pro-male feminist like persp) is that feminists do this all the time, but with government money.
During the La Musga move-away decision (which you can read bout by using the search tool on this blog) government paid feminists at DV shelters signed petitions and sent in urgings to the judge to affect a "precedent setting" case involving a custodial mom moving the kids 1000's of miles from dad. The judge had agreed with the dads lawyer that the destruction of the father-child bond was an important factor of consideration when reviewing move-aways.
These feminists (who worked for various government places or government financed locations) were trying to influence an important court decision.
I have a big problem with social activists using government dollars earmarked for battered women to inflict their view of reality upon precedent setting court decisions.
Here you actually have government lobbying (or trying) itself to increase removal of loving fathers from children.
The #1 battle cry of MRA's is that government's incentivizing mothers to kick dad to the curb in lieu of a check has harmed many many men, children, and yes even women.
And it has to stop now. Government has to stop getting involved in peoples personal divorces and always siding with one parent based on what is between their legs.
The rebuttable presumption of shared parenting should be the nationwide standard as quick as possible. It would help deter parents who would (normally) quickly chose divorce over working through hard times and help keep families intact, and it would insure that both parents (not proven unfit) would have the right to maintain substantial contact with the children.
The proof is in, fathers matter. Look at poor inner city slums. They are rife with huge violence, drug-use, and poor respect of women. And almost universally are matriarchies (i.e. mother-run households). Obviously fathers matter. Anybody concerned for safer environments for women and children should be helping MRA's, not opposing them.
December 2nd, 2008 at 12:11 pm
lujlp Says: If they kept to themselves it would be one thing, but once you start pushing a warped agenda upon others the "right" not to be judged or critisized is lost
_____________________________
Some people believe the same thing about MRA's.
You are entitled to your opinion but if you bash one group for doing what they believe to be right, then what right do you have to complain when others do the same to the group you believe is doing right?
December 2nd, 2008 at 12:12 pm
Lance presents this: "gwallan, that is a very telling comment.
It goes along with some of the misandry being spewed at the end of this article where (mostly) women/feminists come to the defense of tribes in New Guinea in which the women have been killing their male-babies for 10 years.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1090131/The-villages-mothers-killed-EVERY-baby-born-boy-years.html"
The people of New Guinea are some of the most backwards, barbaric people on earth, so I'm not surprised this sort of thing goes on there. However, once all the men are gone that tribe will highly-vulnerable, and IMO won't last a generation before a rival tribe comes in and beats the living sh!t out of them.
Men are indeed necessary, for the very survival of humanity and civilization.
December 2nd, 2008 at 12:17 pm
John D: "What's interesting (and I don't know if you're an MRA, or an anti-male feminist like Jeanna, or pro-male feminist like persp)
_____________________
While I take a pro-male view much of the time, I am not and have never been a feminist. I prefer to think that I'm pro-people as corny as that sounds. When I see men or women saying things I believe is counter productive to every one including and especially children, I speak up against it. I would like to see men and women work together to find a solution to their differences resulting in feminists and MRA's no longer being around or needed.
December 2nd, 2008 at 12:17 pm
No, Lance I was talking to lujlp.
December 2nd, 2008 at 1:46 pm
John D,
You are substituting the claimed intentions of the 1st and 2nd wave feminists for their actual actions. They did nothing to enable the man to enter the household domain. They reduced the reliance of families on the parents to educate the children, leaving the task to bureaucratic institutions. Every working class woman today is more compelled to work, thanks to the monetary and resulting price inflation that the govt could engage in without raising many eyebrows over the last 60-80 years. No wonder there are links between CIA propaganda wing and the feminist movement. Then there is reduction in family cohesion, sowing the seeds of anti-male hysteria. The list can go on and on.... What is there to glorify these 1st wave and 2nd wave feminists? If you look from a neutral point - the only thing they did was smash gender roles to their (as opposed to women's) advantage.
Please stop glorifying these ignorant at best and malicious at worst activity.
December 2nd, 2008 at 1:51 pm
Persp,
While I respect and agree with the idea of women and men working together to solve the problem - can you explain how this is possible when women - not just feminists - but women in general - have no - absolutely no interests in acknowledging tolerating clear, honest, brutal and bitter opinions that men have formed over their life times? We can pretend that things are not the way they are - and granted that not everything is dark, but average Jill is always some shade of grey when it comes to acknowledging the bias against men and mostly to the darker side. Just note the number of women posters here - we don't even have to consider the heavily populated feminist blogs like feministing.
December 2nd, 2008 at 2:00 pm
Oh I don't know Pankaj....in my experience, both men and women are concerned with sexism against men. I think the bigger problem is women (and men) have been brainwashed into believing that women need to be protected. Unfortunately, chivalry is not dead.
December 2nd, 2008 at 6:43 pm
I think that, given the main reason most of us are here, it would take a lot more "intrusiveness" into general life before women would notice what's going on. I don't agree that "women" don't care, although I DO agree that "women" have no knowledge of the preponderance, or severity, of the punitive aspects of the male social experience.
In short, they've been lied to. And since those lies both gain her "stuff" and forgive her for any unsavory actions, she's apt to believe the lies.
But do most women know how often or how severely men are affected by Divorce, for instance? Or the level of scrutiny / discrimination men are subjected to in the workplace? The social stigma attached to all things "masculine"? The increasingly limited options men have for a better life? The state of education as it pertains to males? The power women exercise over men in the area of reproduction - and the according punitive measures available for non-compliance?
Does the average woman have any concept of the totality of these experiences?
I'd say likely not. In fact, most women have never even thought about it. Not even once.
That's an education problem, in my view.
December 2nd, 2008 at 7:07 pm
Pankaj,
I disagree with your characterization of 1st and 2nd wave feminism. I think the movement really did start out with the stated purpose of ONLY knocking down legal barriers to women, and only wanted women treated the same in the eyes of the law. Particularly in terms of employment and education.
I agree that this greater freedom for women in the workforce never translated into greater freedom for men to become house-husbands (or whatever you may call it). But that's partially the fault of men. Who brings home the bacon is a social realm. In many many ways men did this to ourselves by putting women on a pedestal long after the time woman ceased being lady-like enough to deserve it.
I believe that women should be able to have the careers and education they want, I don't see any problem with that.
However, they should do the same work and not be able to turn on the water works to get out of being fired if they screwed the pooch on a task. Do I think there were some things bad with 1st and 2nd wave feminism? Sure.
For one thing the movement was terribly one-sided. They wanted equal freedom for women, but not equal responsibility (like the draft). But considering we're talking about the 50's and 60's here 90% of men wouldn't have wanted women to be drafted either.
December 2nd, 2008 at 7:14 pm
Offended_Dad
“I think it's a gross double standard of accountability and ethics. But, I'm a non- minority, non-hyphenated, non-homosexual-or-otherwise-deviant man, and I'm used to seeing it and dealing with it.”
I read this and my first thought was “Well just what heck are you doing about your situation”.
Then I thought again and came to the conclusion that straight white guys are in a very difficult spot. The normal white guy is the only class in our society who is seen as strong. Women have the luxury (if they choose to use it) of being someone else’s victim. We black males are seen as cannon fodder for any group who comes along with a hand out. But for the straight white guy it’s very difficult to garner any sympathy because you’re seen as the last strong group standing. In order to have a victim you must have a predator, tag your it.
I think this will change as others are added to the predator (bad guy) list, we as a nation will begin to realize that victim logy does not work. I see it happening already. More and more women (and their families) are taxed in order to pay for someone else’s child and health care. More men of every group are being displaced from the children and homes. You’re not alone.
BTW: People in general really don’t seem to care unless an event affects them personally.
All the best
December 2nd, 2008 at 10:10 pm
"But considering we're talking about the 50's and 60's here 90% of men wouldn't have wanted women to be drafted either."
Yes! Because men have an idea of threat really means. How is it that 90% of women were not against men being drafted? Being the more "empathetic" gender, should they not be able to understand the pain of young men dying in wars - like they say - 18 and green? How is it that no political candidate has ended selective service for men yet? Because 90% of women i.e. >45% of electorate (which you have to agree is a sizable minority) does not care about men. Men are left with the task of doing the dirty work, while most women and feminist leaders will pretend as if this compulsion does not exist - which is precisely why elimination of the peacetime draft is not even on the plate (except for Ron Paul that is).
Yeah yeah, some one has to do the dirty work. But why is it that only 10% of the US military forces are female and almost all of them are shielded from combat? Why is it that no military force in the world has been able to field an all female military force? Don't get me wrong, women can fight - they are rumored to be better marksmen (PC = markswomen) than men in general. And I do think all women should be heavily armed at all times.
December 3rd, 2008 at 10:37 pm
I agree with you about men doing the sh1tty work. But at one time men were thanked (at around the same time women were expected to act like ladies).
My point is that the 60's feminist had a lot more legitimate grievances than today's feminists.
Quite frankly I support the right of women to work in any job they choose, and get any education they want, and serve in any public capacity as long as they have the needed requirements.
Now, in addition should there also be equal responsibilities in addition to equal rights? Of course! And I believe that day will come. I think the armed forces will someday fully integrate women, and we will have an all volunteer force.
What would be ideal is for the roles that bring you closer to combat & grime and suffering to pay much much more, and jobs that are safe and give you technical training for job skills, etc.. should pay much much less.
In that way if women want to join the armed forces and make the big bucks they have to pay the big price. This wouldn't address issues like squads fighting to the last man (when they shouldn't) just because there is a woman in the squad, or men forced with the dual role of savage warrior and benevolent guardian they would have to face. **(see aside at bottom if interested)
I just think the original feminist movement had much more legitimate grievances than it does now. The feminist movement now is a hate-club and a total joke when they talk about equality. Their version of equality is: Hire me because I'm a woman, take my word on rape because I'm a woman, kick my husband and father to the curb for me because I'm a woman.
I'm assuming we are in total agreement about today's feminists, but I think the movement that happened in the 60's was destined to happen, and should have happened. For one thing bringing women into the workforce "softened" a lot of industries. Strangely despite patients dying due to intern exhaustion, new rules/laws regarding doctors/surgeons/intern shifts weren't enacted until WOMEN entered the field.
It's incredibly strange that a woman lying on a table dying because of an exhausted doctor's mistake didn't garner sympathy, but a female doctor/intern complaining "I'm so tired" did. From what I read in "The Myth of Male Power" this happened in almost every field women entered.
** aside: I believe this duality (savage warrior vs. caretaker/guardian) is what happened with private lynch. From what I understand the squad missed the convoy. From what I understand from friends in the military you have to be dumb as a rock to miss a convoy, you're told over and over again when and where to assemble.
They missed the convoy because Lynch wanted to find a phone to call her parents. I'm certain if Lynch had been a man, she would have been told to sit-down and shutup. Instead because she's a cute girl, these guys (with their tongues and d1cks hanging out like many family/criminal court judges) drove her around looking for a phone and they drove behind enemy lines etc...