West Virginia Court Voids DV Rules as Gender-Biased
October 7th, 2009 by Robert Franklin, Esq.A West Virginia Circuit court struck down three administrative rules governing the licensing and operation of domestic violence shelters in that state Friday. It did so in part because the rules and their application were explicitly gender-biased, contrary to the "crystal clear" gender-neutral language and intent of the statute.
The full opinion is here and is well worth reading. It draws a clear and detailed picture of a state agency utterly in thrall to a concept of domestic violence that is well established as false. To men's rights advocates, it strongly suggests effective litigation tactics for attacking the blatantly discriminatory statutes and administrative rules that so distort our response to the problem of domestic violence.
Here, as I understand it from the court's opinion, is what happened in West Virginia. The legislature passed a law that established an administrative agency, the Family Protection Services Board (FPSB), whose mission it is to license and oversee DV shelters, and programs to assist DV perpetrators in changing their behavior. The FPSB was empowered to set standards for these programs and shelters, and did. But the intent of the legislature was clear - all West Virginians, irrespective of sex, were to have access to services.
But when the FPSB swung into action, it directly contradicted the "crystal clear" intent of the legislature. First, it relied exclusively on the feminist DV group, the West Virginia Coalition Against Domestic Violence. It promulgated a rule that required at least one-third of the staff of a DV shelter to have been trained by the Coalition. Into the bargain, the Coalition refused to train anyone who was not a member of the Coalition. In short, members of the general public who wanted to be trained in domestic violence response or advocacy, were barred from doing so. Only those with the "correct" ideology were permitted licensure.
And, given the political slant of the Coalition, it should come as no surprise that the court found that this rule "excludes any person who does not adhere to the gender-biased fundamental beliefs of the Coalition." Those "gender-biased fundamental beliefs" meant that men and adolescent boys were excluded from all DV shelters in the state based solely on their sex (and age). That, of course is standard Duluth Model practice, but it is not gender-neutral as required by West Virginia state law.
The same held true for perpetrator intervention programs. Again, in strict compliance with the political doctrine that holds that only men commit DV and only women are victims of it, the Board, through its hand-picked agent, the Coalition, directly contradicted the clear terms of the law. In doing so, it deprived female abusers of the benefits of intervention programs, while simultaneously depriving their adult male and child victims of the benefits of intervening in the perpetrator's behavior. The court struck down that rule too.
Through the lens of a court opinion, it looks like the Board was taken over by the usual radical DV advocates, who then appointed the Coalition to do the daily work of creating and maintaining a DV shelter and intervention system that blatantly discriminated against men, women and boys.
Not only is it clearly discriminatory, it doesn't work. It doesn't work to address the problem of DV because its approach to the problem is ideological. By pretending that DV is a political, as opposed to a psychological, matter, the approach taken by DV shelters and programs across the country cannot work. The simple fact is that they misperceive the problem. Plenty of psychologists know this and have said so. If we truly want to deal effectively with DV, we'll listen to them.
The West Virginia case carries the seeds of future attacks on the blatantly discriminatory DV industry. As such it is a valuable tool as well as a landmark decision of sorts.
I do have one criticism, though. Without being overly technical, the plaintiff in the case was an organization called Men and Women Against Discrimination. It sought to advocate against DV in a gender-neutral way and was prevented by the gender- biased requirements promulgated by the Board and implemented by the Coalition. Among other things, the legal wrong done to the organization was the limitation on free speech the Board's rules placed on its members.
That's fine as far as it goes, but attorneys in future court actions will be well advised to include an individual man or men who sought DV services but were refused. Conspicuously absent from the court's opinion is any notion that the Board's rules violated anyone's due process or equal protection rights. Clearly, if the suit had included an individual plaintiff, instead of just a corporate one, those vital legal concepts would have come into play and the judge would have had an opportunity to rule on them.
But beyond that, this is a great success.
Thanks to our good friends at the American Coalition of Fathers and Children for sending along the court's decision.
"));
19 queries. 0.381 seconds.
October 7th, 2009 at 3:00 pm
Thanks - always nice to read such good news.
This case combined with the California one really sends out a very strong message to any sexist feminists out there trying to play politics with domestic violence.
October 7th, 2009 at 3:13 pm
Great news!
It's time domestic violence is taken seriously, rather than hijacked and used as a weapon against men by the man-hating bigots.
October 7th, 2009 at 3:14 pm
Caught red handed. And I have no doubt this sort of thing is pandemic. We still have a lot of work to do, rooting out the rest of the blight imposed upon the "gender-neutral" DV establishment by those who "advocate equality."
Great work, everyone involved.
October 7th, 2009 at 3:31 pm
Yes!!! Thanks for posting this! This is a fantastic step toward progress and this decision can be used in other states if you submit it to the court and request "judicial notice" of it, not as controlling appellate authority but simply as a persuasively-written trial court decision on the law and public policy regarding DV.
Those "Coalition Against Domestic Violence" groups are total feminist fronts who get money from the states to distribute the funds, and they shield themselves from lawsuits by claiming to be private entities. We need to sue in every state and, as Robert says, include equal protection (and due process) challenges and also try to use male DV victims. If your state allows taxpayer / citizen suits like we did in Woods v. Horton, then by all means use those! Sue the F**K out of those hatemongers and don't stop, and do not fear failure.
Man this stuff makes my whole damn week and I'll celebrate this weekend for sure.
It was about one year ago today that NCFM won a similar victory in the California Court of Appeal. http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/politics&id=6453627
I'm gonna nominate these people for an NCFM award.
Keep fighting!
October 7th, 2009 at 3:45 pm
Wow that was going on here in America... Sounds like something that would happen in someplace like Romania or Serbia or some such place but in the free world known as United States of America red white and blue????? Wow....scary...
October 7th, 2009 at 4:03 pm
NE said: "Wow that was going on here in America...Sounds like something that would happen in someplace like Romania or Serbia.."
Not "was," IS going on, *still,* all over the U.S. Even in West Virginia this fight is not over. This is just one big victory in the war even in that state.
Serbia appears to be *ahead( of the U.S., as Serbia is at least starting to build some battered men's shelters. http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=48608
October 7th, 2009 at 4:32 pm
Here are "inspiring words" posted prominently on the home page of the West Virginia Coalition Against Domestic Violence:
"...I believe it is most urgent for this movement's future to declare that violence against women is a political problem, a question of power and domination, and not an individual, pathological, or deviant one. Continuing to make violence against women public is itself a crucial continuing task. We also must become a movement led by battered women, women of color, and working class women. We must develop a progressive agenda, a long range vision of what kind of society is needed so that violence against women would not exist, and to ally with groups sharing a vision of a just society....."
~Susan Schecter
Kind of says it all doesn't it? With a view this distorted, there is no hope they will ever actually solve the problem.
I often wonder what it was that caused these women to hate men so. It's a terrible loss for them also, in addition to the grief and havoc they wreak among others.
October 7th, 2009 at 4:47 pm
Kirk says...
I often wonder what it was that caused these women to hate men so. It's a terrible loss for them also, in addition to the grief and havoc they wreak among others.
It is a terrible tragedy that they wreak among men but also against the young and innocent children who love and adore their children. A very sad time for America indeed.
October 7th, 2009 at 4:48 pm
Love and adore their fathers I meant to say.
October 7th, 2009 at 5:41 pm
...Don't you people know that it's OK to discriminate against and slander men because men have it so good?
October 7th, 2009 at 5:42 pm
@ Marc A.,
"Those 'Coalition Against Domestic Violence' groups are total feminist fronts who get money from the states to distribute the funds, and they shield themselves from lawsuits by claiming to be private entities."
Marc, is it feasible to sue when state authorities have been captured by an interest group? Here's a CA case where the perp of blatant fraud is employed by the state yet the authorities sit on their hands because she's a politically correct perpetrator. Might this be a suitable case? I do wonder whether this is where so many of these groups are vulnerable, firstly because the fraud they perpetrate is so blatant, and secondly because the politically correct aspect might even be turned against them, something along the lines of "and they put women at risk to line their own pockets".
Here's the case. Prof. Anderson has the details...
http://www.lewrockwell.com/anderson/anderson266.html
October 7th, 2009 at 5:59 pm
Oh, one other thing:
Given the text of the 14th Amendment...
"nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Why have there not been any successful suits in cases where people have been turfed out of--and ultimately lost--their homes subsequent to blatantly fraudulent TROs?
October 7th, 2009 at 6:20 pm
Matt, I'd have to do some research on the first issue re the fraud, I just don't know.
As the the TRO's, they did a 14th amendment suit in New Jersey and the trial court held it's unconstitutional to have only a preponderance of evidence standard for restraining orders because they affect parental rights which is a fundamental constitutional right, and held that the standard has to be clear and convincing, which is higher than just preponderence. But the appellate court reversed it. It's being appealed again. I don't know where that one will go. I don't know of other similar challenges but there needs to be some.
October 7th, 2009 at 6:21 pm
Matt, I'd have to do some research on the first issue re the fraud, I just don't know.
As the the TRO's, they did a due process suit in New Jersey on the standard for ROs. YOu knew about that, right? It's still pending appeals. The lower (trial) court held it's unconstitutional to have only a preponderance of evidence standard for restraining orders because they affect parental rights which is a fundamental constitutional right, and held that the standard has to be clear and convincing, which is higher than just preponderence. But the appellate court reversed it. It's being appealed again. I don't know where that one will go. I don't know of other similar challenges but there needs to be some.
October 7th, 2009 at 7:05 pm
There have been similar positive steps taken in the UK to stop DV shelters discriminating against male victims.
October 7th, 2009 at 7:52 pm
That's right Captain MRA I LOVE what's happening in the UK. That's where my hope is right now. Amazing things happening over there. Government closing down programs if they refuse to help men, doing fair and accurate DV research and publicizing is, and creating pilot programs for battered men, and the major media repeatedly covering the issue accurately and even refuting the "patriarchy" model and covering Erin Pizzy. That's remarkable.
We should all take a moment this weekend to open a beer, have a Cuban cigar, climb a mountain, visit a shooting range and make targets representing certain bad people we know, visit a medical marijuana clinic, eat some bear salami, take a dump on the lawn of a radical misandrist, or celebrate in whatever way you choose. Just do it. Saturday! I'll be at the Jack's Fourth Show concern in Irvine, which raises money for autism, to watch B-52s, Missing Persons, Foreigner, Joann Jett and the Blackhearts, RATT, Eddie Money, and others. And every beer I open will be in celbration of this and all the other progress happening.
October 7th, 2009 at 8:00 pm
I am proud for the group who won this victory now more and more fathers will come forward and seek help not only for themselves but for the kids who are also being affected by domestic violence committed also by mothers who if it not address will continue to go without treatments I hope that the administrators from the shelters will make the proper adjustments
to accept men as part of their programs to educate and treat domestic violence and to see the problem as one that is at a social and family level not political that is the job for politicians not
administrators. Good work all of you on the front lines for father's and family's rights the progress may seem slow at times but it is better to move slowly and surely with what is right then to have to go backwards because is was wrong at the start.
October 7th, 2009 at 8:03 pm
A MAJOR news source is putting together a story on this case and just interviewed me about the CA case. I showed her the Fiebert bib, the Whitaker study, etc. etc. etc. and referred her to the right other people. She sounded fair-minded although you never know. It could become a national story.
October 7th, 2009 at 8:11 pm
To Marc A:
If I judge by your latest comments you are already celebrating, love the enthusiast you are right I have also notice a more positive depiction of fathers in movies and daily news maybe society has had enough of the misandry instigated by the radical feminist .
October 7th, 2009 at 8:15 pm
Marc A. Says:
October 7th, 2009 at 4:03 pm
NE said: "Wow that was going on here in America...Sounds like something that would happen in someplace like Romania or Serbia.."
Not "was," IS going on, *still,* all over the U.S. Even in West Virginia this fight is not over. This is just one big victory in the war even in that state.
Wow... be afraid be very afraid .... :-(
October 7th, 2009 at 8:19 pm
Well it's slowly getting there and little victories like this are what I love to celebrate. We have to. It helps us keep fighting for the next one. This is just in time for October DV Awareness Month just like the CA victory last year. I hope we get at least one or more every October at minimum. Just POUND them like you would a Dos Equis in Tijuana.
POW POW POW!!!!!
Men's rights groups are forming in Germany, France, Serbia, Croatia, Holland, Kenya, India, South Africa, Ireland, Scotland, Wales, Singapore, Chile, Brazil, Israel, freaken EVERYWHERE. Hopefully in years to come what we see in the UK will be happening everywhere too. The beers will no longer go down like "pow pow" but more like a flowing beer bong at a USC game.
Slowly, but surely, the truth will prevail. And if it takes 50 more years I'm going to be part of that fight and enjoy the ride of victories, small or large, as they come.
POW POW POW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
October 7th, 2009 at 8:36 pm
Cool and the Gang
Celebrate Good Times (slightly modified on a whim)
There's a party goin' on right here
A celebration for MRAs and beers
So bring your good times, and your laughter too
We gonna celebrate your lawsuit with you
Come on now
Celebration
Let's all celebrate and have a good time
Celebration
We gonna celebrate and have a good time
It's time to come together
It's up to you, what's your pleasure
MRAs around the world
Come on!
Yahoo! It's a celebration
Yahoo!
Celebrate good times, come on!
It's a celebration
Celebrate good times, come on!
Let's celebrate
We're gonna have a good time tonight
Let's celebrate, it's all right
We're gonna have a good time tonight
Let's celebrate, it's all right
Baby...
We're gonna have a good time tonight (Ce-le-bra-tion)
Let's celebrate, it's all right
We're gonna have a good time tonight (Ce-le-bra-tion)
Let's celebrate, it's all right
Yahoo!
Yahoo!
Celebrate good times, come on! (Let's celebrate)
Celebrate good times, come on!
It's a celebration!
Celebrate good times, come on! (Let's celebrate)
MRAs around the world
Come on!
Come on and celebrate, good times, tonight (Celebrate good times, come on!)
'Cause everything's gonna be all right
Let's celebrate (Celebrate good times, come on)
(Let's celebrate)...
October 8th, 2009 at 7:03 am
Great news!
I believe it was West Virginia that also conducted a recent study that concluded that a large percentage of DV claims were either false or unnecessary. Looks like someone in this state is doing their homework!
October 8th, 2009 at 9:53 am
Marc A:
I don't know if feminists can said to have a plan or "projection" of male reaction to their increasingly (and unceasingly) anti-male laws, but I would say that they're astonished that men (or at least a sizable portion of men) are getting off the couch, turning off the game and taking a hand in their own government.
I'd say MRA's are banding together and reacting several years ahead of what feminists expected--and it's a good thing too.
If left unopposed I am 100% certain that in 8-10 years simply opposing feminists in any way would count as some kind of crime. I am totally serious.
I have taken a lot of my personal battle to youtube, in written comments. On that site I point out feminist hypocrisy over and over. I know I will never change the feminists minds, but hopefully I will give objective honest bystanders pause to consider what they're really doing when they say "I'm a feminist".
Two points of interest:
Many of the people making anti-feminist videos are women--which is great news as far as I'm concerned.
Secondly, more and more feminists seem to be driven to leave their "safe zone" of female victimhood ideology and outright shout their disdain and hatred for men.
I stated in one post: If men work break their bodies in high-risk debilitating jobs (like mining, construction, sewage, oil rigs, roofing, commercial fishing) and die in their 40's and 50's from abusing their bodies (like black-lung from mining) and their wives inherit this hard-earned cash and their pensions, how is this exactly anti-woman?
She responded: I don't give a f*ck if men die earlier.
Which I think is also heartening. I think a large part of this is fear-based. Feminists have had it so easy that when you challenge a rank-and-file radical feminist (not a leader/pundit, just a member) they get angry that they are *even* being questioned.
And it's when people are angry that the truth comes out.
October 8th, 2009 at 10:37 am
"Feminists have had it so easy that when you challenge a rank-and-file radical feminist (not a leader/pundit, just a member) they get angry that they are *even* being questioned."
Feministing.com is considered a "safe place" for young feminists. This means that dissenting opinions are rarely tolerated and discussions are often deleted with new users banned quickly for questioning feminist dogma. It's the equivalent to book burning.
October 8th, 2009 at 12:08 pm
Speaking about "Feministing.com" earlier I sent an email to the editor with the story about the decision in West Virginia Court and I challenged them to post this since they pretend to uphold Equality and in this case the law clearly indicates gender bias it will be interesting to see how they comment about equality for men in domestic violence resources but I wont hold my breath why would they get facts and the law interfere with their reasoning or lack of it.
October 8th, 2009 at 1:14 pm
From the Safehouse Denver website:
On average, three women are killed each day by an intimate partner in the United States -Bureau of Justice Statistics, Crime Data Brief, Intimate Partner Violence, 2003
Twenty-five percent of women and 7.6 percent of men report experiencing rape and/or physical assault by an intimate partner in a past or current intimate relationship -National Violence Against Women Survey, 1995-1996, Family Violence Prevention Fund.
An estimated one million women are stalked each year in the United States -Extent, Nature, and Consequences of IPV, Tjaden & Thoennes, 2000.
One third of female homicide victims and 4 percent of male homicide victims are killed by an intimate partner -Bureau of Justice Statistics, Crime Data Brief, Intimate Partner Violence, 2003
Eighty-five percent of the victims of intimate partner violence are women while fifteen percent are men -Bureau of Justice Statistics, Family Violence Statistics, 2005.
How do I know if someone I care about is a victim of domestic violence?
She seems threatened or frightened when her partner is angry.
She worries that her partner will be jealous or suspicious.
Her partner makes all or most of the decisions.
Her partner criticizes her frequently.
She apologizes frequently for her partner's behavior.
She is withdrawn from friends and family; she seems in a hurry to get home.
Her partner takes a strong interest in weapons.
Her partner breaks things, throws things, or intimidates her.
She may have to quit her job.
She or her partner grew up in a violent family.
Notice how ALL of the above start with "She or Her".............I'm gonna go puke now.
October 8th, 2009 at 1:14 pm
"Speaking about "Feministing.com" earlier I sent an email to the editor with the story about the decision in West Virginia Court and I challenged them to post this since they pretend to uphold Equality and in this case the law clearly indicates gender bias it will be interesting to see how they comment about equality for men in domestic violence resources but I wont hold my breath why would they get facts and the law interfere with their reasoning or lack of it."
This story will likely be ignored at Feministing.com for two reasons. Firstly, that website is mostly for feminists under 30 who really have no conception of this issue, especially in regards to the impact on children because so few of the girls there are mothers. Secondly, this story simply does not fit within their narrative. For them, women are always victims, men are always perpetrators. They simply cannot grasp this story intellectually because it doesn't fit within the extremely narrow confines of their idealogy and so this story will not exist at feministing.com.
October 8th, 2009 at 1:40 pm
The Associated Press of WV covered the story so far.
http://wvgazette.com/ap/ApTopStories/200910080468
And I just got a call from a journalism student at a University who is doing a story.
October 8th, 2009 at 2:16 pm
Wow the AP story got into the San Francisco Chronicle and is much more lengthy and even quotes NCFM and provides their link and briefly mentions the 50/50 CDC study (though incorrectly says it was in 2001).
http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/ap/judge-wva-shelter-rules-biased-against-men-63771622.html
October 8th, 2009 at 2:17 pm
I do have a REAL question.
The VAWA is in CLEAR violation of SEVERAL Constitutional protections.
Why has a man......that has been charged with DV..........(that was not even near the woman at the time of the incident.......I.E. phone call).......(My divorce situation)..............not filed a civil lawsuit on these grounds? Are lawyers afraid to file a lawsuit? With the ACLU filing suits all the time.........why have they not gotten involved since this "Act" is a clear violation of the rights as an American male?
Is it that the lawsuit would be thrown out..........Or is it that no-one has filed one yet?
October 8th, 2009 at 2:32 pm
Mike, we need more organization and some solid victims and well-organized groups who have applied for and been denied funds because they help both sexes. I blame lawyers and the ACLU too, as well as groups on the other side of the political fence like the Pacific Law Foundation, all of whom say they care about equal rights but don't do anything on this issue. But we as a movement are also to blame for taking so long to organize and put together the kind of national movement that can file a major lawsuit like that. Challenging VAWA needs to be done right the first time or bad precedent can be set. And that takes work at the ground level upward, which is growing but slowly and has taken way too long due to our own lack or organiation. I'll always hammer that point home.
BTW the VAWA is not "clearly" violative of the Constitution in every way, only in some ways, like it's explicit exclusion of American Indian men. The rest of it is violative in an implicit way but not explicitly, i.e., the way it's implemented, which is not as easy a lawsuit except where the state or local discrimination is explicit. When the discrimination is not explicit one has to prove intent to discriminate to win an equal protection case. And that takes work, and good plaintiffs, and good attorneys, and funding, etc. Yes we can blame the civil rights groups and lawyers etc. but we're just as much to blame until we get off our asses altogether as a movement and organize, which also means putting aside all our excessive opinionations, theorizing, arguing, etc. and working together. I spent years and years doing this pro bono and spending my own money on it and even sacrificing the amount of money I could otherwise make in a career that's more demanding of my time, and yet I still hear the relentless attacks by MRAs about lawyers. Most of those MRAs are just as much to blame for not, as a movement , organize and fundraising. I tell them that all the time and some don't like to hear it, just like feminists don't like to hear the truth.
October 8th, 2009 at 2:40 pm
Marc.
Great response. Thanks for the time you took to write that up.
I have not seen my kids in almost two years since the divorce.........(I was awarded them every other weekend, two weeks in the summer and alternating holidays).
I was charged with Harrassment four days after she "lawyered" up and since then the economy has turned sour and fining a job with a DV tag is very hard to do. So I like most men fall into the cycle of not finding suitable work........(I was director of sales, Arby's just turned me down)...........fall behind on CS........don't get to see the kids.........mother is already re-married to the affair guy............
I was over 30 miles away at the time of the DV..........and now I am a RUNIED man with no kids, no job, no house, no car, no licence, no remedy to change things in my personal situation.
I'm just another name on a long list of good fathers with no recourse to change things.
October 8th, 2009 at 4:01 pm
I understand Mike.
My criticism is not at any individual but toward the movement as a whole. Sort of like a need for group repentance, like the Israelites "repending" as a nationa because many but not all of them used idols. (I'm not religious I just thought I'd throw that out on a whim). We as a movement need to get it together.
October 9th, 2009 at 12:16 am
"Speaking about "Feministing.com" earlier I sent an email to the editor with the story about the decision in West Virginia Court and I challenged them to post this since they pretend to uphold Equality
Did even get a reply back and no posting
October 9th, 2009 at 7:29 am
"Conspicuously absent from the court's opinion is any notion that the Board's rules violated anyone's due process or equal protection rights."
On the one hand, it's like sending Al Capone to prison for tax evasion, never mind the murders. On the other hand, any victory in this fight is a good one. Therefore, bravo!!
October 9th, 2009 at 8:20 am
West Virginia is in the bible belt. I believe the more religious communities in America will be the first to see the chaos that is manifesting from the War on men/fathers..and they may have the strength to challenge the source of the misinformation campaign. Other areas of the country are extreme gender feminist dominated, where the voices of reason are drown out by voices of hysteria.
October 9th, 2009 at 3:51 pm
coverage
CBS 5
http://cbs5.com/wireapnewsca/Judge.voids.W.2.1235700.html
Charleston Gazzette
http://www.wvgazettemail.com/comments?build=yes&ContID=200910080509
WHSV News
http://www.whsv.com/westvirginiaap/headlines/63795652.html
Huntington News
http://www.huntingtonnews.net/state/091009-rutherford-statetdomesticviolence.html
Kansas City Star blog
http://blogs.kansascity.com/crime_scene/2009/10/are-domesticviolence-shelters-biased-against-men.html
West Virgina Metro News
http://www.wvmetronews.com/index.cfm?func=displayfullstory&storyid=32811
HNN Huntington News
http://www.huntingtonnews.net/state/091009-rutherford-statetdomesticviolence.html
Hartford Courant
http://blogs.courant.com/overcoming_battered_lives/2009/10/abused-men-and-gender-discrimi.html
October 9th, 2009 at 6:31 pm
And
Times West Virginian
http://www.timeswv.com/westvirginia/local_story_282034531.html
And also (but I already posted this way earlier) San Francisco Chronicle
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2009/10/08/state/n095901D94.DTL&type=health
October 11th, 2009 at 7:49 pm
Well I celebrated this victory last night at the Jack's Fourth Show in Irvine, raising money for autism (my brother is autistic, and most autistics are male), drinking alot of beer and watching Foreigner, B-52s, Missing Persons, RATT, Joan Jett, etc.
And for every beer I made a toast to this victory. Until I started forgetting. But I foresaw that and made some toasts in advance for those ones.
And man was it a good concert. I especially loved seeing Missing Persons for my first time. She still looks good, but my gosh look and listen to her back in 1982 singing Words! She's AMAZING. I watched her last night thinking, "yeah, I just KNOW she supports men's rights. I just KNOW it!"
Here's a morning after toast to this victory, and for all the ACTIVE MRAs throughout the world, including the lead singer of Missing Persons, that's right, because I KNOW she's one of us. Just LOOK at her. How could she NOT be!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIcWxFR4uh0&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7vnpP0qxwEM&feature=related
October 11th, 2009 at 8:10 pm
See! I was RIGHT. She IS a men's rights activist. See here she is at the 1983 US Festival singing "I LIKE BOYS" and they even said "this song is for the boys in the audience." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bYnv4cHBjlc&feature=related
I KNEW it!!! I just KNEW it!!!!
November 6th, 2009 at 5:47 pm
[...] to be taken seriously. She depreciates RADAR's efforts and bemoans the recent rulings in West Virgina and in California that found the existing domestic violence policies in those states were applied [...]