Slate.com & Salon.com Criticize the Fatherhood Movement (Part IV)
November 9th, 2009 by Glenn Sacks, MA for Fathers & Families
Two major online publications--Salon.com and Slate.com--recently did articles criticizing the men's and fathers movement. Whenever the fatherhood movement and its opponents clash directly, there is an opportunity for all on both sides to listen and learn, so I'm writing several posts on these two articles.
My first two posts dealt largely with a misleading quote attributed to me in both pieces, and the two publications' commendable agreement to clarify it. In Part III, this post and others, we'll deal more with the arguments made by Kathryn Joyce of Double X/Slate.com and Judy Berman of Salon.com.
Both Joyce and Berman are feminist writers who consider themselves opponents of the fatherhood movement. Berman writes:
...MRAs' [Men's Rights Activists'] accusations, inspired by deeply flawed studies, [are] that men and women are equally likely to commit domestic abuse
It depends how you define abuse. The studies are clear--women are at least as likely as men to strike the first blow, often more likely. But women do suffer injuries at twice the rate of men. Both of these--the incidence of initiation and the incidence of inflicting injury--merit consideration.
Berman writes:
While some men certainly are victims of female domestic violence, advocates say the number is closer to 3 percent to 4 percent.
This is odd, because while most of the mainstream DV establishment still minimizes women's violence, they usually acknowledge an 85-15 rate. Nobody could defend a 3 or 4% figure, and I'm surprised to see them float it.
Berman writes:
Critics like Australian sociologist Michael Flood say that men’s rights movements reflect the tactics of domestic abusers themselves, minimizing existing violence, calling it mutual, and discrediting victims.
Flood is a feminist true believer who has served as a point man for feminist efforts to minimize fathers' role in their children's lives after divorce or separation. We believe that the domestic violence system needs to be reformed. The fact that Flood feels it's necessary to describe our political arguments as somehow parallel to the despicable actions of wife-beaters makes one think that Flood must feel he doesn't have very strong arguments to use.
As for mutual violence, studies show that mutual violence is more common than either men attacking women or women attacking men. Ignoring female-initiated or mutual domestic violence not only harms men, it harms women. DV researcher Deborah Capaldi, Ph.D., a social scientist at the Oregon Social Learning Center, examined the different relationship violence scenarios -- violence by him only, violence by her only, violence by both with him initiating, and violence by both with her initiating. Of these, the most likely to result in future injury to women is when she initiates violence against him and he responds. Dr. Capaldi notes that in a study of women who were in a battered women's shelter, "67% of the women reported severe violence toward their partner in the past year."
According to Dr. Capaldi, "Overall, young couples with unidirectional violence report fewer acts and forms of violence than bidirectional couples." To learn more, see my column Researcher Says Women's Initiation of Domestic Violence Predicts Risk to Women (Huffington Post, 7/6/09).
Joyce writes:
These men’s rights activists, or MRAs, have long been written off by domestic-violence advocates as a bombastic and fringe group of angry white men, and for good reason.
A common feminist tactic to discredit divorced fathers is to somehow wrap their grievances around being white–aka the privileged white male. Yet all of these problems affect black and Latino fathers too, often worse, since they on average have fewer resources to defend themselves against the forces that stand between them and their children.
Joyce writes:
Bernard Chapin, a popular men’s rights blogger, told me over e-mail that he will refer to me as “Feminist E,” since he never uses real names for feminists
If that's true, that's wrong of Chapin. If it's true.
Joyce writes:
In the United Kingdom, a father’s rights group scaled Buckingham Palace in superhero costumes.
And?
Joyce quotes feminist Ben Atherton-Zeman, author of Voices of Men, as saying of the fathers' movement "A lot of the leaders are still convicted batterers."
Really? Who?
Joyce writes:
One of the respectable new faces of the movement is Glenn Sacks, a fathers' rights columnist and radio host with 50,000 e-mail followers, and a pragmatist in a world of angry dreamers.
I've been doing this since April 2001, 8 1/2 years--I'm not sure if that means I'm "new." Regardless, Joyce plays on the anti-dad stereotype of the divorced dad as "angry." I've never been divorced nor had any family law problems of any sort, but I think many divorced dads have damn good reason to be angry. I certainly would be if I were unwillingly separated from my children. Ms. Joyce, wouldn't you be, too?
Joyce writes:
Sacks disavows what he calls “the not-insubstantial lunatic fringe of the fathers’ rights movement.”
Yes--the fathers' movement does have a lunatic fringe, and it's not insubstantial. The feminist movement also has a lunatic fringe, and it's not insubstantial. The next time I hear a feminist leader condemn this fringe might be the first.
Joyce writes:
He recently merged his successful media group with the shared-parenting organization Fathers and Families in a bid to build a mainstream fathers' rights organ on par with the National Organization of Women. Many of Sacks’ arguments—for a court assumption of shared parenting in the case of divorce, or against child-support rigidity in the midst of recession—can sound reasonable.
Fair enough. Joyce writes:
"divorce attorneys hawking men’s rights expertise on MRA sites, promising to “teach her a lesson,” serve as what Dawson sees as a powerful draw for men in the midst of painful divorces.
Please tell me one divorce attorney on a major men's or fathers' issues site who promises to "teach her a lesson."
Joyce writes:
RADAR board member Ron Grignal, the former president of Fathers for Virginia and a former state delegate candidate, organizes the group’s Washington lobbying activities.
Actually, it's spelled "Grignol," not "Grignal." BTW, Ron is a nice guy with two adorable, happy daughters whose life he plays a major role in.
I'm writing several posts about the issues raised in the Slate.com and Salon.com articles--to read the others, click here. The two articles are Kathryn Joyce's "Men's Rights" Groups Have Become Frighteningly Effective (Slate.com, 11/5/09) and Judy Berman's "Men's rights" groups go mainstream--Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability (Salon.com, 11/5/09).



























November 9th, 2009 at 7:01 pm
I find your essays here interesting, but I really encourage you to get them published at DoubleX and Salon. And to precisely document what happens when you try that.
If they are truly interested in engaging in dialog and in advancing the human rights of all involved, why wouldn't they invite you in, or otherwise explain why what you write fails their standards.
My belief is they hate being challenged and hate letting other people into their in group. So challenge them and document their unwillingness to engage. Especially after giving you the backhanded compliment of being "respectable", a "pragmatist", and a leader of 50,000, how can they claim that your voice and opinions would not be interesting or valuable to their readers?
Break down that glass ceiling! :)
November 9th, 2009 at 8:20 pm
Glenn, one wonderful thing about DoubleX is that it has already been pushed out of the mainstream (Slate) because of their biased agenda. About a year ago, XX was a regular feature of Slate, on their headline and main page. They have since been relegated to a link. Within Slate, and on the XX comments, there was constant talk about whether XX should stay on the Slate page or not, and after it all they got the boot, an accurate reflection of what happens when it's obvious that you are biased.
You should still take them to task (thank goodness you do!) --- but let's acknowledge that XX couldn't stay on the main page because they are acknowledged as being removed from the mainstream.
November 9th, 2009 at 8:21 pm
Jerry,
how are these "backhanded" compliments?
Glenn Sacks is respectable, he is a pragmatist, and he is the leader of a collective sentiment of at least 50,000 people. If by "backhanded" you mean "in spite of these true statements he is still a fraudulent distorter of the 'truth' that women victims are worse than men victims", then yes, I get your jib.
However, the fact that they are willing to engage at ALL in any sort of discourse is a very noble thing. Remember - the men's rights movement has truth on our side. While man-hating misandrist second-wave feminists continue to spout their angry unsourced and completely fictitious 'facts", we have the righteousness of an actual desire for equality between men and women on our side -- the same goal that they purport to have, we ACTUALLY have. And the fact that men like Glenn can counter their completely fabricated fantasies with well sourced and factual realities speaks volumes.
At the end of the day, if ANY media is giving the truth a flier, even if you and I both know it will be received by a hostile audience, it has to be a good thing. Any cause can take wings given enough time and fervor. And sometimes, it takes time indeed. Last I checked, there weren't too many Christians in the first 30 years; from what I hear, there was only 13, and one of them, his heart wasn't really in it to begin with.
November 9th, 2009 at 8:41 pm
Berman writes:
Critics like Australian sociologist Michael Flood say that men’s rights movements reflect the tactics of domestic abusers themselves, minimizing existing violence, calling it mutual, and discrediting victims.
---
So, in other words (according to Michael Flood) the tactics of shameless con-men out to destroy female protections **exactly** resemble those with legitimate grievances. So, how does one ever criticize the DV industry without being besmirched? Hahahahaha: You don't.
This is the catch-22 these nutjobs want to put men into: only somebody who's guilty would protest so much!
It's like some kind of sick monty python skit, except that they are serious--deadly serious in fact with dire consequences for men & their families.
November 9th, 2009 at 10:07 pm
Glenn sacks takes on dirty accusations and comes out smelling like a rose.
November 9th, 2009 at 11:23 pm
Charles, yes, you get my jib. (Please give it back, I need it to sail home.)
November 10th, 2009 at 9:35 am
Joyce writes:
"divorce attorneys hawking men’s rights expertise on MRA sites, promising to “teach her a lesson,” serve as what Dawson sees as a powerful draw for men in the midst of painful divorces.
You mean like this one:
http://www.secretsofdivorce.com/home/
Glenn said:
Please tell me one divorce attorney on a major men's or fathers' issues site who promises to "teach her a lesson."
It's called "Projection", Glenn. From what I've seen, feminists are pretty good at it.
November 10th, 2009 at 12:24 pm
Calloway (and Mr. Freud)v hit it on the head: Projection is rife with the feminist movement today.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection
November 12th, 2009 at 2:51 pm
"A common feminist tactic to discredit divorced fathers is to somehow wrap their grievances around being white–aka the privileged white male. Yet all of these problems affect black and Latino fathers too, often worse, since they on average have fewer resources to defend themselves against the forces that stand between them and their children."
I sat on a jury as an alternate and spoke out against what I perceived as railroading a working class Hispanic father into jail. He had gone to pick up his daughter to take her out as per order, the girlfriend and mother decided to change their mind, and then when he took the daughter anyway they attacked him and chased him out into the street with the daughter. The result? A white male DA, white female judge, and mixed race jury getting ready to throw him into jail on kidnapping, child-endangerment, and DV.
The minority women jurers interviewed said they didn't believe a man had a right to hit a woman for any reason, including self-defense. They were not dismissed for cause. The men were largely neutral. I was facing time as an alternate so I spoke out: I said the case was nonsense and gave personal examples. The judge didn't like hearing that and dismissed me (thanks for saving me a week's worth of work!)