"Tolerance bullying."

I like it.

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."

I'm not entirely sure the Ole' Perfesser knows what McCarthyism entails.

Michelle is pretty easy to dislike. She appears to have a very high opinion of herself,

That black bitch.

Heaven forbid a graduate of Harvard Law School have a "good opinion" of herself! I hope Mrs Obama is able to do some real work, and not be made an mindless puppet like Laura.

2 questlions;
1 is everyone of the rightwing bloggers totally insane?
2 is there not one wingnut blogger that lives in this world and not in la la land?

Answers:

1. Yes.
2. No.

Why is the fight for men's rights a conservative issue? It's a bi-partisan issue!

What will you do when they throw you out of your house, take your children away, take all your savings, label you a felon for talking to your own children, take 80% of all your future earnings even if it is 10x times the amount needed to raise a child, and when you get sick, they will ask for more and more money until you have nothing left, then they'll label you a dead-beat and throw you in jail...

Tens of thousands of men have gone through this and committed suicide already.

What will you do, Roy, when they come for you? If you don't care about what happens to others, who will care about what happens to you?

I'm pretty sure Roy is sterile as a mule, Tom.

Just wanted to weigh in and say tying Conservatism 2.0 to the bus ads in Dallas is a non-sequitur. It was a campaign that bridged gender, political affiliations and racial lines. The ads to many of us were nothing short of offensive hate speech, arguably racist, arguably misandrinist, and targeted children in a way that was deeply offensive. As a very left progressive I saw it as nothing short of publicaly funded hate speech, something I don't like period. Comparing Prop 8 to this ad campaign is incongruent and disingenuous, and that the shelter lost funding is indicative of how many agreed.

Just wanted to weigh in and say tying Conservatism 2.0 to the bus ads in Dallas is a non-sequitur. It was a campaign that bridged gender, political affiliations and racial lines. The ads to many of us were nothing short of offensive hate speech, arguably racist, arguably misandrinist, and targeted children in a way that was deeply offensive. As a very left progressive I saw it as nothing short of publicaly funded hate speech, something I don't like period. Comparing Prop 8 to this ad campaign is incongruent and disingenuous, and that the shelter lost funding is indicative of how many agreed.

The main problem with the DART ads has nothing to do with the "suggestion that boys might grow up to beat women", nor the suggestion that girls might be killed by their hsubands on day.

The offensive part is the sexist hatred of men in the ads and the completely lack of honesty, accuracy, balance and fairness?

Where were all the countless male victims too ashmed to admit they are abused?

Where were the picture of girls who when they are older will abuse their children, make fasle allegations against their husband amd get the house and custody of the children even though they are so violent?

On top of that where were the gay/lesbian abusers given that they are more likely to abuse than any other group out there?

You should be commending people like Glenn who fight sexism and discrimination.

Hopefully one day all victims of domestic abuse will be able to get help and support, rather than only half the population as at present.

I'm confused as to why you or anyone would consider Glenn Sacks' attempt to have some factually incorrect and gender exploitive domestic violence ads removed from the Dallas Area Rapid Transit buses to be representative of Conservatism 2.0? Sacks' issue was that the ads (see at http://glennsacks.com/dart/ ) don't recognize the reality of all domestic violence and scapegoat men and fathers. Personally, I would add that they are ineffective as children would respond better to holding up positive role models rather than this sort of fear-mongering ad. It is important to emphasize that the action was primarily against the veracity and tactic of the ads and not the issue of domestic violence itself. Nor was the need for domestic violence services questioned.

I am frankly surprised that you would characterize this sort of civil rights constructive action in a negative light. It was well executed.

I think you are on the wrong side of this issue.

Roy,

If you had half an ounce of journalistic integrity within you, you would visit Glenn Sacks' blog, read several of his posts at random, and critique him for what he actually writes and does.

Malkin and Reynolds like him, therefore that's all you need to know and you do your little number on him.

That ain't journalism Roy.

Pick a month of Sacks and random from the several years of his blog, and read that month. Pick a week at random and read that week. You'll probably discover he's a liberal.

Shameful Roy. You basically acted exactly how you tell us the Malkins and Reynolds act. No thought at all. Just a reflexive attack by you on an enemy.

Excellent points Bart and Jerry. Though I'm pretty fiscally conservative, I'm about as socially liberal as possible. Probably far more socially liberal then most of the people here and I too have a big problem with lumping Glenn Sacks in with right- (or left-) wing nuts.

Masculinism isn't a conservative vs. liberal issue - it is a right vs. wrong issue. No one - male or female - should be hated simply because of the gender. The DART ad were pure unadulterated hate speech. Now being a social-liberal, I also believe strongly in freedom of speech (something most "card caring" liberals have forgotten about), so I'm fine with the speech. My problem is when (a) tax dollars go to fund it or (b) people accept hate speech against one group (men) while fighting hate speech against another group (women, minorities, etc). Either you are against hate speech or you are for it - you can't pick and choose.

Either you are against hate speech or you are for it - you can't pick and choose.
Oh people just get around that by changing the definition of hate speech.

If Glenn Sacks' DART campaign had been run on behalf of any group/class other than men it would have viewed as leftist advocacy.

True enough Danny. I guess if you want to hear that men are horrible, terrible, all-powerful monsters, you won't see anything wrong with pointing out the obvious (to you anyway): men are horrible, terrible, all-powerful monsters.

Liberals have lost their way.

I'm confused. Are you folks saying that if men or boys are abused (physically, sexually, emotionally), they are not allowed to go to the police, contact child protective services and/or file for a restraining order? That's the law in the state of New Jersey. If the law is different in your state, you should petition your legislatures instead of waging war with bus advertisements.

ChrisV82, a substantial amount of research shows that women initiate a significant (if not quite equal) amount of domestic violence. And yet in many states, the vast majority of shelter researchers go to women only facilities.

A California Appeals court just overturned a California law as unconstitutional on this basis.

We all agree the domestic violence should be stopped, regardless of the sex of the initiator or perpetrator. (You do agree to that, right Roy?)

And yet, male victims of domestic violence often go unhelped. They often stay in abusive relationships out of fear of losing their children, or worse, out of fear that if they leave, no one will be their to protect their children. (You are aware of this, right Roy?)

ChrisV82, sometimes the quickest way to get laws passes is not to go straight to the legislature. Sometimes along the way, you need to raise awareness and fight unfair campaigns.

I'm afraid you've fallen into the logical fallacy of the excluded middle Chris. "Unless you go straight to the legislature you are wasting time."

Tell that to Second Wave feminists who bravely told their stories of rape and sexual harassment. Tell that to African Americans who told us their stories. Tell that to women who told us their stories of domestic violence, and to the disabled who told us what their lives were like as they struggled to pass the ADA.

ChrisV82, just ask Roy Edroso about this, he'll confirm that often consciousness raising is a need part of any social justice movement.

Roy, I understand you're a domestic violence expert and have read all the latest research and can tell us about the many studies discussing female on male and female on female domestic violence. So thank you for being so wise.

Glenn's campaign was justified and civilized, and you give no reason as to why it should be villified this way. I sugest you do more thinking and less propagandizing. By the way, in case your readers are tempted to lump Sacks in with the homophobic right, i do believe he is in favor of gay marriage, which means he passes not only a big homophobia test but also one of the biggest liberal litmus tests in the Western world.

"I'm confused. Are you folks saying that if men or boys are abused (physically, sexually, emotionally), they are not allowed to go to the police, contact child protective services and/or file for a restraining order?"

Yes, you are confused, and no, no one is saying that..

Lord, how these boys do whine! Nothing so picked-on as a man, eh?

You Iron Johns make me embarrassed to have a Y chromosome.

DocAmazing, what a hero you must be. Legend in your own teatime, eh?

At the moment throughout the western world women get away with rape and murder courtesy of men just like DocAmazing. He prefers to blame and shame the victims of those acts.

Thanks for outing yourself. Always good to know who the useful idiots are.

Lord, how these boys do whine! Nothing so picked-on as a man, eh?

You Iron Johns make me embarrassed to have a Y chromosome.

Snark is cheap DocAmazing, but ultimately, it's not an argument. It's othering, dehumanizing, and was once exactly what us liberals and feminists complained about coming from others towards us.

Do you actually have an argument to make? Or are you just going to be lazy and embarrass Roy?

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.

XXchick it would be a very good idea for you to engage in as much dialog of that type as you can in the near future. Opportunities will become very scarce as time goes by.

We couldn't hope for a better demonstration that the mens' movement is starting to bite.

Now scurry back under your rock before daylight arrives.

How could you BLT guys offend? Preaching to the converted. Sacks has it right.
Avoid Criticism - Say Nothing, Do Nothing, Be Nothing.

Another reason why gays and lesbiands should not be supporting Marxist feminism: The IMBRA law says that gay men cannot meet foreign gay men online or via dating agencies without first being subjected to humiliating background checks and for the foreigner to respond "in writing" that it is OK for you to communicate with him or her.

This effects several gay websites that are ignoring the law just like most hetero dating sites are ignoring IMBRA.

The Right to Assemble is smashed by this law, not to mention the Right to Anonymity in dealing with others socially (a universal right upheld by the liberal SC justices throwing out part of the Communications Decency Act 10 years ago).

The Right to Lie socially is smashed by this law as well. Who hasn't lied about their age or marital status or at least wants the right to do so kept intact?

But the law still stands and someone must challenge it and get a restraining order on it.

Lesbians need note that Girlfriendsmeet.com mainly introduces American lesbians to foreign females, so it qualifies as an "International Marriage Broker".

Once the gays and lesbians realize that they are affected by a "Marriage Broker" law just as much as hetero males, we might see some justice happening in the USA where the Right to Assemble is fought for and upheld (hetero females like to date foreign males as well but they are vastly outnumbered by older American women who want to stop their husbands and boyfriends from meeting younger foreign women).

"Lord, how these boys do whine! Nothing so picked-on as a man, eh?
You Iron Johns make me embarrassed to have a Y chromosome."

What kind of Y chromosome do you have if you can't fight for your rights? Stand up for yourself for Christ's sake!

Read XXchick's comment to get a better idea of what we are fighting against.

You think you are safe? None of those horrible things could happen to you, right? Your wife will never leave you? The courts will never destroy your life? and take everything form you: your house, your savings, your income, your future, your children, your pride, your right to vote and your freedom! THINK AGAIN..

The matriarchy is coming step-by-step, and men will be treated worst than enslaved dogs. It's already happening all around you, open your eyes!

By the way, IMBRA is as much the brainchild of Sam Brownback's anti-sex christian right as of Marxist feminism.

Brownback, America's #1 gay hater, said on Vatican Radio's English Service (the German and Spanish services wanted nothing to do with him) that American businessmen who try to date young adult foreign women are "exercising their sexual fantasies" and need to be regulated.

Since when does a government official's warped view about "exercising one's sexual fantasies" require regulation of innocent citizens?

Pro-sex gays and lesbians (for instance any of you who like pornography) need to join the Men's Rights Movement (MRM) by posting on sites like Mens News Daily and GlennSacks.

Don't let the socons there scare you away. We need more pro-sex people in the Men's Rights Movement.

And, for Heaven's sake, do not let the anti-sex Marxist feminist sex police remained allied with weirdos like Sam Brownback so they can pass laws that claim to have had "Bipartisan Support".

If IMBRA is upheld, it will be because the right-wing Supreme Court justices have told the plaintiffs that the law does not violate the 5th Amendment because gay males should also be forced to show each other their HIV status certificates before being allowed to chat with each other online.

Challengers will say that, if hetero males can be background checked before being allowed to talk with foreign adult females, then gay males need to be HIV checked before being allowed to talk with each other.

Men's Rights are men's rights. It makes no difference whether one is gay or hetero. We all must fight for them. And these rights are women's rights as well.

IMBRA takes away the right of foreign females to decide their own level of security and broadcast their home address or at least one of their telephone numbers or many email addresses to the world if they want to.

As a registered democrat, some-time commune living, obama-supporting reader and fan of Glenn Sacks:

Glenn is a supporter of gay rights. He is also an opponent of abusive gender politics propaganda. Lumping him in with Michelle Malkin etc: wrong. Exploring right-bloggers? In the most shallow way. Fail.

Glenn Sacks gets attention from right-wing media because the rest are out of touch. The issues he covers are the ones neglected by rigid PC left wing journalists who support "diversity of everything but thought".

Sadly Glenn Sacks and his followers are only concerned with one thing. Stealing chidlren away from mothers and not paying chidl support. They couch it in terms of "shared parenting" so they sound feel good. If they are so interested in shared parenting why did they not share parenting before the divorce? They claim that they are pushed down through financial means until they cannot make it any longer. One only needs to do a search and read some of his commenters (and while you are at it read some of Sacks' own posts). He claims to be fighting against sexism but there are several examples of sexism by Sacks and by his supporters on his very own website. Sacks is only fighting against percieved sexism against men. One only needs to spend approximately 2 hours on his site (simply due to the sheer volume of posts - obviously he has no life) in order to come to this conclusion. He has banned me (my isp) from posting on his site. If I truly wanted to do so (post that is) I have many other options available to me. But instead I will go to any blog post, article or wherever I can go that allows comments in order to show exactly what kind of person Sacks (and by default - his followers) truly are.

Shared parenting to these men is simply getting out of court mandated child support payments. There are many on that site that claim to be abuse victims themselves but their claims do not hold water (I know I have seen the records of some of these supposed abuse victims).

His followers (and Sacks) support people like Jolly in the UK who has been arrested numerous times for trespassing while dressed as various super heroes. Are these the types we want having control over the care of children?

As far as the DART ads, these ads were designed to make people think and discuss. I would say the ads worked since these "men" talked about them. Showing pleasure while subsequently apologizing for getting support removed from an already hurt entity (all shelters across the country are suffering right now) is nothing short of terrorism. These men claim that shelters do not provide services to abused men and this is simply untrue. I called every single shelter in my state while doing a research project on DV and asked all of the operators what sorts of services are offered to abused men and EVERY SINGLE SHELTER offered services in one form or another to ALL victims. These men want access to the actual shelters. WHY? Is it so abusers can finish the jobs they started?

Sacks and his ilk are sadly misguided at best and demented at worst.

I am a supporter of Glenn Sacks and I wrote to DART to pressure them to withdraw the ad campaign in question. Why? I'm certainly not in favor of defending any form of domestic violence. On the contrary: I am a male victim of domestic violence who has been persecuted at every level, at the behest of my abuser, solely on the basis of my gender.

Domestic violence is not a gender issue. There exist thousands upon thousands of male victims of domestic abuse like myself, and for those unfortunate men who find themselves in my situation, there is very little hope. Based on my own experience, I would say the usual outcome is incarceration or death; indeed, I am incapable of accounting for the fact I am alive today after the horrors of the past ten years.

Not all men involved in domestic abuse are the perpetrators and not all women involved are the victims. The DART campaign was deeply offensive since it stated that, without exception, ALL males will be abusive and violent and ALL females will be victimized. This is a ludicrous assertion.

And don't even THINK of calling me right-wing. I voted for Obama since he's the best of a bad set of choices; but as far as I'm concerned there exists no reasonable choice in US politics since there are no options but the right wing, when examined on a global scale.

"He has banned me (my isp) from posting on his site."
Hahaha! Way to go Glenn! New friend: you can go trolling on some feminist site, I am sure they welcome sexist men-hating lying psychos.

New Friend has become a bit of a passive stalker of Glenn's. Most places his name crops up you can be sure New Friend won't be far away.

The DART ads were discriminatory. As liberals we're supposed to be against that.

Lumping Sacks in with the Shock Jocks of the Right does the Village Voice a disservice.

Actually I am not a stalker. I am a concerned mother protecting my rights and those of my child from men who would like to remove me from this child's life. Any man who wants to remove a mother from her child is not a man IMO.

Publicly funded campaigns like the DART campaign, which target groups and run them down...such campaigns are worthy of no respect.

The groups, like DV shelters, that run them ought to be called out, called to account, made to explain themselves, and embarrassed into changing their behavior. In former days patriotism was the last refuge of scoundrels, but these days, in many places, the scoundrels have found their way to cushy jobs at DV shelters. They they are wrapped in the flag of pro-womanism and know they cannot be criticized and can get away with anything...while making a good living at it.

Glenn Sacks speaks for tens of thousands of men and women who say the time has come to hold the political hacks in these DV shelters fully accountable.

And..... one can say the same of Glenn and some of his follwoers as well. On a feminsit (womanist) blog, many of Glenn;s followers are constantly posting nastiness towards that blog owner. She however does not block those users from posting - she simply removes their posts. Glenn has also taken several of her posts from her website and commented on those posts on his blog including links to those posts in order to create a flurry of traffic to this woman's blog. Now who is stalking whom? I am simply exposing misogyny on the 'Net and IMO Sacks (at times) and most of his followers (nearly all of the time) are engaging in some form of misogyny.

xxchick- I'm a male and a single parent. I have a 9 year old daughter living with me. I took custody to get her stability and out of an abusive home from those her mother was inappropriately choosing to date. The judge said "I am worried about your choices in raising this child." She still has not completed the parenting classes she was ordered to 3 years ago. So do you look at me as stealing her from her mother? Her mom still visits and they speak on the phone daily.
You and newfriend seem angry with those who seek equality. Having numerous conversations with those on glennsacks.com, (1) Hating women is not present (2) Full equality is sought. MRA's are not seeking to be treated better than women.
I work with victims of domestic violence. Those ads were not proper. Without saying anything I asked a fourteen year old girl what her first impression was in viewing them. Her answer, "only men are violent and kill women." These ads were place to be viewed by all, without taking into account that children do not have the same ability as adults to analyze and determine an underlining meaning. Their determination comes from their initial view.
I specialize in incidents that create traumatic disorders. I work with child abuse, rape, neglect, abandonment, domestic violence, and have had clients who have been mildly to severely assaulted. I work with equally men, women and children. Being a Certified Behavior Analyst, I focus on the pain, and not who carries it.
I also have men and women who are aggressors who come to me scared of their own behavior and wanting to change it.
I can state from experience, the state funded domestic violence shelters, and the current judicial system are the blind leading the blind. I was asked by the Australian domestic violence prevention to be a U.S. Ambassador to their groups. They requested I review the Duluth Model, which I found numerous structure flaws in its ideology, and assist them in developing a system that will reduce and impact domestic violence. The difference between their groups and ours is they decided not to develop their program off ideology, and would rather have a system in place that proved to be effective.

When reading some of these "one sided" posts, I understand as long as genders work by themselves, for themselves without seeking all to receive the same, problems will not be solved. This selfish way of being factually disables our ability to develop proactive solutions that will provide real change.

One thing I will say to these comments is that negative attitudes never end with positive outcomes.

xxchick- I'm a male and a single parent. I have a 9 year old daughter living with me. I took custody to get her stability and out of an abusive home from those her mother was inappropriately choosing to date. The judge said "I am worried about your choices in raising this child." She still has not completed the parenting classes she was ordered to 3 years ago. So do you look at me as stealing her from her mother? Her mom still visits and they speak on the phone daily.
You and newfriend seem angry with those who seek equality. Having numerous conversations with those on glennsacks.com, (1) Hating women is not present (2) Full equality is sought. MRA's are not seeking to be treated better than women.
I work with victims of domestic violence. Those ads were not proper. Without saying anything I asked a fourteen year old girl what her first impression was in viewing them. Her answer, "only men are violent and kill women." These ads were place to be viewed by all, without taking into account that children do not have the same ability as adults to analyze and determine an underlining meaning. Their determination comes from their initial view.
I specialize in incidents that create traumatic disorders. I work with child abuse, rape, neglect, abandonment, domestic violence, and have had clients who have been mildly to severely assaulted. I work with equally men, women and children. Being a Certified Behavior Analyst, I focus on the pain, and not who carries it.
I also have men and women who are aggressors who come to me scared of their own behavior and wanting to change it.
I can state from experience, the state funded domestic violence shelters, and the current judicial system are the blind leading the blind. I was asked by the Australian domestic violence prevention to be a U.S. Ambassador to their groups. They requested I review the Duluth Model, which I found numerous structure flaws in its ideology, and assist them in developing a system that will reduce and impact domestic violence. The difference between their groups and ours is they decided not to develop their program off ideology, and would rather have a system in place that proved to be effective.

When reading some of these "one sided" posts, I understand as long as genders work by themselves, for themselves without seeking all to receive the same, problems will not be solved. This selfish way of being factually disables our ability to develop proactive solutions that will provide real change.

One thing I will say to these comments is that negative attitudes never end with positive outcomes.

@gwallan

"New Friend has become a bit of a passive stalker of Glenn's. Most places his name crops up you can be sure New Friend won't be far away."

The same could be said for you as well. I notice that whenever I am out posting comments or reading numerous blogs that are against Sacks, your name pops up quite as frequently as New Friend's does. So could we say that you are passively stalking Sacks as well?

Nah I think it will just be more entertaining and more enlightening to expose what I myself have already discovered.....

MRAs are actually woman haters in dusguise. Or they ARE abusers who do not want women having any rights.

@Rev. Richard:
"One thing I will say to these comments is that negative attitudes never end with positive outcomes."

You will not find me making any negative comments on my site. I will simply repost what is being said by women hater MRAs in their own words and comment on those posts/comments/websites. This will include any and all who post anti-woman ideals.

Also:

"Without saying anything I asked a fourteen year old girl what her first impression was in viewing them. Her answer, "only men are violent and kill women."

I myself asked numerous children ranging in age from 7 to 17 what these ads meant to them. The 7 year old answered (after reading the entire ad - not just the larger writing on top but EVERYTHING) that it said to them that kids who see moms and dads fighting will grow up and fight in front of their own children. The 17 year old had a slightly more enlightened view. She said that these ads are propaganda. I asked her what that meant to her and she said they are "shock ads" and meant to stimulate all types of discussion. I asked her what she would think if she was riding a bus and saw these ads and she said, I would think of all the kids now and in the future who have to witness domestic violence. She also said Aunt XXXXX, "I hope the cycle can be broken because these ads are true. Kids who watch a parent being beaten do grow up to beat or to be beaten. The 9 year old, the 13 year old and the 14 year old I asked basically said the same thing only not quite as eloquently as the 17 year old - the ads are shocking so they can make people talk and so domestic violence will stop.

The femlae sin this group were 7, 13, and 17 years old and the males were 9 and 14 years old. I also asked a 37 year old male if these ads offended him and he said no, they are only shocking and intended to promote conversation and possibly aid victims.

Glenn's Cult:
"MRAs are actually woman haters in dusguise. Or they ARE abusers who do not want women having any rights"

Who cares? Maybe they are baby eaters in disguise too, but
how about keeping the discussion to facts and arguments?

I thought that was the topic - at least that was what I was reaidng in the comments posted above mine. I addressed gwallan and the Rev in my post. I do not intend to start trouble but I see a trend in many blogs where women who post oppossing viewpoints to MRAs are quickly shut off from access to posting or they are told to stay on tpoic, whereas MRAs are not admonished. Again this comment is directed to the one directly above mine and as that comment was directed towards me and is visible on this site it is part of the overall discussion.

I digress anyway. Anyone interested in the real truth with their own words may visit my site.

New Friend you do indeed intend to cause trouble. Using a different tag, particularly when you've used the same one before will not disguise that or you.

There is no trend of shutting down women on Glenn Sacks site. Only you. Sacks is not in the habit of banning anyone generally.

You are a troll who happens to have taken a dislike to one blogger because that blogger banned you.

thankls for the lionk.

but you mischaracterize my post.

i argued that obama is hypocritical to ask biuz exec's to take payvcuts while he has lavish festivities to celebrate his inauguration - LIMITING donations to a mere $50,000 per person.

and i'll note that since posting that piece, obama has decided it's okay for him to give michelle a %30,000 ring.

because he asks others to rein in their spending but doesn't himself, obama is a hypocrite.

imho.

all the best!

btw: i am a registered dem - have been for more than 30 years!

but i am a centrist hawk - a breed no longer welcome by the socialistic doves running the dnc.

Posts by xxchick,new friend, and others provide motivation, more than anything, for MRA's.

Funny, these inraged, contemptous, hateful people tell us clearly that men's rights is working and is needed more than ever. They sound just like the people decades ago who spoke out and were against the women's and civil rights movements. Careful, you are showing your hypocricy.

And by the way, new friend, "Sadly Glenn Sacks and his followers are only concerned with one thing. Stealing chidlren away from mothers and not paying chidl support" thats laughable- you just show us how ignorant you are.

@anon 6:34 PM

"You are a troll who happens to have taken a dislike to one blogger because that blogger banned you."

Actually I do not care that I have been "banned" as there are millionsof computers availble to use. There are programs out there to hide/block/change my IP addy. "IF" I truly wanted to post on Sacks' website I could do it. But then I would still be preaching to the choir (ie: getting nowehere). So I simply made good on my promise to start a website/blog in order to expose the MRAs/Sacks' followers true beliefs and how they do treat women who disagree with them.

As I also stated, I have plenty of work product available.

@ dan 7:05PM

"And by the way, new friend, "Sadly Glenn Sacks and his followers are only concerned with one thing. Stealing chidlren away from mothers and not paying chidl support" thats laughable- you just show us how ignorant you are."

This is ignorance............How? I can show numerous instances of Sacks and many of his followers complaining about child support andc how if there was shared equal parenting there would be no child support. Many complain about how CS is illegal. And by stating what is already available online I am ignorant?

I've been reliably informed that New Friend was banned by Glenn Sacks due to persistant personal abuse. Glenn was quite happy to give her an opportunity but her use of a fraudulent email address prevented any negotiation toward that end.

@gwallan
"I've been reliably informed that New Friend was banned by Glenn Sacks due to persistant personal abuse. Glenn was quite happy to give her an opportunity but her use of a fraudulent email address prevented any negotiation toward that end."

As I stated, not anywhere did he ever post on his blog giving any sort of warning to me. And who did I personally abuse? If the readers want to go research this issue, they will actually see that it was me who was abused. Even on this website I have been called a sexist, men-hating, lying psycho. The abuse on Sacks website was much worse. He has warned the MRA posters on his blog, on the actual blog, that they are not following his protocol. He simply "chose" not to give me that same warning due to my posting information that was not welcomed at his site. That is fine, I have created a blog which will get my message across. This blog I will control - in other words if you are abusive you will not post - plain and simple. On this site, I will not have to resort to terrorist tactics, I will simply use the MRA words to show who and what they are. I will use their very own words and beliefs against them. I also used a fake email address so as to protect myself from the MRAs who would use that information to their own gain.

Ack. Do you MRAs all read the same blog that links here or what? yeesh.

Yes new Friend. We understand your paranoia and narcissism. You have our sympathy.

Glenn Sacks has tried to communicate with you over your personal attacks. You made that impossible.

I quote from Glenn...
"New Friend" was banned because she repeatedly violated rule # 1 of My Rules on Blog Comments prohibiting "Personal attacks." Normally when someone violates the rules I send them a note explaining what the violation was. If they continue over and over again, I'll ban them, but usually not until they've had several chances. Because "New Friend" refused to leave a valid email address, I had no way of communicating with her after she violated the rules, so eventually I banned her. She could come back if she wants, but only with a valid email address."

Again he has yet to point out where I personally attacked someone. I defended myself rigorously, never attacked anyone. But eh thats okay. I see he has attempted to protect you all by removing all the links from your names but I have many of them saved. Plus your comments in and of themselves are enough work product :-) I just do not understand if you MRAs have nothing to hide why you demand someone who is a victim and who has been warned by other victims what steps some MRAs will go to in order to terrorize a victim of dv or abuse to reveal their identity, yet your "leader" is so willing to hide yours?

Have a nice day!

New Friend...

Glenn has removed your attacks AND tried to communicate with you about it. The solution is simple New Friend. Use a real email and cease the abuse and personal attacks and you will be quite welcome to contribute.

@gwallan

You are also being condescending towards me in saying things like you said above. Sadly I sm not paranoid, but I do know of one who is. Otherwise why would every single poster on Sacks' website no longer have their personal link (in their posting name) on his site? I find this quite ironic that MRAs are this afraid. If YOU have nothing to hide why does he hide your websites?

In closing as I am heading off to bed right now, I will say that I was disgusted by Sacks' actions in the subterfuge in which he engaged in order to remove funding from TFP. He specifically did not reveal this on his site in order to keep feminists and anti-MRAs from contacting these same supporters. He then gloats about it yet is still careful enough to couch it in terms of oh gee I didn't want them to lose this funding but........

Gwallan: Your kids and mine may have different views of the ads, and they may be shocking, but they are also developed to show men as the aggressor and women as the victim, which is advertising a partial truth.

I've seen outright insane and angry discussion when someone brings up women abusing men 50% of the time. Feminist freak out. Why? It goes against their agenda. Working with trauma, and domestic violence, I know that number is reality, not ideology.
A paper written by Linda Kelly documents the issue of ignoring female violence against men. She comments on the feminist reaction Professor Suzanne Steinmetz, from The University of Delaware, received regarding her research: "Criticisms have ranged from personally attacking the researchers, to more academic efforts directed at attacking the work itself by denying the validity of the reports, to an outright defense of the violent behavior of women or otherwise minimizing its significance." A bomb threat was also call into the ACLU where Professor Steinmetz had a scheduled appearance.

I look at abuse as being wrong period. It makes no difference if it is against a man, woman or child. Poor behavior is poor behavior and abuse is abuse. Harming someone else mentally, physically or sexually is unacceptable. What any of us believe is also irrelevant. What happens to which male or which female or child is not at issue either. What any group or gender believes or discusses won't stop the abuse that is happening now or days to come. What does cause harm is pushing policy to fit within a certain groups desired outcome without including the whole pie as part of its development.

This gender war needs to stop. In our history when viewing different wars, do you recall one where two countries decide to call it a tie? One side wins, the other side looses, but as long as trying to win is the focus, both sides lose and solutions cannot be implemented with any successful outcome.

With that being said, in conclusion regarding the DART ads, another step in the wrong direction from equality or solving domestic violence.

I would like to thank New Friend and the Female Supremacist for showing readers of this publication exactly what drives the men's movement- the unquenchable hatred of women such as themselves. The opposition has no real arguments to put forward so I bid you adieu.

I see that the men's rights crapola folks have shown up in droves here.
Yawn. It's as the marginally literate Michael Claymore inadvertantly puts it. They are driven by the unquenchable hatred of women. They are furious that they cannot bend women to their will, making servants and sex slaves out of them as they feel is their right.
Nothing they say is true. Let's ignore them.
Starting Now.

New Friend the invitation remains open.

The "Family Place" did not lose "funding". Some of it's individual donors have reduced or stopped their donations. If "funding" is such a problem maybe the director, Paige Flink, could share some of her $150K salary.

With any luck their board of management will, having seen the trouble created by flink, look elsewhere for stewardship at a lower price tag.

It must be on page two of the Manhaters' Handbook that its readers must do everything they can to misrepresent their opponents as sexists who only want to dominate women. It's just satisfying to see that fewer people are buying it.

Just wanted to share one last thing before I go work on my blog. I have heard/read the stats that MRAs produce saying that women are as equally as violent as men. These stats are distorted and I have been given evidence of such. So I decided to research this myself. I went to the county where my case took place and went back 3 years into dv arrests. I then went to the court docket website and looked up those cases. I found that of all dv arrests nearly 25% of those were repeat offenses. ALL repeat offenders were male (no females).Of the female arrests I found that nearly 80% of those arrests were dual arrests (the male was also arrested). In looking at the dispositions of those cases only 10-15% of these arrests resulted in some sort of punishment (jail, probation etc). Of those that resulted in punishment only 5% resulted in jail time. So how is this for math - only 4% of all dv arrests in my county resulted in jail time for the perp. That is including the multiple offenders as well. There have been numerous high prfile cases coming from where I lived (country wide publicity). Sadly those cases were finally resolved with jail time, but IMO too little too late. Something needs to be done regarding dv. And by my own research and the stats offered to me by the shelter in this county, dv against females runs about 95% there, which is what my research also showed.

@gwallan
How convenient that all the supposed attacks by me were deleted. What about Glenn's "other rules"? I can show many instances in which he has stretched the rules for his supporters. In fact I plan to show those on my site.

New Friend you need to discuss Glenn's "rules" with Glenn. He has tried to communicate with you over it.

Instead you decide to go off on the century's biggest ever dummy spit.

Seriously the sort of rubbish you're dispensing may have had some traction six or seven years ago. You're just a little late for that party. Those days are long gone.

Continue republishing Glenn's contributors if you wish. If they didn't want those thoughts known they wouldn't post them to begin with. You are actually doing them, and Glenn, a favour particularly when others realise the extent of your mis-representation.

Recommended reading for you at this point would be "Bre'r Rabbit".

Glenn's Cult:

Your research may show 95% of the women are victims. These statistic reporting agencies only include reported numbers. They don't include false accusations or the numbers of men or women who do not report incidents. Studies show for every 1 woman who does not report abuse, 9 men who are being abused do not report it. This is a good quote regarding this subject, Dr. Jennifer Langhinrichsen-Rohling of the University of South Alabama stated: "Every time we tried to say that woman's intimate partner abuse is different than men's, the evidence did not support it."
I too research domestic violence. I am a certified behavior analyst with expertise in mental trauma, domestic violence, and abnormal personality disorders. I take separate incidents, working backwards through experiences and behaviors to uncover the underlying creating factors which led up to negative behavior patterns. My research is done based on the fact that change can't happen, unless we first understand what creates the problem.
Hundreds of individuals I have analyzed their behaviors, by request, are those of aggressive females. They have never been reported for domestic violence, but are aggressive toward their partners. Although I research men, women and children, I give women credit from this angle. Woman are more likely to become frustrated with their abnormal behavior where they seek answers than men do.
I'm watching the news now, interesting "teen girls charged with abusing elderly at a nursing home they were working." The conversation is "what is happening with our teen girls?" Right before that "6 year old boy robbed by a 7 year old boy at knife point for $1." Then there is the aunt who's been charged with kidnapping, and torture of teen boy. Last week I was researching cases of mainly teen girls who, because of gossip, were ganging up on on girl and beating her. Easy to catch who did it when they videotaped it and posted the film on the internet.
As a researcher the issue is not the 95% male aggression or the equality of male, female violence (50/50 is accurate). The issue is the numerous factor which play into violence and aggression is under researched, ignored or misrepresented which in turn allows policies and standards to be ineffective and can cause a negative affect from what their intent is.

Holy Guacamoly! The army of "Defenders of Men's Total Superiority In Every Way" are not Trolls!

They're ogres!

ōgər; noun
(in folklore) a human-eating giant.
• a cruel or terrifying person.!

Hah thank you for clarifying Kathy, but what title do we then attach to Newfriend, Glenn'scult and XXchick. I know you will have something good for this... :)

Cult: "I went to the county where my case took place and went back 3 years into dv arrests."

...and, with that, you contaminated any subsequent research you performed. If you are looking at "arrests" in areas in which police departments have been instructed to "arrest the man" even if he's the one with the black eye and blood trickling down his face, that's kinda sorta gonna skew your results, eh?

Kathy: "The army of 'Defenders of Men's Total Superiority In Every Way'..."

There is no such army, just one of men and women enjoying equality IN ALL AREAS. Of course, it's easier to fight an enemy when you make one up, isn't it, Kathy?

Wow, I've never seen quite so many MRAs in one place.

Why don't you, as a group, work to open shelters for male victims of domestic violence rather than attempting to shut down shelters for female victims? The fact that men can be victims too doesn't negate the fact that there are female victims out there who need to escape abuse? It would be a much more productive use of your time and resources than attempting to destroy resources for women, which is pretty damned low.

Woo Hoo!

I see the pants-pissing brigade is in full whine here.

Shorter wingnut 1: Look M. Malkin, I'm pissing my tighty-whities, just like you said!

Shorter wingnut 2: Look G. Reynolds, I'm pissing my tighty-whities, just like you said! AND making doodie!

And so it goes, with the keyboard kommandos.
~

"Why don't you, as a group, work to open shelters for male victims of domestic violence...?"

Who says we don't? I'm associated with two nationwide organizations that assist both male and female victims. But here's the thing: will you ensure that assistance to male victims receives the same exact federal and state funding that assistance to female victims receives?

I really wish I understood why these people see "helping male victims" as an assault on women.

bmmg39:

I remember a gist of a comment from the VAW which I believe explains your question in part. They stated it has come to their attention that males may be victims, but say, the abuse claimed may be women defending themselves.
Equal funding would be constitutional whereas the current system is not. With ideology fueling the system, a government office to protect males would have to be open.

@bmmg39
"I really wish I understood why these people see "helping male victims" as an assault on women."

The reason we see this as an attack on women is because you minimize what women are actually going through. You minimize the actual numbers. A woman yells at her husband. A woman pushes him to be able to leave the room and she has initiated violence because she laid her hands on him. And in a dv situation, what would happen next? The woman would end up thrown across the room, smacked around, punched, stabbed, shot? All because she pushed him? And she pushed him to get away from him? I know this for a fact because after being abused for many months, my now ex-husband had me cornered. I pushed him in order to get away and he smacked me upside the head, then he punched me hard in the gut, and then he sucker punched me across my head. But we are both equally violent because I pushed him.

This is where the issue lies, and where Flink states it so eloquently, women are in much more danger than men. Yes men need help but not in the way a woman does.

But when we say something like that we are attacked. This is why I created my blog. Hopefully the traffic being driven to it from other blogs (less than 2 days there has been traffic from 6 countries - nearly 400 visitors). I can only hope to keep that traffic up and will with good publishing, research and giving the people what they want. I have received numerous emails on this website and have been thanked many times over for having the courage to do what others could only dream of doing. Giving women a place to vent about the rubbish published by Sasks' followers and sometimes even by Sacks himself. I have been reading his blog for several years now. I am probably one of his first readers as my divorce was finalized almost 4 years ago and I devoured anything and everything I could about family court. Pre-divorce I would spend hours researching laws and blogs and websites. I would often survive on 2-3 hours of sleep while holding down a full time job and raising a toddler just so I could protect us. And I will continue with the blog. There are no emails saying that my website is nuts save the few MRAs on here and on Sacks site.

I am man, hear me whine.

Awesome comments section, Roy!

"A woman yells at her husband. A woman pushes him to be able to leave the room and she has initiated violence because she laid her hands on him. And in a dv situation, what would happen next? The woman would end up thrown across the room, smacked around, punched, stabbed, shot? All because she pushed him?"

In your scenario, she obviously shouldn't have pushed him, but his response was clearly disproportional to her initial action. But you're cherry-picking a bit here: what about all the cases in which the WOMAN is doing all the smacking around, punching, striking with a blunt object, kicking, scratching, stabbing, and shooting? In cases in heterosexual relationships in which there is non-reciprocal violence (only one person being violent), more often than not it is the woman doing it. That may not be the case in your own tragic situation but it happens in hundreds of thousands of cases. And men have the further onus of often being ARRESTED for having been abused, since so many police departments have been trained to arrest the man, no matter who is hurting whom when they arrive at the house.

ca: "I am man, hear me whine."

I'd like to know if CA has ever complained about anything in his/her life, and, if so, if (s)he would like to have her serious concerns referred to as "whining."

"A woman yells at her husband. A woman pushes him to be able to leave the room and she has initiated violence because she laid her hands on him. And in a dv situation, what would happen next? The woman would end up thrown across the room, smacked around, punched, stabbed, shot? All because she pushed him?"

In your scenario, she obviously shouldn't have pushed him, but his response was clearly disproportional to her initial action. But you're cherry-picking a bit here: what about all the cases in which the WOMAN is doing all the smacking around, punching, striking with a blunt object, kicking, scratching, stabbing, and shooting? In cases in heterosexual relationships in which there is non-reciprocal violence (only one person being violent), more often than not it is the woman doing it. That may not be the case in your own tragic situation but it happens in hundreds of thousands of cases. And men have the further onus of often being ARRESTED for having been abused, since so many police departments have been trained to arrest the man, no matter who is hurting whom when they arrive at the house.

ca: "I am man, hear me whine."

I'd like to know if CA has ever complained about anything in his/her life, and, if so, if (s)he would like to have her serious concerns referred to as "whining."

"In cases in heterosexual relationships in which there is non-reciprocal violence (only one person being violent), more often than not it is the woman doing it."

I would appreciate real true statistics from reputable agencies with the government which state this. A huge majority of dv is reciprocal violence similar to what I cited, which is not "true" reciprocal violence. It is a victim trying to leave or protect herself. I did not call police on numerous occasions because I had pushed or done something else (raised my hands to stop blows and struck) and feared losing my child. Once wehn my abuser was beating me (in front of our child) he cut himself very badly and was gushing blood everywhere. he threatned that if I phone the police he would tell them I slashed him with a knife. Not true - he did it on a door frame and has issues with heavy bleeding for any size cut, but I only thought of the what if. What if he could get me arrested? Where would my child be? So I did not report.

Glen's Cult: Sounds like your ex had some major mental issues which he took out on you, but you had no hand in his actions.

Those who are like your ex is the reason the dv laws were strengthened in the first place. Most of those who are arrested have cases which are microscopic compared to your situation. You were with the small percentage the government works on protecting society from, but with manipulation and fear our laws really don't prevent the major cases which I call "psychotic dv".

For that reason, restraining order are ineffective as well. Someone with the psychotic level anger, if determined to harm someone, a piece of paper is not going to stand in their way.

I recently worked with a client who was brutally beat because coffee wasn't made when her husband woke up. He smashed the pot across the side of her head. There is something really messed up when someone can't get up, count out scoops into a filter and flip a simple switch.

bmmg39: "In cases in heterosexual relationships in which there is non-reciprocal violence (only one person being violent), more often than not it is the woman doing it."

cult: "I would appreciate real true statistics from reputable agencies with the government which state this."

I guess you'll be THRILLED to learn, then, that I am quoting from the Centers for Disease Control:

http://pn.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/42/15/31-a

@Rev Richard

The problem I also have is I know many other women whose husband's and significant others have managed to switch the laws around and target the woman for dv. I truly am one of the lucky few in that I get to protect our child about 80% of the time. I want 100% of the time. I want someone to believe us. And with the court system the way it is today it will never happen. I was asked by our family court judge if my ex was abusive before I got pregnant. There had only been one instance but it was still abuse so I said yes. He (the judge) then told me that I knew he was abusive, I "chose" to have a child with this abusive man, so now I needed to just "deal with it." I filed a complaint against this judge which was dismissed. When this judge made an order in our case, opposing atty filed false orders to be signed. When questioned about why the judge signed my correct orders he said he did so because I would whine and cry and he did not want to listen to me. And this judge has stated on more than one occasion that he was going to start charging us rent.

This is a man who is entrusted to look out for victims and children and women and men and hand out justice. What my child and I got was NOT justice.

Yet when I share these things on Sacks' site, I am told I am a liar.

This is why I get angry when I see "father's and men's rights" activists targetting dv shelters. The shelters where I live have been the only place I am validated. Even more frustrating is that because they could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt (the pros. atty was not prepared at all) that he was abusive, he now says I am lying about it all. So when I meet other women who have lost their children and I actually look at their case files and see all the garbage filed by their ex's and I hear their sobs, and I know where they are coming from because but for the grace of God there go I, then yes I am going to be angry and yes I am going to scream it from the rooftops, and yes I will go to every single blog and website I find to say how wrong this is. And the men's rights groups try to minimize this and use false information or trumped up charges against some of the more high profile women who have lost custody to abusers. Yes I am angry and I will stay angry until I no longer hear of a woman losing custody to an abusive man. If there is even one outside witness to the abuse, he should not be allowed any type of custody. Even primary residential and shared legal is impossible with an abusive and controlling man.

@Rev Richard

I should also add that we had a huge dv murder case close to where we live while the RO against my ex was still active and his comment to me was - you say I awful to anyone and everyone who will listen to you. I am not that bad, look at what XXX did. I haven't done anything like that yet.

Just think about that comment for one moment and yes I quoted him exactly. Some MRAs are trying to get VAWA completely gone, some believe women should not be allowed any freedoms or rights (such as the right to vote) and much more than this. Those few who are fringe MRAs are causing those who were falsely accused major problems. Those fringe are like my ex. And sadly, I hear my ex when I read many of the comments on Glenn Sacks' website. It could very well be him writing that stuff.

So rather than sit and exchaneg war stories - what is the solution? How do we protect women and chidlren like me and my child (and many other moms and children I have met in my work) and protect men who did not batter? What do you do when a woman says she was abused, yet can only offer less than reliable witnesses to the court (relatives, chidlren) and the man will get people to lie for him? What do you do when you do have a truly psychotic woman who manipulates the system in order to hurt a good man? How do you tell who is telling the truth?

Again there but for the grace of God go I.

"I guess you'll be THRILLED to learn, then, that I am quoting from the Centers for Disease Control:

http://pn.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/42/15/31-a"

I went as far as I could in order to determine how they arrived at their conclusions but there wa snothing more than some statistics. Also the population group used for this survey was 18-28 year olds. Are they the only people in relationships now? What about the 29+ crowd? What were the questions asked of this group? This is all relevant so one can determine what the researcher feels is "violence". Is it violent to push someone in order to get away? Is it violent to slap someone who has hit you? Thes eare all very important questions and a study such as this is not releavnt until this information can be revealed to the public. This is very similar to the issues found in the Conflict Tactic Scales (CTS). Is this the CTS survey? If so then it is nullified because it determines that if a woman has ever laid hands on her partner (in self defense or otehrwise) then she is violent, period.

Do you have answers for that?

Glenn's Cult: I can understand where you are frustrated and angry. The same reason MRA's are angry. They believe they are viewed as "abusive" because of their gender. Just as children have been given to abusive fathers, they have also been given to abusive mothers.
This judge you've dealt with should not hold a position of authority. Many judges who exercise a power trip and not respecting the constitution and their duty bound by their oath should be removed from their positions.
The damage cause to many men, women and ultimately the children is not the situation most have been in, it's the system that is designed to protect our children, and the right to protect ourselves and families from harm.

I file complaints against judicial officials often. I joined a constitutional research group where I review decisions then weigh them against the constitution. My philosophy is "The strength of government is only as strong as its foundation."

With my past relationship where my ex possessed extremely violent disorders, I was targeted by the system. Seeing it from the other side showed my just how flawed our system is becoming. Misusing the system proves (1) People can be vicious when seeking what they want (2) Our system needs better protections against this abuse of system.

There are men who are abused as well. I work with women who generally seek help to change their behavior. One wrote me and said "I beat him until I feel better."

The target against shelters is not to deny services to women and children. Many shelters have no services for men who may be in immediate danger, but have no place to go.

I understand why you're angry. I'm extremely disappointed in how society has developed. People, as a whole, aren't nice anymore. They disrespect others, are self centered and basically sell out their integrity and character for personal gain. It kind of makes you feel as being bait in a sea of sharks.

The issue is still not being addressed however. There are quite a few men online who pose as these abused fathers and they are exactly the opposite. There are men who create such websites and on these websites state that women should not have the right to vote (among other things). How do we discover who the truly abused is? That is my question. How do we as a society figure out in a person's marriage if there is abuse and who perpetrated the abuse? How do we protect the chidlren form growing up and continuing the cycle. As a person interested in DV I am sure you would agree that children exposed to dv often continue the cycle. Or do you disagree with that statement? How do we stop the travesties of justice? How do we protect everyone all of the time?

This reminds me of some huge stories that wer eput out in the late 80's, early 90's and again here recently in Florida (more publicized in FL but it happens everywhere) about the child welfare system and how it failed to protect children from abuse. Back in the 80's several children were killed due to being sent home again and again to abusive parents (both men and women). Then recently there was a rash of childen "lost" that could not be located by the system. Each time things like this happened, the states over react and the pendulum swings to the other side. Sadly in the case of dv, with men claiming to be victims of abuse, when women are abused and try to get help from the system, they are often ridiculed or abused further. This (the abuse of women by the legal system) is getting worse and is not going away.

How do we stop it? I have thought and thought about this but every single thought always has somebody being hurt. If you believe all women all the time, some men will be hurt. If you believe all men all the time, some women will be hurt. Again I ask, what is the answer?

Glenn's Cult stated: "How do we protect women and chidlren like me and my child (and many other moms and children I have met in my work) and protect men who did not batter? What do you do when a woman says she was abused, yet can only offer less than reliable witnesses to the court (relatives, chidlren) and the man will get people to lie for him? What do you do when you do have a truly psychotic woman who manipulates the system in order to hurt a good man? How do you tell who is telling the truth?"

What has to happen first is convincing government their current policies are not creating the result they designed them to accomplish.
We have to view domestic violence as being the end result of a much greater picture. So many different factors play into the creation of negative behaviors.
These behaviors are both from victims and aggressors, just different characteristics. Low self esteems are a big factor when looking at not only aggressors, but victims and future victims. They see small negative behaviors at the beginning of the relationship as being unimportant. They also say things like "it only happened this once," "he/she promises they'll change," "i pushed them to it," or "he/she says he/she loves me."
Their desire to be loved is at an abnormal level. They compensate for voids in their life through their relationship and ignore the abnormal behavior from the other side. To acknowledge it is like admitting to not being able to be complete. The truth is being complete comes from within.

That comment your husband listed. No he may not have killed yet, but he admits to being abusive, but with that comment accepts it as behavior he approves of. Then I would be asking, why does he see his behavior as being okay? It's not acceptable, you know that, I know that, why does he not agree?

To tell if people are telling the truth, be a deep listener. Watch body language and eye movements. Remember what they said, then ask them to repeat themselves. See if their story alters slightly. I watched a dv arrest video, the "victim" who I believe was actually the aggressor changed her story 5 different times. By it being subtle the cops didn't catch it. Deeply paying attention, they would have.
Dealing with people and different behaviors, not everything sits on the surface. People speak so we see them in the way they would like us to. How they want us to view them, may not be who they are.

Cult: "Is it violent to push someone in order to get away? Is it violent to slap someone who has hit you? Thes eare all very important questions and a study such as this is not releavnt until this information can be revealed to the public."

If you're trying to escape someone who is violent to you, or you're hitting "back," then it's obvious that the hitting is reciprocal, not non-reciprocal. We're talking about heterosexual relationships in which only ONE person is violent, and more often than not it's the woman.

"This is very similar to the issues found in the Conflict Tactic Scales (CTS). Is this the CTS survey? If so then it is nullified because it determines that if a woman has ever laid hands on her partner (in self defense or otehrwise) then she is violent, period."

No, there's a large difference between hitting out of self-defense and being the aggressor (and that's true equally when the man must defend himself against a violent woman). All people have the right to defend themselves. We're discussing the millions of women who hurt their partners, often because they feel they have a right to and because they figure they'll face no negative consequences.

"How do we stop it? I have thought and thought about this but every single thought always has somebody being hurt. If you believe all women all the time, some men will be hurt. If you believe all men all the time, some women will be hurt. Again I ask, what is the answer?"

How about to neither "believe all women all the time" nor to "believe all men all the time"? How about by acknowledging that people are people, rather than associate one gender alone with being violent and one gender alone with being victims?

Dear Roy Edroso
If it weren't for Glenn Sacks I wouldn't be writing you today. I've been reading his newsletter for quite some time now and to my knowledge has no peer at what he dose. You on the otherhand, are one of many sectular progressives holding the same view as too many loonie liberals in the dominant media culture.
So let's review: Glenn Sacks...original, one of a kind AND relevent.
Roy Edroso ='s Maureen Doud, Paul Krugman et. all ect.ect.... Need I say more ?
Ps: I live in the Sacramento Ca. area & the McKlatchy news is loaded with east coast journalists types just like you...so if you should ever move out this way, you'll feel right at home.
But I hope you never do.

I was directed to this sie due to traffic to my site. After refreshing the comments made since last year I noticed this one:

gwallan says:
I've been reliably informed that New Friend was banned by Glenn Sacks due to persistant personal abuse. Glenn was quite happy to give her an opportunity but her use of a fraudulent email address prevented any negotiation toward that end.

Now I must answer this one :-) I recently changed IP's and was able to start posting again on Sacks' site. I used my name at that time which was Glenn's Cult. I was NOT abusive, I simply asked questions and stated my position, and those comments were yet again banned and no contact was initiated with me. I did provide Sacks with a valid email address, which I have provided here as well. If the owner of this blog would like to test out that email address I invite that as well. My posts were rmoved due to the fact (I believe) that I am a threat even though I engage in humor when dealing with the comments and articles posted on Sacks' website. Dealing with these comments and posts with humor is completely legal under fair use statutes.

So gwallan's claim that I was "banned" and my posts deleted because of abuse and failure to provide a valid email are bogus. Of course we again (like in many dv situations) have a case of "he said, she said".

Now the only question is this:

Who do you believe?