Feb 18, 2010
Misandry
An Interview with Angry Harry
Harry don't appear Angry to me...... well not at the moment.
You won't find any better....
Harry is Boss!
Feminists are a Bunch of Irrational Ninnies
Feminists are a Bunch of Irrational Ninnies
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
By Carey Roberts
I’ve been waiting all day to unload this, so sit down and get ready for a good belly-laugh…
Remember Susan Estrich? She was Michael Dukakis’ campaign manager for his disastrous presidential run in 1988. But washed-up liberals don’t shrivel up and blow away, they reinvent themselves as pundits and news analysts.
Apparently Ms. Estrich, the Grand-Dame of feminist victimology, has taken great offense at Apple Computer’s decision to name its newest electronic gizmo, iPad. So last week she penned a column called “The Value of Diversity.” Blazing away with her gendered six-shooter, Estrich issued this scathing pronouncement:
“Is there a woman in America who did not laugh, or at least roll her eyes, the minute she heard that the newest, hottest tablet computer from one of America’s most ingenuous companies was going to sound like a feminine hygiene product? The iKotex is what most people I know are calling it, with apologies to Kotex.”
The moral of Estrich’s preposterous complaint? That Apple needs to bring more women into the upper echelons of corporate decision-making.
Really, how can anyone with a claim to sanity come to view the name of a cute digital device as proof of gender oppression?
This isn’t the first time Ms. Estrich got her wires crossed.
Eight years ago Clara Harris ran over her ex-husband David, as their daughter sat in the front seat of the car. I’ve seen the tape, it’s sickening to watch the violent woman repeatedly drive her car over David’s prostrate body. The woman was later convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to hard time.
But Estrich thought the woman’s actions were completely justifiable. “Who could blame [Clara] for getting into her Mercedes and running him over?,” Estrich later asked.
Lindsey Harris, who had pleaded with her mother to cease the slaughter, took issue with Estrich’s bizarre rationalization. The young woman denounced her mother’s rampage as “the ultimate act of selfishness, caring only about obtaining revenge and thinking not one bit about how her horrible act was going to affect me or my brothers, Brian and Bradley.”
Amazingly, there are other persons out there who believe Clara Harris was doing what any woman in full possession of her senses would do.
One such person is Regina Barreca, PhD (gb@ginabarreca.com), professor of feminist theory at the University of Connecticut. Berreca bills herself as putting the “funny in feminism” — but a passing glance at the titles of her books reveals a lady with a well-honed ax to grind: “I’m With Stupid: One Man, One Woman, and 10,000 Years of Misunderstanding Between the Sexes Cleared Right Up,” and “Perfect Husbands (and Other Fairy Tales).”
And what does Berreca have to say about husband-killer Clara Harris? Repeatedly running over her ex was a “great moment of revenge,” she lucidly explains. That adumbration of the truth graces the current issue of Psychology Today.
And then the grand brouhaha over the recent Super Bowl ad featuring former Florida quarterback Tim Tebow and his mother Pam. Conveying a soft-sell pro-life message, the advertisement shows the muscle-clad football player playfully tackling his mother.
Almost everyone in the universe knew it was a joke.
Except for National Organization for Women president Terry O’Neill, who pitiably proclaimed herself Highly Offended: “I am blown away at the celebration of the violence against women in it.” Railing against the network airing the ad, O’Neill exclaimed, “I think CBS should be ashamed of itself.”
Five years ago Susan Estrich had a very public hissy-fit when she discovered only a fraction of the L.A. Times op-eds were written by women. A few days later the Times ran a piece by Charlotte Allen explaining the relative dearth of female writers: “Ideological feminism has ghettoized and trivialized the subject matter of women’s writing.”
Once upon a time, feminists haughtily proclaimed their movement was intended to eradicate the stereotype of air-headed women who couldn’t think calmly or act rationally. Funny how feminism has become a gaudy parody unto itself.
More from Mr. Roberts here....
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
By Carey Roberts
I’ve been waiting all day to unload this, so sit down and get ready for a good belly-laugh…
Remember Susan Estrich? She was Michael Dukakis’ campaign manager for his disastrous presidential run in 1988. But washed-up liberals don’t shrivel up and blow away, they reinvent themselves as pundits and news analysts.
Apparently Ms. Estrich, the Grand-Dame of feminist victimology, has taken great offense at Apple Computer’s decision to name its newest electronic gizmo, iPad. So last week she penned a column called “The Value of Diversity.” Blazing away with her gendered six-shooter, Estrich issued this scathing pronouncement:
“Is there a woman in America who did not laugh, or at least roll her eyes, the minute she heard that the newest, hottest tablet computer from one of America’s most ingenuous companies was going to sound like a feminine hygiene product? The iKotex is what most people I know are calling it, with apologies to Kotex.”
The moral of Estrich’s preposterous complaint? That Apple needs to bring more women into the upper echelons of corporate decision-making.
Really, how can anyone with a claim to sanity come to view the name of a cute digital device as proof of gender oppression?
This isn’t the first time Ms. Estrich got her wires crossed.
Eight years ago Clara Harris ran over her ex-husband David, as their daughter sat in the front seat of the car. I’ve seen the tape, it’s sickening to watch the violent woman repeatedly drive her car over David’s prostrate body. The woman was later convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to hard time.
But Estrich thought the woman’s actions were completely justifiable. “Who could blame [Clara] for getting into her Mercedes and running him over?,” Estrich later asked.
Lindsey Harris, who had pleaded with her mother to cease the slaughter, took issue with Estrich’s bizarre rationalization. The young woman denounced her mother’s rampage as “the ultimate act of selfishness, caring only about obtaining revenge and thinking not one bit about how her horrible act was going to affect me or my brothers, Brian and Bradley.”
Amazingly, there are other persons out there who believe Clara Harris was doing what any woman in full possession of her senses would do.
One such person is Regina Barreca, PhD (gb@ginabarreca.com), professor of feminist theory at the University of Connecticut. Berreca bills herself as putting the “funny in feminism” — but a passing glance at the titles of her books reveals a lady with a well-honed ax to grind: “I’m With Stupid: One Man, One Woman, and 10,000 Years of Misunderstanding Between the Sexes Cleared Right Up,” and “Perfect Husbands (and Other Fairy Tales).”
And what does Berreca have to say about husband-killer Clara Harris? Repeatedly running over her ex was a “great moment of revenge,” she lucidly explains. That adumbration of the truth graces the current issue of Psychology Today.
And then the grand brouhaha over the recent Super Bowl ad featuring former Florida quarterback Tim Tebow and his mother Pam. Conveying a soft-sell pro-life message, the advertisement shows the muscle-clad football player playfully tackling his mother.
Almost everyone in the universe knew it was a joke.
Except for National Organization for Women president Terry O’Neill, who pitiably proclaimed herself Highly Offended: “I am blown away at the celebration of the violence against women in it.” Railing against the network airing the ad, O’Neill exclaimed, “I think CBS should be ashamed of itself.”
Five years ago Susan Estrich had a very public hissy-fit when she discovered only a fraction of the L.A. Times op-eds were written by women. A few days later the Times ran a piece by Charlotte Allen explaining the relative dearth of female writers: “Ideological feminism has ghettoized and trivialized the subject matter of women’s writing.”
Once upon a time, feminists haughtily proclaimed their movement was intended to eradicate the stereotype of air-headed women who couldn’t think calmly or act rationally. Funny how feminism has become a gaudy parody unto itself.
More from Mr. Roberts here....
Feb 12, 2010
Naomi Wolf: sleep is a feminist issue
Naomi Wolf: sleep is a feminist issue
Sleep, say US feminists, is the next big issue for women to address — doing less and enjoying more duvet time is the way to go
Just as Virginia Woolf noted in A Room of One’s Own that one can’t “think well, write well, love well” if one has not “dined well”, so it would seem that women in particular can’t function well if they haven’t slept well. Two of America’s leading feminist super-achievers are on a crusade to get us all to have a lie in, or at least to take a nap.
Arianna Huffington, the powerhouse publisher of The Huffington Post, and Cindi Leive, the equally indomitable publisher of Glamour, have joined forces to identify women’s sleep deprivation as “the next feminist issue”. They cite studies that indicate that women are more sleep-deprived than men, including one that says American women are getting 90 minutes less than the seven to eight hours recommended for someone to be well and perform well.
The pair make a persuasive case that female exhaustion is undermining women’s creativity, judgment, and relationships. What does it profit us to win the whole world only to experience it cranky and irrational from fatigue?
But much as I admire Huffington and Leive, their advocacy for their sleep campaign reveals part of why we are driving ourselves to exhaustion. The pair argue, rightly, that: “The problem is that women often feel that they still don’t ‘belong’ in the boys-club atmosphere that still dominates many workplaces. So they often attempt to compensate by working harder and longer than the next guy. Hard work helps women to fit in and gain a measure of security. And because it works, they begin to do more and more of it until they can’t stop. But it’s a Pyrrhic victory: the workaholism leads to lack of sleep, which in turn leads to never being able to do your best. In fact, many women do this on purpose, fuelled by the mistaken idea that getting enough sleep means you must be lazy or less than passionate about your work and your life.”
Related Links
If we sleep more, they argue, women will become more powerful. “After all, we’ve already broken glass ceilings in Congress, space travel, sports, business and the media — just imagine what we can do when we’re fully awake.”
This is true, and important. But I think we need to add another set of reasons to persuade women to drop it all for a bit and take a nap. For 20 years, the powerhouse feminists of the West have been superheroines: Huffington and Leive rightly cite examples ranging from Madonna and her musculature to the ladies of Congress, but then argue that if we just slept more we could do more.
Read more here.......
(I for one wish some Feminist would sleep all day long. Even if we heard them snoring it would be better than the incessant lies and nagging they do. NOW Get some sleep!)
Sleep, say US feminists, is the next big issue for women to address — doing less and enjoying more duvet time is the way to go
Just as Virginia Woolf noted in A Room of One’s Own that one can’t “think well, write well, love well” if one has not “dined well”, so it would seem that women in particular can’t function well if they haven’t slept well. Two of America’s leading feminist super-achievers are on a crusade to get us all to have a lie in, or at least to take a nap.
Arianna Huffington, the powerhouse publisher of The Huffington Post, and Cindi Leive, the equally indomitable publisher of Glamour, have joined forces to identify women’s sleep deprivation as “the next feminist issue”. They cite studies that indicate that women are more sleep-deprived than men, including one that says American women are getting 90 minutes less than the seven to eight hours recommended for someone to be well and perform well.
The pair make a persuasive case that female exhaustion is undermining women’s creativity, judgment, and relationships. What does it profit us to win the whole world only to experience it cranky and irrational from fatigue?
But much as I admire Huffington and Leive, their advocacy for their sleep campaign reveals part of why we are driving ourselves to exhaustion. The pair argue, rightly, that: “The problem is that women often feel that they still don’t ‘belong’ in the boys-club atmosphere that still dominates many workplaces. So they often attempt to compensate by working harder and longer than the next guy. Hard work helps women to fit in and gain a measure of security. And because it works, they begin to do more and more of it until they can’t stop. But it’s a Pyrrhic victory: the workaholism leads to lack of sleep, which in turn leads to never being able to do your best. In fact, many women do this on purpose, fuelled by the mistaken idea that getting enough sleep means you must be lazy or less than passionate about your work and your life.”
Related Links
If we sleep more, they argue, women will become more powerful. “After all, we’ve already broken glass ceilings in Congress, space travel, sports, business and the media — just imagine what we can do when we’re fully awake.”
This is true, and important. But I think we need to add another set of reasons to persuade women to drop it all for a bit and take a nap. For 20 years, the powerhouse feminists of the West have been superheroines: Huffington and Leive rightly cite examples ranging from Madonna and her musculature to the ladies of Congress, but then argue that if we just slept more we could do more.
Read more here.......
(I for one wish some Feminist would sleep all day long. Even if we heard them snoring it would be better than the incessant lies and nagging they do. NOW Get some sleep!)
Feb 4, 2010
Tim Tebow's 30-second Super Bowl ad
Tim Tebow's 30-second Super Bowl ad has already provoked plenty of criticism.
(Dave Martin/AP)
By Sally Jenkins, Washington Post Staff Writer
February 2, 2010
I'll spit this out quick, before the armies of feminism try to gag me and strap electrodes to my forehead: Tim Tebow is one of the better things to happen to young women in some time. I realize this stance won't endear me to the "Dwindling Organizations of Ladies in Lockstep," otherwise known as DOLL, but I'll try to pick up the shards of my shattered feminist credentials and go on.
This Story
* How to be pro-choice on Super Bowl Sunday
* Ad bringing Super Bowl into the culture wars
* Super Bowl ad isn't intolerant; its critics are
As statements at Super Bowls go, I prefer the idea of Tebow's pro-life ad to, say, Jim McMahon dropping his pants, as the former Chicago Bears quarterback once did in response to a question. We're always harping on athletes to be more responsible and engaged in the issues of their day, and less concerned with just cashing checks. It therefore seems more than a little hypocritical to insist on it only if it means criticizing sneaker companies, and to stifle them when they take a stance that might make us uncomfortable.
I'm pro-choice, and Tebow clearly is not. But based on what I've heard in the past week, I'll take his side against the group-think, elitism and condescension of the "National Organization of Fewer and Fewer Women All The Time." For one thing, Tebow seems smarter than they do.
Tebow's 30-second ad hasn't even run yet, but it already has provoked "The National Organization for Women Who Only Think Like Us" to reveal something important about themselves: They aren't actually "pro-choice" so much as they are pro-abortion. Pam Tebow has a genuine pro-choice story to tell. She got pregnant in 1987, post-Roe v. Wade, and while on a Christian mission in the Philippines, she contracted a tropical ailment. Doctors advised her the pregnancy could be dangerous, but she exercised her freedom of choice and now, 20-some years later, the outcome of that choice is her beauteous Heisman Trophy winner son, a chaste, proselytizing evangelical.
Pam Tebow and her son feel good enough about that choice to want to tell people about it. Only, NOW says they shouldn't be allowed to. Apparently NOW feels this commercial is an inappropriate message for America to see for 30 seconds, but women in bikinis selling beer is the right one..
Skipo......
Tebow's ad, by the way, never mentions abortion; like the player himself, it's apparently soft-spoken. It simply has the theme "Celebrate Family, Celebrate Life." This is what NOW has labeled "extraordinarily offensive and demeaning." But if there is any demeaning here, it's coming from NOW, via the suggestion that these aren't real questions, and that we as a Super Bowl audience are too stupid or too disinterested to handle them on game day.
(I thought Feminist hated the super bowl?.. Ah.. who cares!)
Read more here.........
(Sally proves that unlike feminist she disagree without getting mad. I luv her reference to NOW, "National Organization of Fewer and Fewer Women All The Time" or the, "Dwindling Organizations of Ladies in Lockstep," otherwise known as DOLL. Nice Call by Sally)
I'm a Gator Fan also but I got to shout out a "Roll Tide Roll!"
(Dave Martin/AP)
By Sally Jenkins, Washington Post Staff Writer
February 2, 2010
I'll spit this out quick, before the armies of feminism try to gag me and strap electrodes to my forehead: Tim Tebow is one of the better things to happen to young women in some time. I realize this stance won't endear me to the "Dwindling Organizations of Ladies in Lockstep," otherwise known as DOLL, but I'll try to pick up the shards of my shattered feminist credentials and go on.
This Story
* How to be pro-choice on Super Bowl Sunday
* Ad bringing Super Bowl into the culture wars
* Super Bowl ad isn't intolerant; its critics are
As statements at Super Bowls go, I prefer the idea of Tebow's pro-life ad to, say, Jim McMahon dropping his pants, as the former Chicago Bears quarterback once did in response to a question. We're always harping on athletes to be more responsible and engaged in the issues of their day, and less concerned with just cashing checks. It therefore seems more than a little hypocritical to insist on it only if it means criticizing sneaker companies, and to stifle them when they take a stance that might make us uncomfortable.
I'm pro-choice, and Tebow clearly is not. But based on what I've heard in the past week, I'll take his side against the group-think, elitism and condescension of the "National Organization of Fewer and Fewer Women All The Time." For one thing, Tebow seems smarter than they do.
Tebow's 30-second ad hasn't even run yet, but it already has provoked "The National Organization for Women Who Only Think Like Us" to reveal something important about themselves: They aren't actually "pro-choice" so much as they are pro-abortion. Pam Tebow has a genuine pro-choice story to tell. She got pregnant in 1987, post-Roe v. Wade, and while on a Christian mission in the Philippines, she contracted a tropical ailment. Doctors advised her the pregnancy could be dangerous, but she exercised her freedom of choice and now, 20-some years later, the outcome of that choice is her beauteous Heisman Trophy winner son, a chaste, proselytizing evangelical.
Pam Tebow and her son feel good enough about that choice to want to tell people about it. Only, NOW says they shouldn't be allowed to. Apparently NOW feels this commercial is an inappropriate message for America to see for 30 seconds, but women in bikinis selling beer is the right one..
Skipo......
Tebow's ad, by the way, never mentions abortion; like the player himself, it's apparently soft-spoken. It simply has the theme "Celebrate Family, Celebrate Life." This is what NOW has labeled "extraordinarily offensive and demeaning." But if there is any demeaning here, it's coming from NOW, via the suggestion that these aren't real questions, and that we as a Super Bowl audience are too stupid or too disinterested to handle them on game day.
(I thought Feminist hated the super bowl?.. Ah.. who cares!)
Read more here.........
(Sally proves that unlike feminist she disagree without getting mad. I luv her reference to NOW, "National Organization of Fewer and Fewer Women All The Time" or the, "Dwindling Organizations of Ladies in Lockstep," otherwise known as DOLL. Nice Call by Sally)
I'm a Gator Fan also but I got to shout out a "Roll Tide Roll!"
Feb 2, 2010
Action Alert Standing with men of Scotland
Misandry in DV Enforcement OK with Dept. of Justice; Men in Scotland Disagree
January 15th, 2010 by Robert Franklin, Esq.
Here's a petition that's worth signing. It seems that the Scottish Parliament is amenable to actually hearing from citizens about topics that are important to them. So this organization that calls itself Men in Scotland has a petition on domestic violence. Here it is in full:
Calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to ensure that all publicly funded action (campaigns, publications, action plans, projects, training programmes, etc.) on domestic abuse/violence are overhauled to fully acknowledge the extent to which men are at the receiving end and to address the needs of male victims and their children.
As you can see, it's a modest request - that public monies be spent so as to publicize and deal with domestic violence in ways that reflect its actual occurrence. That would seem to be not only the most basic common sense and the most basic fairness, but also the most intelligent way of trying to lessen the incidence and impact of DV. After all, if you ignore half the victims and half the perpetrators, you're not going to address the issue completely.
Into the bargain, here in the States, we've some impressive studies that show that the surest way for a woman to avoid becoming a victim of DV is to not initiate a physical fight with her partner. So by pretending that women don't commit domestic violence, we remove from those very women the most important tool they have for avoiding injury at the hands of a partner.
The petition can be signed by anyone; you don't have to live in Scotland to do so.
And here's a little item from the U.S. While Men in Scotland is trying to make DV law and practice gender-neutral, we in the U.S. already have policies in place to prevent just that. It's a publication by the Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice. It's a gem.
Read more here.......
January 15th, 2010 by Robert Franklin, Esq.
Here's a petition that's worth signing. It seems that the Scottish Parliament is amenable to actually hearing from citizens about topics that are important to them. So this organization that calls itself Men in Scotland has a petition on domestic violence. Here it is in full:
Calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to ensure that all publicly funded action (campaigns, publications, action plans, projects, training programmes, etc.) on domestic abuse/violence are overhauled to fully acknowledge the extent to which men are at the receiving end and to address the needs of male victims and their children.
As you can see, it's a modest request - that public monies be spent so as to publicize and deal with domestic violence in ways that reflect its actual occurrence. That would seem to be not only the most basic common sense and the most basic fairness, but also the most intelligent way of trying to lessen the incidence and impact of DV. After all, if you ignore half the victims and half the perpetrators, you're not going to address the issue completely.
Into the bargain, here in the States, we've some impressive studies that show that the surest way for a woman to avoid becoming a victim of DV is to not initiate a physical fight with her partner. So by pretending that women don't commit domestic violence, we remove from those very women the most important tool they have for avoiding injury at the hands of a partner.
The petition can be signed by anyone; you don't have to live in Scotland to do so.
And here's a little item from the U.S. While Men in Scotland is trying to make DV law and practice gender-neutral, we in the U.S. already have policies in place to prevent just that. It's a publication by the Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice. It's a gem.
Read more here.......
Action Alert: Psychology Today Praises Woman Who Murdered Her Husband as ‘Great Revenge’
Action Alert: Psychology Today Praises Woman Who Murdered Her Husband as ‘Great Revenge’
February 1st, 2010 by Glenn Sacks, MA, Executive Director
Fathers & Families is sending the protest letter below to Psychology Today via regular US mail and email. To add your signature to the letter and send it to Psychology Today, simply click here and fill out the fields.
Letter from Fathers & Families to Psychology Today:
Kaja Perina
Editor-in-Chief
Psychology Today
115 E. 23rd St., 9th Floor
New York, NY 10010
212-260-7210
Dear Ms. Perina & Psychology Today:
In the shockingly irresponsible article “Sweet Revenge” (Psychology Today, January/February 2010), Regina Barreca, Ph.D. praises convicted Texas killer Clara Harris for her “great moment of revenge.” The act for which Barreca praises Harris? In 2002, Harris repeatedly ran over her ex-husband David, as David’s daughter Lindsey sat in the front seat of the car begging Clara Harris not to kill her father.
While Barreca praises Clara Harris, Lindsey, who loved her father and was only 16 years old at the time of the killing, publicly denounced Clara Harris for “the ultimate act of selfishness, caring only about obtaining revenge and thinking not one bit about how her horrible act was going to affect me or my brothers, Brian and Bradley. Anyone who shared my ride in the car that evening, seeing my dad’s face as he was about to be hit, and experiencing the horrible feel of the car bumping over his body would understand that this murderess deserves no sympathy.”
Lindsey says that Clara mistreated and neglected David, and that her father often confided in her how lonely he felt. Coupled with Clara’s temper and evident capacity for violence, David had ample reason to want to get out of the relationship. Instead of letting him go, Clara killed him. Does Psychology Today feel this is praiseworthy?
More from Fathers & Families
(This is just wrong. How can they be considered a genuine group of professionals with such poor judgment?)
February 1st, 2010 by Glenn Sacks, MA, Executive Director
Fathers & Families is sending the protest letter below to Psychology Today via regular US mail and email. To add your signature to the letter and send it to Psychology Today, simply click here and fill out the fields.
Letter from Fathers & Families to Psychology Today:
Kaja Perina
Editor-in-Chief
Psychology Today
115 E. 23rd St., 9th Floor
New York, NY 10010
212-260-7210
Dear Ms. Perina & Psychology Today:
In the shockingly irresponsible article “Sweet Revenge” (Psychology Today, January/February 2010), Regina Barreca, Ph.D. praises convicted Texas killer Clara Harris for her “great moment of revenge.” The act for which Barreca praises Harris? In 2002, Harris repeatedly ran over her ex-husband David, as David’s daughter Lindsey sat in the front seat of the car begging Clara Harris not to kill her father.
While Barreca praises Clara Harris, Lindsey, who loved her father and was only 16 years old at the time of the killing, publicly denounced Clara Harris for “the ultimate act of selfishness, caring only about obtaining revenge and thinking not one bit about how her horrible act was going to affect me or my brothers, Brian and Bradley. Anyone who shared my ride in the car that evening, seeing my dad’s face as he was about to be hit, and experiencing the horrible feel of the car bumping over his body would understand that this murderess deserves no sympathy.”
Lindsey says that Clara mistreated and neglected David, and that her father often confided in her how lonely he felt. Coupled with Clara’s temper and evident capacity for violence, David had ample reason to want to get out of the relationship. Instead of letting him go, Clara killed him. Does Psychology Today feel this is praiseworthy?
More from Fathers & Families
(This is just wrong. How can they be considered a genuine group of professionals with such poor judgment?)
UK: Arrested Dads Get Apology, Compensation
January 15th, 2010 by Robert Franklin, Esq.
Almost two years ago, in March of 2008, three men were arrested in Wolverhampton, U.K. Their crime? Distributing leaflets protesting abuse of fathers by that country's family courts and police. Their protest was at all times peaceful and lawful, but the police didn't like it, so off to jail they went. Of course none was convicted of any offense, but to the police, that was probably not the point. The point was to quash dissent and arrest alone effectively accomplished that. Read an account here.
At the time, Glenn did a couple of pieces on the men and their protest here and here.
Now it turns out the police have completed their investigation into their own misbehavior and found that what they (the police) did was wrong. They've issued a public apology to the three men and paid compensation.
As this article says, it's a small victory, but the larger picture must include the initial police response which was to arrest three fathers who weren't even arguably doing anything wrong. Apologies and compensation are nice; sending a clear message that, if you dare to publicize the many abuses of family courts, you will go to jail, is yet another.
From Glen Sacks Website
(It's great they admit wrong doing here. The police need to follow the laws and not just make one up when they want to throw some men in jail)
Almost two years ago, in March of 2008, three men were arrested in Wolverhampton, U.K. Their crime? Distributing leaflets protesting abuse of fathers by that country's family courts and police. Their protest was at all times peaceful and lawful, but the police didn't like it, so off to jail they went. Of course none was convicted of any offense, but to the police, that was probably not the point. The point was to quash dissent and arrest alone effectively accomplished that. Read an account here.
At the time, Glenn did a couple of pieces on the men and their protest here and here.
Now it turns out the police have completed their investigation into their own misbehavior and found that what they (the police) did was wrong. They've issued a public apology to the three men and paid compensation.
As this article says, it's a small victory, but the larger picture must include the initial police response which was to arrest three fathers who weren't even arguably doing anything wrong. Apologies and compensation are nice; sending a clear message that, if you dare to publicize the many abuses of family courts, you will go to jail, is yet another.
From Glen Sacks Website
(It's great they admit wrong doing here. The police need to follow the laws and not just make one up when they want to throw some men in jail)
Wise girls settle for Mr Good Enough
Lori Gottlieb’s marriage advice has caused a storm. She tells us why women should get real about romance
Leah McLaren
According to Jewish lore, anyone who sets up three successful matches secures a place in heaven. If that’s so, the queen of heavenly matchmakers must be Lori Gottlieb, author of Marry Him: The Case for Settling for Mr Good Enough. Indeed, I owe my own marriage, in part, to Gottlieb. It wasn’t her match-making skills but her straight talk that helped me down the aisle.
The point of her new book, due out in Britain this spring, is that many single women get to a state of desperation in searching for a husband because they don’t make wise decisions early on, such as dating dependable men rather than handsome cads — the sort who take you to bed for six months, spend your money, rip out your heart and stomp it to a bloody pulp.
When I speak to Gottlieb for her first British interview, I tell her that my mother sent me the original 2008 magazine article on which her book is based within, oh, about five minutes of publication. In the article Gottlieb wrote of her deep regret at having passed on all the nice guys in her thirties in the search for allconsuming love.
Her stark message ran directly counter to the neofeminist Sex and the Cityperpetuated mantra that we should all hold out for The One because we’re worth it. “Don’t worry about passion or intense connection,” Gottlieb wrote, “because if you want to have the infrastructure in place to have a family, settling is the way to go.
“Based on my observations, settling will probably make you happier in the long run, since many of those who marry with great expectations become more disillusioned with each passing year.”
Her words set off a furore that the book has now reignited. Last week, as Marry Him came out in America, the papers were full of thirtysomethings passionately arguing that every girl should hold out for Mr Perfect against others who believe practicality rules: that Mr Second Best is better than Mr Nobody.
I married my husband for love but I’d be lying if I said that Gottlieb’s dry-eyed observation that family life is not about bodice-ripping passion but akin to “running a small tedious non-profit business” didn’t affect me. Besides, at 33 I wasn’t getting any younger. Woe betide the naive singleton who assumes her choice of men will widen, rather than narrow, with time.
“The truth is, once you’re closing in on 40 you can certainly find love and companionship and all those things but it’s probably going to look different from what you imagined,” Gottlieb says. “I look at my friends who got married later on and I look at who they married and let me tell you, it’s very different from who they would have married 10 years earlier.”
skipo.......
“Feminism gave women this sense of entitlement that we deserve someone who’s perfect. And then we meet the so-called perfect guy and he’s out of our league and has no interest in us and we tell our girlfriends, ‘He must be secretly gay’ when in fact he’s just really not that into us,” she says
(shocked that she blames feminism for giving women a entitlement mentality)
Much more of reading here...
(Pssst... Think about it... Don't wait around and possibly get passed up when you can always bail later with all his assets)
Very interesting comments. How many guys would marry knowing she thinks she deserved better than you and she was just settling for Mr. NonRight?
Leah McLaren
According to Jewish lore, anyone who sets up three successful matches secures a place in heaven. If that’s so, the queen of heavenly matchmakers must be Lori Gottlieb, author of Marry Him: The Case for Settling for Mr Good Enough. Indeed, I owe my own marriage, in part, to Gottlieb. It wasn’t her match-making skills but her straight talk that helped me down the aisle.
The point of her new book, due out in Britain this spring, is that many single women get to a state of desperation in searching for a husband because they don’t make wise decisions early on, such as dating dependable men rather than handsome cads — the sort who take you to bed for six months, spend your money, rip out your heart and stomp it to a bloody pulp.
When I speak to Gottlieb for her first British interview, I tell her that my mother sent me the original 2008 magazine article on which her book is based within, oh, about five minutes of publication. In the article Gottlieb wrote of her deep regret at having passed on all the nice guys in her thirties in the search for allconsuming love.
Her stark message ran directly counter to the neofeminist Sex and the Cityperpetuated mantra that we should all hold out for The One because we’re worth it. “Don’t worry about passion or intense connection,” Gottlieb wrote, “because if you want to have the infrastructure in place to have a family, settling is the way to go.
“Based on my observations, settling will probably make you happier in the long run, since many of those who marry with great expectations become more disillusioned with each passing year.”
Her words set off a furore that the book has now reignited. Last week, as Marry Him came out in America, the papers were full of thirtysomethings passionately arguing that every girl should hold out for Mr Perfect against others who believe practicality rules: that Mr Second Best is better than Mr Nobody.
I married my husband for love but I’d be lying if I said that Gottlieb’s dry-eyed observation that family life is not about bodice-ripping passion but akin to “running a small tedious non-profit business” didn’t affect me. Besides, at 33 I wasn’t getting any younger. Woe betide the naive singleton who assumes her choice of men will widen, rather than narrow, with time.
“The truth is, once you’re closing in on 40 you can certainly find love and companionship and all those things but it’s probably going to look different from what you imagined,” Gottlieb says. “I look at my friends who got married later on and I look at who they married and let me tell you, it’s very different from who they would have married 10 years earlier.”
skipo.......
“Feminism gave women this sense of entitlement that we deserve someone who’s perfect. And then we meet the so-called perfect guy and he’s out of our league and has no interest in us and we tell our girlfriends, ‘He must be secretly gay’ when in fact he’s just really not that into us,” she says
(shocked that she blames feminism for giving women a entitlement mentality)
Much more of reading here...
(Pssst... Think about it... Don't wait around and possibly get passed up when you can always bail later with all his assets)
Very interesting comments. How many guys would marry knowing she thinks she deserved better than you and she was just settling for Mr. NonRight?
Divorce rate falls to a 33-year low
Experts say the decline is due to couples marrying later in life
Rosemary Bennett, Social Affairs Correspondent
The number of marriages ending in divorce has dropped for the fifth year in a row to a 33-year low.
There were 121,779 divorces in 2008, down 5 per cent from 128,232 the year before. The number of divorces peaked in 2003 at 153,176.
Experts said that the fall was a result of people delaying getting married until they were older and perhaps more realistic.
Since 1961 the average age of marriage has increased by more than five years to 30 for men and 28 for women.
There are fewer marriages taking place. The number of weddings is lower than in 1895 when records began.
However the divorce rate for some groups did increase, including men over 60 and women aged 50-59, figures from the Office for National Statistics showed.
Read more of this article...
(Signs of the Marriage Strike is showing)
From One Commenter:
Azi Pharel wrote:
Went to the lawyer and asked how much it would cost me to walk away from the completely crazed woman into which my wife has turned. A year later, I am still here, saving money.
Rosemary Bennett, Social Affairs Correspondent
The number of marriages ending in divorce has dropped for the fifth year in a row to a 33-year low.
There were 121,779 divorces in 2008, down 5 per cent from 128,232 the year before. The number of divorces peaked in 2003 at 153,176.
Experts said that the fall was a result of people delaying getting married until they were older and perhaps more realistic.
Since 1961 the average age of marriage has increased by more than five years to 30 for men and 28 for women.
There are fewer marriages taking place. The number of weddings is lower than in 1895 when records began.
However the divorce rate for some groups did increase, including men over 60 and women aged 50-59, figures from the Office for National Statistics showed.
Read more of this article...
(Signs of the Marriage Strike is showing)
From One Commenter:
Azi Pharel wrote:
Went to the lawyer and asked how much it would cost me to walk away from the completely crazed woman into which my wife has turned. A year later, I am still here, saving money.
Feb 1, 2010
The trouble with women: they're never content
There are happy moments, but no contentment-
I have been with my wife for 10 happy years, but the one issue that endures is that she is never satisfied. There are moments of happiness (for example, at our marriage, at the birth of our children, when she laughs with her girlfriends). But contentment? Longer, more stable periods of positivity? Never. Purchasing shoes and clothes has not made her content (except for that initial 24-hour thrill), nor haircuts (despite heavy investment therein), nor meals (regardless of cost), nor any gift (especially if it was spontaneous). And definitely not other people’s driving. But that’s another story.
The problem is this constant striving for perfection — there’s such a fine line between getting it spot-on or plain unsatisfactory. She wants to train the children to be perfect as well, and because we have two boys, they’re not. They don’t feel the need to make a bed, for example, or be tidy.
Men are like happy dogs, women like temperamental cats. Men can find contentment. Meanwhile, my wife is constantly striving and impatient for better things that don’t make her content anyway. So much of her quest for perfection is about presentation. City living makes it worse, as there’s a lot of peer pressure. I know there are demands, and society is pretty unrealistic about some of them, but I’m finding this steady grip of discontent increasingly dispiriting. I go through phases of either keeping quiet or discussing it. I tell her that if she looks at the world, and even at this country, we’re in a very good place — as successful people, we should be content with our lot. But nothing changes.
My wife doesn’t work any more, and used to hold a senior position in the civil service. Perhaps a working life satisfies one’s needs more and keeps things in perspective; perhaps her perfectionism is a replacement for that loss of status and stimulation. But I think something even deeper is at play. Maybe it goes back to one’s school days — women overachieve at school and at work. (That's a gross exaggeration. I've known very few to overachieve at work)
For More goto the Source
She is never satisfied?
(I hope this guy hasn't been so sheltered that he thinks this is an isolated case with women. With women filing over 70% of all divorces and poles showing women admit to cheating on their spouse at a similar rate I would say that the majority of woman are never satisfied. Haven't men been saying this for centuries now?)
~comments~
-Alastair Telford wrote:
This is most definately a gender issue.
In todays world, women have more choice than ever before and some would argue that they have far too much choice.
Things such as the mobile phone play right into the hands of womens "want" to win the psychological war between the sexes. Women are successfully turning a world of yes/no into a world of possibly/maybe.
I personally find a lot of young English women excessively picky, arrogant, self-absorbed and ultimately empty.
(Alastair's seems to be describing young American women too)
-The Runaway Found wrote:
Part of the problem is that whilst men are expected to guess what a woman is thinking and react accordingly, women themselves don't actually know what they want. I have yet to meet a woman who disagrees with that theory.
I have been with my wife for 10 happy years, but the one issue that endures is that she is never satisfied. There are moments of happiness (for example, at our marriage, at the birth of our children, when she laughs with her girlfriends). But contentment? Longer, more stable periods of positivity? Never. Purchasing shoes and clothes has not made her content (except for that initial 24-hour thrill), nor haircuts (despite heavy investment therein), nor meals (regardless of cost), nor any gift (especially if it was spontaneous). And definitely not other people’s driving. But that’s another story.
The problem is this constant striving for perfection — there’s such a fine line between getting it spot-on or plain unsatisfactory. She wants to train the children to be perfect as well, and because we have two boys, they’re not. They don’t feel the need to make a bed, for example, or be tidy.
Men are like happy dogs, women like temperamental cats. Men can find contentment. Meanwhile, my wife is constantly striving and impatient for better things that don’t make her content anyway. So much of her quest for perfection is about presentation. City living makes it worse, as there’s a lot of peer pressure. I know there are demands, and society is pretty unrealistic about some of them, but I’m finding this steady grip of discontent increasingly dispiriting. I go through phases of either keeping quiet or discussing it. I tell her that if she looks at the world, and even at this country, we’re in a very good place — as successful people, we should be content with our lot. But nothing changes.
My wife doesn’t work any more, and used to hold a senior position in the civil service. Perhaps a working life satisfies one’s needs more and keeps things in perspective; perhaps her perfectionism is a replacement for that loss of status and stimulation. But I think something even deeper is at play. Maybe it goes back to one’s school days — women overachieve at school and at work. (That's a gross exaggeration. I've known very few to overachieve at work)
For More goto the Source
She is never satisfied?
(I hope this guy hasn't been so sheltered that he thinks this is an isolated case with women. With women filing over 70% of all divorces and poles showing women admit to cheating on their spouse at a similar rate I would say that the majority of woman are never satisfied. Haven't men been saying this for centuries now?)
-Alastair Telford wrote:
This is most definately a gender issue.
In todays world, women have more choice than ever before and some would argue that they have far too much choice.
Things such as the mobile phone play right into the hands of womens "want" to win the psychological war between the sexes. Women are successfully turning a world of yes/no into a world of possibly/maybe.
I personally find a lot of young English women excessively picky, arrogant, self-absorbed and ultimately empty.
(Alastair's seems to be describing young American women too)
-The Runaway Found wrote:
Part of the problem is that whilst men are expected to guess what a woman is thinking and react accordingly, women themselves don't actually know what they want. I have yet to meet a woman who disagrees with that theory.
Finally, the Seneca Falls for Men’s Rights!
Finally, the Seneca Falls for Men’s Rights!
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
By Paul Elam
Imagine that one day you see, in all seriousness, an announcement regarding the upstart of a male studies program at a major university that has been developed to address, research and educate people on the effects of misandry that is practiced against men and boys across the western world.
Now imagine that day is almost literally upon us.
The banner says, “Heads Will Turn,” and turn they will. Some, indeed, will be spinning.
Consider for a moment the implications of what male studies programs, real male studies programs, will mean. For as long as there have been women’s studies programs at major universities they have provided the research that all of us have seen repeated constantly by the media, and which lawmakers have used to create legislation that has served a slanted agenda in favor of women, often at the expense of men and boys.
Click here to read the entire article
www.malestudies.org
(The feminist groups will have nightmares over this, which serves them right but they won't sleep til they do everything they can to shut it down. You can believe that whores will be sent in an effort to blackmail the head of this group. I hope there leaders are keen to the tricks of the feminuts.)
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
By Paul Elam
Imagine that one day you see, in all seriousness, an announcement regarding the upstart of a male studies program at a major university that has been developed to address, research and educate people on the effects of misandry that is practiced against men and boys across the western world.
Now imagine that day is almost literally upon us.
The banner says, “Heads Will Turn,” and turn they will. Some, indeed, will be spinning.
Consider for a moment the implications of what male studies programs, real male studies programs, will mean. For as long as there have been women’s studies programs at major universities they have provided the research that all of us have seen repeated constantly by the media, and which lawmakers have used to create legislation that has served a slanted agenda in favor of women, often at the expense of men and boys.
Click here to read the entire article
www.malestudies.org
(The feminist groups will have nightmares over this, which serves them right but they won't sleep til they do everything they can to shut it down. You can believe that whores will be sent in an effort to blackmail the head of this group. I hope there leaders are keen to the tricks of the feminuts.)
In Maine, It Doesn’t Pay to be a Man
In Maine, It Doesn’t Pay to be a Man
Monday, February 1, 2010
By Carey Roberts
Practically everyone in town knows Amy Dugas is a serial batterer. But the Maine criminal justice system keeps finding ways to keep her from facing the music.
In 2004 Amy assaulted her husband Mark in their home in Waldoboro. When the police officer came to arrest her, she kicked him in the groin. The judge released her on bail, ordering her to refrain from using weapons. Four months later she stabbed Mark with a foot-long kitchen knife, fatally severing his pulmonary artery. At the trial, she got away with the trusty I-feared-for-my-life alibi.
click here to read more of this article..
Monday, February 1, 2010
By Carey Roberts
Practically everyone in town knows Amy Dugas is a serial batterer. But the Maine criminal justice system keeps finding ways to keep her from facing the music.
In 2004 Amy assaulted her husband Mark in their home in Waldoboro. When the police officer came to arrest her, she kicked him in the groin. The judge released her on bail, ordering her to refrain from using weapons. Four months later she stabbed Mark with a foot-long kitchen knife, fatally severing his pulmonary artery. At the trial, she got away with the trusty I-feared-for-my-life alibi.
click here to read more of this article..
Calif. girl recants kidnap-rape story
Calif. girl recants kidnap-rape story
Monday, January 18, 2010
By Sandy Kleffman and Lisa Vorderbrueggen, San Jose Mercury News
SAN JOSE, Calif. -- A 15-year-old Richmond, Calif., girl who said she was abducted at gunpoint from a public street Friday and raped by two men has acknowledged that she fabricated the story, police said yesterday.
Click here to Read More on this story....
Women don't care about Rape. It seems that one false rape story occurs every week somewhere in the western world. Do any parents teach these girls that lying is wrong anymore?
Where is all the great compassion we are told that females have when so many young women willingly drag innocent men into a judicial nightmare and even a potential ass raping behind some jail bars just for attention or to get out of trouble?
No, it does not appear that women really care about rape.
They have no concern about it at all.
Monday, January 18, 2010
By Sandy Kleffman and Lisa Vorderbrueggen, San Jose Mercury News
SAN JOSE, Calif. -- A 15-year-old Richmond, Calif., girl who said she was abducted at gunpoint from a public street Friday and raped by two men has acknowledged that she fabricated the story, police said yesterday.
Click here to Read More on this story....
Women don't care about Rape. It seems that one false rape story occurs every week somewhere in the western world. Do any parents teach these girls that lying is wrong anymore?
Where is all the great compassion we are told that females have when so many young women willingly drag innocent men into a judicial nightmare and even a potential ass raping behind some jail bars just for attention or to get out of trouble?
No, it does not appear that women really care about rape.
They have no concern about it at all.
Equality?
Equality. That's what the women really want?
Don't think so. Privilege, she wants more privilege.
Why don't they just so that? It is just as easy to say as equality.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
