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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
