What I really need to go with that is, like, a Wanted! Dead or Alive! poster. I thought about whipping one up but ultimately decided against it–I’m not a good enough PhotoShopper to get the slavering fangs to look realistic, as it turns out.
Where is this coming from? My recent brief interest in Glenn Sacks, a professional concern troll who is apparently one of the favored few anti-feminists of two of my favorite feminist bloggers, Amanda at Pandagon and Hugo Schwyzer. Certainly I’ve heard of him before–he even made a brief appearance at our site a while back–and had glanced over one or two of his writings in the past, but after witnessing all the love flowing in his direction in a recent Hugo post, I decided that maybe I hadn’t really spent enough time and effort trying to make a mental connection. So, I spent an hour or two thumbing through his site today, and came to the conclusion that I haven’t been missing anything after all. No, really. Is he a good writer? Mos’ definitely. Is all of what he has to say total bullshit? Not at all. So why my (admittedly not overwhelming) distaste, rapidly faltering into disinterest?
Several reasons. One, thumbing through somebody’s blog gives you a kind of moving-picture impression of their most frequently used words and phrases–great for pattern recognition, even if that isn’t your conscious goal (as it wasn’t mine). I just couldn’t help but noticing after a rather startlingly brief period of time:
Feminists have a bad habit of conflating voluntary sexual relations with rape
Many divorcing fathers innocently expect sympathy from feminists
Of course, some day it would be nice to see a feminist sympathize with the devaluing of young and/or “invisible” low social status men
Modern extreme feminism…[has] always been in the interests only of the elite of women
Feminists are part of the problem
Feminists ignore credible men’s advocates and instead quote some obscure loony in order to discredit all of us
It is, in my mind, more evidence that modern feminists can always, always find some fault with men whose politics or views they don’t like
I try hard to be fair to feminists and to not impugn their motives
Misguided feminists do occasionally acknowledge the problems men face in our society
I started to get sick of the word “feminist,” and I am one! But the obsession clearly runs deep–these examples got pulled quite randomly from not too many pages into my Sacks-surfing foray. We have here at PunkAss a fine feminist blog, as you all know, but somehow not only do “men’s rights activists” not get obsessively blamed for every personal issue we here have with society, they hardly ever even come up. Oh, well, that’s not a fair comparison, though–feminism as a practiced theory is a lot more mainstream than “men’s rights” activism. A fairer comparison would be, how often do we here target “the patriarchy?” “The Patriarchy” is quite a mainstream concept in feminist subculture. So I did a search of our site which spit out the following results: 12 blog posts that mention “the patriarchy” in the last four months, 2 of which were a joke in the blog post title (for instance, violet entitles her post about computer self-repair “Somehow I’m Sure the Patriarchy Is to Blame!” = 1 mention of the word “patriarchy.”). Back to Glenn–how many of his blog posts in the past four months have mentioned “feminists?” Not wanting to laborously count ‘em up for all four months, I can say that he beat out 12 in the month of September alone.
Say you knew nothing of feminism and you went to his blog and caught the above random snippets–what would you think “feminism” was all about? If you toddled over to the dictionary and flipped it open to the definition of “feminism,” you wouldn’t find anything at all that agreed with what Glenn Sacks had to say about it, which would force you to conclude that either (a) the dictionary was written by feminists or (b) Glenn Sacks is either genuinely mistaken or outright lying about feminists. Erm, while I am sure there is an MRA out there somewhere who does, indeed, believe that the Feminist Conspiracy (tm!) has taken over the dictionaries too, I would hope that the rest of us aren’t quite that conspiracy-driven. If I want to put the nicest and most generous construction on the situation, it would be that Glenn, not having ever been a woman, is like many people who, if they themselves have never been in a particular situation, can’t quite believe that it’s as crappy as those who are in it say it is. I have a difficult time believing that this is due to a lack of intelligence, unless he regularly uses a ghost-writer; the writing itself is too clear, grammatically correct and just generally well-expressed for that. I could conclude instead that it is due to an utterly absorbed self-focus that excludes the possibility of anyone else having a genuine experience he, himself, cannot imagine having. I do try to stay away from “conspiracy theories” myself, you know, and I don’t know him personally in the slightest, so I will stop there with speculation as to the whys and continue on.
A second reason is his commenters. He has an interesting disclaimer on his website:
Note: The views expressed by readers in the reader comments do NOT necessarily reflect those of Glenn Sacks. The fact that the comment is posted on this blog does NOT signify that Glenn Sacks agrees with it. Posters’ views are those of the posters alone–Glenn’s views can ONLY be found in the blog post itself, not the comments.
We don’t have one of those. Neither do Amanda or Hugo. Nor does Feminsting or Shakesville, to name two other feminist blogsites Glenn mentions. Why would he feel the need to distance himself from his commenters? It reminded me of an incident not TOO long past, when I made the innocent misstep of writing a blog about a conservative Australian commentator of whom I’d never heard named Tim Blair. Apparently, this guy gets so excited when he’s mentioned that he actually not only keeps track of such mentions but also posts a blog highlighting said blogger’s site where he is mentioned. I found myself suddenly, um, notorious. (An interesting experience, not unlike the time when I was 23 and went to a nightclub that, unbeknownst to me, catered to the over-35 business crowd. Well, the sense of undesired and intense scrunity lasting for hours was eerily reminiscent, anyway.) It didn’t last, but the following exchange in the (rather lengthy!) comments section of my blog post springs to mind:
Scott (fervent Tim Blair fan)Now relax, honey. Mean old Timmy didn’t mean anything by it.
It’s funny that when Conservatives write in a humorous fashion, it’s generally to make fun of Libs words and actions. Libs write humor when it comes to things like Robert Novak or Tony Snow (or Tim Blair) being diagnosed with cancer. Ha ha…right libs?
Expand your horizons beyond the Huff Po, Daily Kos and MyDD and read P.J. O’Rourke’s All the Trouble in the World or Eat the Rich and compare that to every lib author. P.J. is light years ahead and I guarantee even your closed “progressive” mind will allow you to laugh out loud, something most libs do rarely unless it’s a joke about Reagan in hell or someone nicknaming the current president McChimpyhaliburton or something clever like that.
Lisa: I almost never read HuffPo or Daily Kos and I’ve never read MyDD–if you’re interested in what I do read, feel free to check out the blogrolls on the upper left of the home page. I have periodically perused the sad efforts of conservative wingnuts to be “humorous;” given that said “humor” generally requires thinking that putting down some subset of humanity defined by a specific race, gender, ethnicity, or sexual orientation is just screamingly hilarious, it just ain’t my cup of tea.
Scott (fervent Tim Blair fan): Lisa, name one major or even semi-major Conservative blog that puts down or jokes of ones sexual orientation, ethnic makeup or gender. Hell, I’d be the first to out them for the racist, misogynistic, gay-baiting scumbags they are.
Confessions (another commenter): i notice you’ve omitted racial overtones. i am assuming an oversight, and am linking this from our very own man in question timmy blair.
http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s1954733.htm
Scott (fervent Tim Blair fan): About what I expected, Confessions. I said to point to a specific blogger who espouses racist, misogynistic or other low-life type sentiments. Instead you point me to Media Watch and condemn Blair for comments made by readers.
I remember that exchange because I remember thinking, It’s funny how many of a specific breed of blogger, and their associates, feel the need to make this distinction…then an old quote sprang to mind: “By their friends ye shall know them.” Or, if a lot of unrelated people who you don’t know personally of a certain mindset just love you to death, is it really possible that their shared mindset has nothing to do with you or what you espouse at all? So, here’s the shared mindset that just loves Glenn Sacks:
So that would mean whoring around to catch a rich man to marry, like straight women do, or leaching onto a man for drinks and dinners, like straight women do – they call it “dating’ – or expecting a man to go out and do all the dangerous and dirty work in life so she can sit at home on her ass complaining to her spoiled friends about how unfulfilled she is in her marriage, like straight women do. Yeah, maybe she’ll turn from her evil ways and start to act all moral like that.
From Gary McCoy in Parade magazine. Thanks to Rick, a reader, for sending it.
I won’t speak for everyone, but the following is how I see it. If men indeed have a higher sex drive than women (as suggested by Baumeister, Catanese, and Vohs. 2001. Personality and social psychology review. volume 5. 242-273), then this sexual disparity will lead to different (and equally negative) experiences for both men and women. While women may be prone to endure too much unwanted sexual attention, men may also be prone to endure too much unwanted sexual rejection.
However, I do think women dressing provocatively should be convicted of sexual harassment every bit as much as a man for saying something sexual.
I could do this all night, but I’m disinclined to. The examples are extraordinarily numerous. The point being, these are the guys that love Glenn, that feel Glenn speaks for them, that religiously read his articles and vigorously support him. What does that say about Glenn?
To reconnect this post to the original title, I was banned from an MRA site some years back. I had ended up on the site in the first place during my very first foray into the feminist blogosphere by a guy who said he thought, for a feminist, I had an open and logical mind (oh, those lovely backhanded compliments! gotta love ‘em) and he suggested I stop by this particular site. I was intrigued; I felt I knew absolutely nothing (and I was right) about how men who felt disadvantaged by society due to their gender thought and since I was invited by one of the site’s participants, I figured I couldn’t count as a troll. I posted there for, um, I think less than two years but more than one year (it’s been a long time, sorry!). And then I was banned.
The reason this pops to mind is the following Sacksism, which caught my eye while I was perusing the site:
November 9th, 2007 by Glenn Sacks
Background: Last month feminist bloggers Amanda Marcotte of Pandagon and Jeff Fecke of Shakespeare’s Sister vehemently attacked me over comments about the domestic violence issue I had made in an interview. Now feminist blogger Jeff Fecke and his compatriot Melissa McEwan are on the attack again, with Jeff’s new piece The Tune’s the Same, Only the Words Have Changed. My response was Feminist Bloggers on the Warpath Against Me Again, this Time over ‘Power & Control in the Domestic Violence Industry–a New DV Wheel’.
Apparently either feminist blogger Jeff Fecke and/or his compatriot Melissa McEwan have banned Lee, a dissenter, from their site. (The screen shot pictured is lousy but it says at the top “Banned by the webmaster. Your comments will not be added.”)
It is common practice for feminist bloggers to ban men’s rights/fathers’ rights blog commenters, which reflects the weaknesses in many of their arguments. By contrast, feminist blog posters are given wide latitude on my site.
I can’t speak for Glenn’s site, but the MRA site I visited appeared pretty mainstream; I actually recognized a few commenters on Glenn’s site by their distinctive handles from those good ol’ days. I was not banned from the site for breaking any of the stated rules (of which there were many, and specific) that would result in banning; I was not banned for making either personal attacks or even general ones. I was not banned for obnoxiousness or obscenties or chronic thread derailing or any other sort of behavior one might expect to legitimately get banned for. I was banned, frankly, because the site creator just absolutely hated my freakin’ guts.
Why? I don’t really know. His hatred was not shared by many of the other regular commenters and at least one of the other site moderators, some of whom I actually developed fairly warm and mutually respectful relationships with. What he did was create a new set of rules for me, and me only; he said, that to remain on the site, I would have to do two things: (1) I would have to search out every comment I ever made on every single post on the site and answer, in researched detail, any dispute anyone had raised with me in that comment and (2) apologize to everyone on the blog, publicly and loudly, for my feminist beliefs.
No, I’m not kidding! 
I did my best to fulfill requirement #1–actually with some help from the guys, since they were well aware that I got about fifty times the comments of anyone else (as you do, when you’re the dissenting voice) and frankly couldn’t find and didn’t even have time enough to respond to every single comment spanning the previous year or more. I refused to comply with #2, and was even defended by several regular commenters, as they noted that absolutely no one else, including other periodic feminist posters, was required ever to do this and it certainly wasn’t in the rules. The site creator held firm, though, and I was banned. I admit–I missed the stimulation of such different points of view, with the guys I’d managed to develop enough of a rapport with that we’d moved on from pointless dogma exchanges to actual viewpoint-stretching conversations, that I tried to sneak back on a few months later–shameful! I blush. But apparently I’m not a very successful sneak, or possibly I forgot to change my IP address, and I was found out. Oh well…
So all these things conflated together to motivate me to investigate Teh Sacks, and my final report is presented above for your enjoyment. If anybody out there has some key factor I may have missed in my evaluation, I’m always open to re-evaluation, but as it stands, I see no reason to deliberately inflict concern trolls upon myself, nor to hand out cookies when they periodically throw a bone of acknowledging common human decency or the fact that they agree that stopped clocks are right twice a day, etc. Lisa KS out.
Faith,
She did make the point (about the title not referring to Glenn’s site) it’s true. However what’s also true is that that clarification doesn’t appear for more than 9 lengthy paragraphs (with quote boxes inserted liberally in between).
A casual / disinterested reader wouldn’t get that far and, given that the average persons’ attention span only slightly exceeds that of a goldfish, I would hazard a guess that a large proportion of those ‘reading’ the post would click away with the ‘wrong’ impression.
As for your comments about your ex, I am very sorry that you married such a worthless POS. I know a few divorced dads and all of them work bloody hard to support their kids.
I also know that their contribution has stayed the same on getting remarried (or often gotten higher due to their new wife’s salary being taken into account) whereas any change in cicumstance for their ex-wife (ie in one case marrying a millionaire) hasn’t affected the payout by one penny.
Haha. Suuuuure, trust the word of an angry woman posting on a feminist blog speaking for her ex.
Of course men who don’t pay you money are lazy and selfish. Reversal: Get a job and stop expecting a free ride from other people. If you want to be one of those 80% of women who freely initiate divorces… after shopping for the wealthiest man you can sucker into providing for you… so you get the female freedom to stay home or have a career (that you then complain doesn’t pay as much as it does for men expected to be the breadwinners and the scapegoats)… pay the price.
Or we could stop putting the highest social responsibilities on the poorest individuals, and start doing as other civilized nations do and build a social safety net. So you can have the freedoms you expect, and kids and men don’t get screwed by your expectations and by individual human failing.
People become “macho assholes” under pressure, when backed into corners, when choices are taken away. It’s a perfectly “real reason” that YOU help create.
Are black men the worst fathers in america because they’re lazy and selfish too?
It’s telling that you mention “healthy white man”. White. All he has to do is cash in his whitey card and Bill Gates will send him big checks, right? Can we get one of those for the homeless man sleeping outside my front door right now?
There have always been screwed white men. Even when slavery existed and women couldn’t vote. In this century we had the Okies and the dust bowl refugees. The century before we had indentured laborers from europe who had higher death rates than slaves. It’s all part of the shell game of shifting categories inside capitalism. Who wins: rich people- who loses: poor people- whatever category they are.
Katherine Sep 27th, 2008 at 1:51 pm
“And with no evidence needed, who decides between normal arguing and verbal abuse? The dead guy won’t be able to defend himself.”
Oh please, what world are you living in? With no evidence needed? What the hell are you talking about? You think no evidence is needed in a murder trial? You think no evidence is needed when someone is claiming a defence against murder. Ho ho.
Who decides? The jury, you idiot. On the basis of evidence.
—————————-
Hellooooooooooooooo????
Mary Winkler? She shot her husband in the back while he slept, yanked out the phone cord and let him bleed to death!
There was never any evidence of DV. Even her daughter said that her dad was a good man who never yelled at or hit anybody.
The simple fact is that much of society (particularly judges) have a burning need to “rush in” and “save” a damsel in distress–even when that damsel is actually a monster.
As far as family courts are concerned, Obviously Teri is right that the POTENTIAL for abuse is huge, simply because the courts are SECRET COURTS (like Stalinist courts during the great purge).
All with the mantra “it’s for the children”. Their is also no system of judicial review as there is with other courts–it’s a recipe for injustices, and since women have several powerful vocal advocacy groups to protect them against injustice logic would follow it’s mainly men who are the victims of this injustice–particularly poverty stricken minority men.
If I remember correctly 3 dads have committed suicide on courthouse steps do to the incredible injustices heaped upon them by those courts.
If this had been mothers it would be blazoned on every channel every 5 minutes until it was in your dreams.
“Haha. Suuuuure, trust the word of an angry woman posting on a feminist blog speaking for her ex.”
Uh, who said anything about being angry?
“Reversal: Get a job and stop expecting a free ride from other people. If you want to be one of those 80% of women who freely initiate divorces… after shopping for the wealthiest man you can sucker into providing for you… so you get the female freedom to stay home or have a career (that you then complain doesn’t pay as much as it does for men expected to be the breadwinners and the scapegoats)… pay the price.”
Who says I don’t have a job? Did I say I didn’t have a job? And I also never said anything about being married. I also said the father of my children is poor. He is not wealthy.
“People become “macho assholes” under pressure, when backed into corners, when choices are taken away. It’s a perfectly “real reason” that YOU help create.”
Nope, I’m afraid it isn’t. Men are responsible for their behavior. No one else is. Men -decide- to be macho assholes.
“It’s telling that you mention “healthy white man”. White. All he has to do is cash in his whitey card and Bill Gates will send him big checks, right? Can we get one of those for the homeless man sleeping outside my front door right now?”
Yea, the poor poor oppressed white man. Poor whitey.
Who is the one angry here?
“A lot of research shows the benefits of having a father in a child’s life. For both girls and boys. Look at the stats for single parent homes and juvenile crime, teenage pregnancy, school performance and much more. There is a strong positive correlation with having male nurtuting for kids.”
The problem in these homes is not that Daddy isn’t there. The problem is that Daddy’s money isn’t there. It is poverty that breeds crime and dysfunction, not fatherlessness. Children raised by single mothers in financially stable households do every bit as well as those who are raised in two parent households. The solution then is to insure that all children are raised in financially stable households, not two parent ones.
“A casual / disinterested reader wouldn’t get that far and, given that the average persons’ attention span only slightly exceeds that of a goldfish,”
Then they’d have no one to blame for themselves for being confused. It’s not Lisa’s fault if someone only reads part of her post.
“As for your comments about your ex, I am very sorry that you married such a worthless POS. I know a few divorced dads and all of them work bloody hard to support their kids.”
Thank you. I didn’t marry him, however. I’m not a big fan of heterosexual marriage. Never have married. Never will marry.
“Then they’d have no one to blame for themselves for being confused.”
Ahem…”Then they’d have no one to blame BUT themselves for being confused.
One other thing: Even though I am also poor as dirt, I could give a fiddler’s fart if he pays child support (I’m also not on welfare, btw). He is not involved in the children’s lives. This was HIS choice. He DECIDED to not be involved after we split. I only expect him to pay child support if he is actually going to be involved. I was just throwing out the FACT that what Pat is saying is not the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
Pat: Prime example of why I typically avoid MRA’s like the plague itself.
Faith,
“Daddy’s money”, nice……
So men can be reduced to just a paycheck? What if Daddy wants something for his money like being able to see his kids?
Its not just poverty that causes the social problems. Can you cite some research on poverty being the only cause of the problems?
“So men can be reduced to just a paycheck? What if Daddy wants something for his money like being able to see his kids?”
If women are financially empowered, they don’t need Daddy’s money to support their kids. The solution, if men don’t want to be reduced to wallets:
Support any and all efforts to financially empower women, and in particular, single mothers.
“Its not just poverty that causes the social problems. Can you cite some research on poverty being the only cause of the problems?”
No, it isn’t just poverty. But the fact that children raised by single mothers who are financially stable do just as well as those raised by two parents shows that fatherlessness does not, in and of itself, cause dysfunction.
“Conspiracy” is a misnomer. Conspiracies involve some kind of secrecy, and in this case there is no secrecy at all. Feminists are openly triumphant about having monopolized the humanities, and it just so happens that it is humanists who compose dictionaries. Whoever would dare put the true definition of feminism in a dictionary would soon watch his career follow that of Larry Summers. While we are at it, the true definition is: women’s group egoism, political expression of it, and a belief system that provides moral justification for it.
Jerry, I have no trouble whatsoever bucking the consensus of anybody, much less something as nebulously bordered as “the blogosphere,” but in this case I’m not. I’m not holding Glenn responsible for his commenters; I am merely pointing out that he clearly resonates with them.
Is NOW a feminist organization? Yes. Many of their positions match up with what is in the dictionary. Are all NOW members feminist? Yes. Are all feminists NOW members? Not by a long shot. For Glenn to use “NOW members” and “feminists” interchangeably uses the same flawed logic as using the words “squares” and “rectangles” interchangeably, though it is certainly true that all squares are indeed rectangles.
I still support the absence of a presumption, though I can understand that judge’s bias, in whatever direction it might be, is a problem, though unfortunately it’s hardly only a problem in the narrow field of child custody. Perhaps we could switch to juries, in the hope that multiple biases might cancel each other out? That’s the solution for other types of cases.
Support efforts to empower women financially – hell yeah!
And in return how about a little bit of a two way street and show some support for men in parenting rights, that isnt asking for too much is it?
Perry, Stockholders are holding stock in a company by choice; they get to research it first and then have absolute autonomy over who they choose, and they are fully mentally and emotionally developed. If children got to research and pick their parents out in advance and were fully mentally and emotionally developed, then an initial presumption of 50/50 custody would work out with complete justice. However, none of that’s the case, obviously.
I certainly agree that there should be absolutely no presumption based on the gender of any parent, though.
I agree that having a good father in a child’s life is an undeniable benefit. However, I assure you that having a bad father is much worse than having no father at all in a child’s life–a male presence, in of itself, is not magic nor beneficial. It must be a positive presence to reap the benefits you describe.
James H,
You say: “However, if you judge a movement based on its writing and leadership then feminism, as practised today, has very little to do with equality and an awful lot to do with acquiring and securing power, whatever the cost.”
I’m sorry, I don’t see it that way–I see it as a strong push to ensure women have equal rights with men.
I agree that men are sentenced more heavily for the same crimes than women–but that isn’t the fault of feminists, that is a remnant of the patriarchy, and feminism seeks to dismantle the patriarchy. I’m intimately familiar with the effect VAWA has had on local law enforcement agencies, as my kids’ dad is a cop, and really I have to report it’s been positive on that level. I lack familiarity with it at the judicial level, unfortunately. As far as the whole mail-order bride thing goes, I have no problem whatsoever with having it policed more heavily, both for the benefit of the prospective brides and grooms–the situation lends itself heavily to people getting used on both sides of the divide. I haven’t seen any legislation that seeks to harm men with good intentions and a noncriminal background seeking mail-order brides; do you know of any?
I might re Glenn–I haven’t had a chance to scope out the “Feminist Dissident” stuff yet to see it.
Lisa,
I assume you believe that the reverse of what you just said also holds true. Having a bad mother is worse than having no mother. But men in this case are the ones JUDGED by others. That needs to change. That’s why 50/50 as a starting point makes sense.
Or keep your parenting priveleges and we’ll keep our economic ones. Or we’ll fight for ours and not support any more gains for you. Or we can work together.
Perry–I agree that having a bad mother is worse than having no mother, but I disagree that we should start out with the assumption that both parents are not only equally good but that either of them are good at all. Frankly, the fact that they were unable to set aside their personal issues enough to decide custody between themselves out of court points already towards one or both not being good parents. I believe 0/0 should be the starting point, and the onus should be on each parent to clearly state (a) what custody they want and (b) why they should be granted it.
I read Glenn Sacks and Alas, a blog on a consistent basis. I am looking for the balance between the demands of feminism for equality and the legitimate concerns of abuse by the law against men.
My brother divorced a woman approximately 20 years ago. He is just now completing payment of his child support. In the beginning of the split, in a matter of six months, his exwife decided that she no longer wanted to be married. There was no abuse, the finances were fine, she just was tired of him. The first concession was for my brother to sleep in the guest room in the basement of his own house. Eventually his exwife moved a boyfriend into the house and my brother had to leave. The exwife initiated divorce proceedings and the courts allowed visitation. This is visitation of his own children who he did not abuse and in fact who love him dearly. The government dictates to the supportive, nonabusive father when he is allowed to visit his own children. Child support payments were set up by the state. A free audit is available to the exwife. My brother would have to pay for a private company to audit the account. The child support agency frequently miscalculated the payments all in the favor of the exwife. When the 15 year old daughter got tired of the boyfriend and moved in with my brother, who is after all her own father, the exwife summoned a sheriffs officer and they went to my brothers home and demanded that the daughter return with them. When the house was sold my brother was cheated out of $40,000 of equity by the exwife who claimed she could not find suitable housing without the equity. She had perfectly suitable housing when my brother was paying the mortgage. 20 days prior to one childs 18th birthday the exwife drags my brother to court seeking custody of the 17 year old claiming that she cannot afford child support. It got to the point in which my brother didn’t want the money at all in an effort to avoid contact with an exceptionally vindictive woman. She was vindictive because she knew that that law and the courts were on her side. No questions about whether my brother can afford child support have ever been entertained in a court of law.
It is one thing for a person male or female to be a pig. It is another thing entirely for the justice system and family court to support the abusive actions of one party at the expense of the other. I do not approach this thing from an ideological perspective. I look as far as my brother’s experience, which I fear is all to common and ask a simple, neutral question: is this what feminists call equality? Is it really too much to petition that men are treated with some degree of decency when the exwife throws him out of his own house?
0/0 could be a level playing field, thanks & peace
I believe 0/0 should be the starting point, and the onus should be on each parent to clearly state (a) what custody they want and (b) why they should be granted it.
I don’t have a lot of faith in our system anymore. 0/0 is more fair than leaving biases in place, but becareful what you ask for, my guess is that 0/0 where the parents don’t have any presumptive ability to parent or have custody gets CPS and the Courts way more involved than they should be. CPS has shown itself to be a very flawed organization.
Perhaps 0/0 can put the fear into both parents to get them to actually cooperate.
0/0 seemingly does nothing to reduce court costs. One thing poor women and men need in an era of no fault divorce is an inexpensive way to determine custody. The problem with the current system is that presumption and “bias” is used to reduce court costs. But what happens for many couples is that they become horribly indebted by lenghtly, hurtful, unneccessary custody fights. 0/0 adds to that, unless the fear of letting CPS intrude everywhere gets people to compromise earlier (as perhaps they should)
You are swinging from the hip here. Glenn has been thinking and writing of these issues for many years, and he discusses research relating to best outcomes for the kids, as well as court costs.
Even if you end up disagreeing, if you read what Glenn has written and the sources he points to, you may help yourself understand all the various issues involved.
Lisa:
“I agree that men are sentenced more heavily for the same crimes than women–but that isn’t the fault of feminists, that is a remnant of the patriarchy, and feminism seeks to dismantle the patriarchy”
Uh-huh. And Turkeys would vote for Christmas (given the chance) too!
“I’m intimately familiar with the effect VAWA has had on local law enforcement agencies, as my kids’ dad is a cop, and really I have to report it’s been positive on that level.”
Positive for whom? Mandatory arrest policies, combined with the ‘primary aggressor*’ doctrine, means that it’s overwhelmingly the man that’ll be arrested and removed from the house regardless of innocence or guilt. As this is an easy first step to getting an RO (uncontested, no evidence needed or wanted) and thence to establishing primary custody of the kids, it’s an easy situation for an ill-intentioned ex-partner to engineer.
*(in practice ‘primary aggressor’ is actually translated into ‘who’s the biggest/tallest person in the room(?)’ regardless of who actually kicked the fight off or who is inflicting the worst damage)
Ask your husband how many times he’s had to remove a guy from a scene where his gut instinct tells him it was the woman being the aggressor. If he’s being honest (with himself as well as you) then I think you’ll get a surprise.
As for IVAWA, it’s a large and unconstitutional sledgehammer being applied to a cashew nut. The criminals who actually traffic in prostitutes/abused women (and the numbers are tiny, even if the situation itself is undeniably tragic) will just laugh at IVAWA, in much the same way as they already laugh at the kidnapping and anti-slavery measures that are already established under the law.
The only people IVAWA targets are the lonely old men and misinformed second-wifers who think a Thai bride might actually honour their wedding vows. They will face a massive intrusion into their private lives not because they’ve done anything wrong, but rather because they’ve had the temerity to look a little further afield for a partner. If it was YOUR civil rights that were being so casually trampled on would you be so complacent?
Faith:
““Then they’d have no one to blame for themselves for being confused.”
Ahem…”Then they’d have no one to blame BUT themselves for being confused”"
Thanks SO much for the correction. I thought only we ‘menz’ were guilty of being patronising. I’ll make sure, in future, to minutely inspect every single one of your comments for the slightest error and pick you up on it….
..or not. I think I managed to outgrow that phase before leaving school.
As for
“The problem in these homes is not that Daddy isn’t there. The problem is that Daddy’s money isn’t there. It is poverty that breeds crime and dysfunction, not fatherlessness. Children raised by single mothers in financially stable households do every bit as well as those who are raised in two parent households”
Not in the studies I’ve read they don’t. Statistically you’re dead wrong. Fathers have a massive impact on the lives of their children, an impact which has nothing to do with their income level (or that of the family after divorce) and everything to do with how involved they are with raising their children.
A child’s: IQ; attainment level at school; health; longevity of life; reported ‘happiness;’ social mobility and citizenship (ie they’re less likely to break the law etc) are all positively impacted by a father being on the scene AND involved with their life. Large scale studies (and plain common sense) have shown this as indisputable.
I would never ‘diss’ a single mother (although I am appalled by the single mother ‘by choice’ trend, due to the sheer selfishness of ‘their’ choice) but the fact is that their children will not do as well in life as if those same children had an active and involved father.
I am sure that that applies equally, btw, to children without an active and invoved mother, but I’ve not seen any large-scale studies that have examined that.
Faith:
My turn to ‘Ahem’ and apologise for my misguided comment (above) on your correction.
On re-reading the thread I’ve realised you’re correcting your own error, not picking up on one of mine.
Perhaps I need to go BACK to my school (or perhaps just wind my neck in slightly)!
Roger–anecdotes are great in the sense that they illustrate an existing problem in a way that’s often a good motivator for the individual, but they aren’t too useful for basing one’s judgment of what may be a trend of existing problems. For instance, my best friend’s sister lost custody of her children to her abusive husband in the courts–does that mean that that happens all the time? I couldn’t say so based on her experiences, though I can say that since it did happen, clearly it does happen and should be investigated.
James H:
Lisa:
“I agree that men are sentenced more heavily for the same crimes than women–but that isn’t the fault of feminists, that is a remnant of the patriarchy, and feminism seeks to dismantle the patriarchy”
Uh-huh. And Turkeys would vote for Christmas (given the chance) too!”
Oh, well, that totally changes my mindset.
(sigh) come back when you have something substantial to say, eh?
“Thanks SO much for the correction. I thought only we ‘menz’ were guilty of being patronising. I’ll make sure, in future, to minutely inspect every single one of your comments for the slightest error and pick you up on it….”
Um, what? You thought that was patronizing. Huh???
“Not in the studies I’ve read they don’t. Statistically you’re dead wrong. Fathers have a massive impact on the lives of their children, an impact which has nothing to do with their income level (or that of the family after divorce) and everything to do with how involved they are with raising their children.
A child’s: IQ; attainment level at school; health; longevity of life; reported ‘happiness;’ social mobility and citizenship (ie they’re less likely to break the law etc) are all positively impacted by a father being on the scene AND involved with their life. Large scale studies (and plain common sense) have shown this as indisputable.”
Yes, studies show that father’s being involved has an impact on the health of children. But the matter is WHY. The answer has far more to do with income than anything at all to do with the father himself.
http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/singpar.htm
There have been other studies that have shown this as well. If I find them, I will return with them.
“Lisa:
“I agree that men are sentenced more heavily for the same crimes than women–but that isn’t the fault of feminists, that is a remnant of the patriarchy, and feminism seeks to dismantle the patriarchy”
Uh-huh. And Turkeys would vote for Christmas (given the chance) too!”
Oh, well, that totally changes my mindset. (sigh) come back when you have something substantial to say, eh?”
It may have been a flippant way of making my point, but if you can point to one single policy from NOW or any other influential feminist group that admits to the disparity AND suggests removing the sentencing gap then I’ll happily donate my Xmas turkey to a homeless shelter this year.
On the contrary, I have read policy statements and noted the words of several fem-friendly politicians espousing the view that female criminals shouldn’t serve jail sentences for anything bar murder as the poor dears must have been led into their lives of crime by some evil man or other. Even murder can be excused – look at Mary Winkler.
“dismantling the patriarchy” only seems to be on the agenda when it disfavours women. Feminism of NOW’s kind is the most hypocritical and self-serving political creed in the mainstream.
And Faith – I already apologised for my mistake, and I will also come back with links (assuming Lisa is happy to keep this thread going).
If you’re referring to SYG, you must be lkanneg, and if so, then I would attest to nearly every word of this post, quite frankly. I found Lisa to be very interested in debating issues, but only with those people or arguments that interested her (for SHAME Lisa!
), and given the volume she got, I can’t see how she could try to argue them all down at once, and she’s pretty damn good at debate…. that was a compliment.
So, regrettably, and even though Lisa does truly have her head up her ass on many issues, I risk the wrath of my fellow MRA’s when I extend whatever apology I can…I frankly had no idea what happened to you.
The post at GS’s blog is how I got here, and I was specifically motivated to come here because I have mentioned you repeatedly in the past and one Michael Claymore asked:
“Apparently this woman was posting on Stand Your Ground as ilkanneg at the same time as factory- what I really want to know is what factory thinks of his old buddy.”
So, my reaction.
I think you’re mischaracterizing Glenn considerably (he really despises a lot of what I say…I’ve been scolded (and he’s been on the side of “right” many times upon reflection). He also has restrictions he allows in terms of topic I disagree with, but respect his right to do so. Other than that, he seems like a passionate advocate for equality.
Where MRA’s and feminists differ is in the definition of equality, you know that. We believe in equal treatment/opportunity, feminists believe in equality of outcome…..er, unless it means boosting men (custody).
Good to find out what happened to you. I’ll make sure I poke logic at you once in a while.
Oh, and the the MRA’s who figure they can tell me who I can respect and who I can’t (based on Ideology of all things), let me say this.
Lisa is hot.
omg…scuse me while I step out of feminist mode for a sec here…
{{{{FACTORY!!!}}}} long time no see!! share my luv wherever you think it might be welcome back amongst the guys if you get a chance…
…head up my ass…I do NOT, thank you.
Nor am I hot. Do not believe this scuzzy MRA nutjob. See, here’s me:
Not even remotely hot.
On a serious note, sooo many ppl defending Glenn’s fairness…maybe I should try reading through his site AGAIN…I just didn’t get that vibe before, honestly.
The point to the disclaimer (aside from Glenn being a lawyer) is that while he does not restrict speech (aside from a few things), he also finds quite a few of us repulsive. I have had a few choice words sent my way (something about being extremist or woman-hating, not sure which and both have a measure of truth to them), but he usually lets my posts through.
I say usually because his spam blocker has my most recent post hung up.
As always, lisa, your comments and opinions are more than welcome. It’s SO much fun showing you where your argument sucks, then poking you in the eye.
I personally would LOVE it if you would inject a little rigor into some of the debates. Between you, me and the entire world, there’s a lot of “sound and fury, signifying nothing” going on over there right now.
I can only speak for myself of course, as some there really seem to hate your guts (all the more reason to go in my opinion).
As to the looks, I am sure it’s been a while, so I’ll tone it down.
Let’s just say it has something to do with willingness, bending, a couch, and a New York minute.
James H–NOW doesn’t support the heavier sentencing of men–agreed they don’t agitate against it specifically,, but then, MRAs don’t agitate against things that hurt women specifically either–they’re focused on men, just like NOW is focused on women. Being upset about that, in either direction, makes about as much sense as being upset at pediatricians for “discriminating against adult health!” because they choose to focus their efforts on children.
Many feminists can and do address prison conditions as a whole and fight against the heaviest sentencing of all, that against men of color. And as I said, feminists in general and NOW in particular do agitate against the patriarchy in general, which is the cause of the gender disparity in sentencing in the first place–based as it is on the patriarchial conviction that women aren’t much of a step above children in terms of the threat they pose and their control over their own actions. An equal rights amendment, such as the one NOW supports, could go a long way towards the specific legal address of the heavier sentencing that men sometimes receive.
That’s a pretty obvious one Lisa. NOW argues that the opposite is true, completely in the face of reality.
NOW argues that women receive heavier sentencing than men for the crimes where DoJ stats show that men receive heavier sentencing? Hadn’t seen that–links pls.
Oh Jeezus, here we go again with the wild-Google_chases. Nah.
NOW argues that the legal system is biased against women, yet in no area can women be shown to be disparately negatively affected by sentencing, arrest rates, conviction rates…pretty much any “justice” metric you can come by.
To illustrate the difference between MRA’S (see, I can keep it on topic) and feminists in this matter….
Feminists tend to see this as proof that men are evil. MRA’s see this as proof that women get off easier for crimes.
Mind you, there haven’t been a lot of men getting PROBATION for murdering their spouse in their sleep. Of course, women murdering their spouses is SO RARE, as to merit little to no attention.
Right?
Because then we’d have to admit that women are abusers and murderers and criminals too, and furthermore without the usual “society/men/whatever made her do it” excuses.
Sometimes I think I’m more of a “feminist” than you are……and THAT is serious irony.
You gotta provide factage for your assertations about NOW and women and the legal system, Factory, or you know I won’t buy it.
As for the rest of what you say, I can’t argue with most of it, except perhaps in degree. S’matter of fact, I agree with most of it.
Let’s do it this way. Keep my argument in the back of your head, and if you seem to find evidence out there in your daily life that backs it up (say, a news item, or a new law, or whatever)…if something makes you think “Hey, Factory has a point”, do me the favour of giving the point some credence. That’s all I ask.
If you find yourself wondering what it would be like consummating that whole “New York Minute” idea…call me immediately.
Incidentally, I suggest you click on my name and watch a couple videos before you publicly state you agree with most of what I say…
Hey, I was just agreeing with what you said in your comment, not everything you’ve ever said in your whole LIFE!
Oh come on now. You can admit it. I make sense sometimes.
Other times, I rant, but I blame that on the demon alcohol (among others). But you have never really poked any holes in my arguments, nothwithstanding the “Citations please” thingy you love. (It’s cute)
I’m just saying you haven’t had much interaction with me recently…you may dislike what I’ve become….(ominous music plays)
At any rate, I can genuinely say I’ve missed arguing with you. I hope you want to keep in touch.
Oh, I do! Please stop by PAB anytime and also feel free to make free with the email. Honestly, I’d love to swing back by SYG too, but…I was banned, dude. So I can’t, unless Dr. E relents. Which I kinda don’t see him doing.
I haven’t been by there in quite a while actually. In fact, many of the more prolific posters frequent Glenn’s blog right now. There actually are quite a few really smart dudes there, it just takes an interesting argument to bring them out.
So far, all the “Feminist Dissident” articles amounted to “Why are MRA’s so mean?” bullshit. If anyone had some MEAT to throw, the lions would definitely come out.
Personally, I think there’s a lot of dialogue that needs to happen. I don’t think it’ll happen if they refuse to engage. I’m also of the mind that men are increasingly coming of the mind that women simply aren’t worth the effort/risk they represent. And it ain’t men that are going to lose on that one, since most men are quite used to going months between sexual encounters….
As you know, I have 2 daughters. I want them to be happy, and I want them to have a chance at a good relationship. Feminism made things the way they are. I aim to change it. One obstinate feminist at a time if I have to.
How do I provide an email without doing so to everybody?
Go to the “Contact” section of PunkAssBlog and email me!
“lisa10dc@gmail.com,” since it’s there for all to see.
Urk. I already told Glen I wasn’t gonna do the “Feminist Dissident” thing. But you tempt me. Hmm. If you think others would be interested…I might reconsider (unless he’s chosen to withdraw the offer since I said ‘no,’ of course).
I know I’m all kinds of late to this party but I did see and wanted to address this:
Note: The views expressed by readers in the reader comments do NOT necessarily reflect those of Glenn Sacks. The fact that the comment is posted on this blog does NOT signify that Glenn Sacks agrees with it. Posters’ views are those of the posters alone–Glenn’s views can ONLY be found in the blog post itself, not the comments.
The reason he puts that up is because in the past Glenn himself has been attacked but the attacker’s “proof” would be only the words of people commenting on his site. How would you feel if I made a post about your blog saying that you are incorrect in your views but the only references I made were about the people that post on your blog but none of your own actual words? Pretty unfair. If you’re gonna try to discredit me then how about having the courage to quote what I say. Sorry if that came off as an attack.
The feminist discourse with it’s concept of patriarchy, denies the individual and their personal experiences- there is no conspiracy of men using “male privilege” to get out of jail or whatever. Glen is telling the individual stories that contradict the dominating feminist discourse. To deny those stories, they have to compensate for the cognitive dissonance by conflating, using false statistics and lying.
Excellent point. All too often I see feminists trying to lump all men together with the ones at the top as we all are out to get all women and that is simply not true. And is just what the term patriarchy as turned into. If such feminists would quit trying to hold all men responsible for all the problems that all women suffer then we would all be better off.
“Hmm. If you think others would be interested…I might reconsider.”
I cant speak for the others, but i would certainly like to see that.
Nelson Muntz aka Michael Claymore
I can’t testify to Glenn’s character in ‘real’ life, having never met him, but he does seem to be consistently fair.
He’ll pull comments that make personal attacks on people and invite you to “get back to the point in hand.” I know this from first hand as I once strayed over his boundaries (I know, shocker right?!)
I would echo Factory’s (and my own earlier) request that you post on Glenn’s site. You have a sense of humour, an engaging writing style and a willingness to keep up a dialogue. You also know your material which, even if I disagree with a lot of your points, would be a HUGE step up from the calibre of guest writing he’s had in that spot.
You’ll inevitably get a lot of brick-bats, but there’s enough of us that hang around his site that try to discuss points without hurling insults to compensate for those (I hope).
As for disparities in jail sentencing, you may be correct that equal rights legislation would go some way to addressing the imbalance but I am very sceptical. It’s all too easy for judges, even appeal court judges, to bow to political pressure and adopt an overly PC attitude. They do it now, and I can’t see how another piece of legislation will remedy things in practice. No too cases are EXACTLY the same, and that allows plenty of ‘wriggle-room’ for judges to apply biased sentencing to cases.
Mary Winkler (I know, that name again) is a good case in point.
No husband, having shot his wife in the back whilst sleeping, ripped out the phone cord to stop her dialling for help and then watched her bleed to death in front of him (before fleeing over a State border with his kids and a load of shells for his shotgun) would have got the time of day on Oprah. They wouldn’t have had a gentle regime of a few months in prison followed by a short stay at a psych hospital. They DEFINITELY wouldn’t have then got custody of their kids back from the maternal grandparents.
Did NOW ever suggest that sentencing, such as that given in her case, is an issue needing correction? On the contrary, leading figures in the organisation were quoted in support of her and set about blackening the good name of her husband and jumping to all sorts of (completely unsupported) conclusions about him that were all roundly refuted by their eldest daughter.
Don’t like the MW comparison? Then how about the sentencing that Debrah LeFavre (and other female teachers ad nauseum) received for raping a boy in her care? How many times do male teachers get to declare they were “in love” or “at a difficult point in their life” or “got confused as to the boundaries in their job” or blah, blah, blah and get away with a few weeks of community service and a slap on the hand?
Try bringing that up on (most) other feminist sites, and a depressing number of comments will come back either stating that men/boys can’t be raped (so that’s all right then), or that it’s “payback” for all the years of “abuse” women have suffered at the hands of men (….) or that the boys “wanted it really” (!!!!!). And those are the polite replies.
When NOW, its sister organisations and the rank-and-file activists start to seriously talk about equality (and mean it) then I’ll start to support their efforts. At the moment though, way too much of their brand of ‘equality’ smells like that of ‘Animal Farm’ and, stretching the analogy, men have 4 legs.
Can you explain how is patriarchy the cause of the gender disparity in sentencing that disadvantages men? You claim a connection exists, but I don’t see any, and I find its existence extremely unlikely. You know, with all the defining of patriarchy as a setup that prioritizes men’s this, men’s that, and men’s other thing at the expense of women’s this, that, and other thing, the claim that patriarchy is the cause of a systemic male disadvantage sounds outright silly.
The Patriarchy is a heirarchical pyramid with various smaller groups of entitled people (mostly white male, but with some exceptions) standing astride many larger groups of less entitled people, who stand atop even larger groups of unentitled people. Fight against the Patriarchy, and you’re fighting for the common man just as much as you are for the common woman.
By the way, do all you guys only ever like to talk about one thing, and one thing only? Cuz there’s many other more recent posts on this blog where you could spread the love.
(Lisa– just trying to use Sabotabby’s pest control method– remember how all those gun nuts we had for a while ran away screaming when she started inviting them to comment about Aboriginal genocide and stuff like that?)
By the way, all this talk in other threads of “sarcasm” vs “sneering”– that was CLEARLY sneering on my part. Please accept my apologies, gentlemen– it’s not a very nice to imply that our guests are pests. It’s just that there are SO MANY of you! I don’t know how Lisa handles it all.