Monday, November 30, 2009

Battered Moms Lose Custody?

Another loser mom in California, using the old "I am battered 'victim' so I deserve custody" .. Sorry but you are just another Mom that Lies to get custody. Battered Moms Lose Custody? What a joke.

Just another crazy women that starts fights with men.

Parental Alienation was created by crazy women who are fucking nuts. That is what you are all about. You are just another man hater.


http://batteredmomslosecustody.wordpress.com/2009/05/08/california-judges-assoc-family-law-bar-psychologists-support-child-abuse-cover-up/

California Judges Assoc, Family Law Bar & Psychologists Support Child Abuse Cover Up

May 8, 2009 — batteredmomslosecustody

Those people who profiteer from covering up child abuse by accusing the victims of having a fictitious syndrome called Parental Alienation, are opposing good legislation in AB 612. This bill would protect children who are witnesses of domestic violence and victims of physical and sexual abuse from being re-victimized in court by being falsely accused of the fictitious syndrome (similar to witchcraft accusations, there is no proof, just saying so proclaims it so).

People who stand to profit from particular laws should not be involved in establishing them. The people of California and all over the world who care about the safety and well-being of children want to put an end to the re-victimization of children thru the court system. Lawyers and psychologists who defend child abusers should not be involved in influencing this legislation. The abuser’s lobby supports the continuation of child abuse, but the PEOPLE who care about children and the child victims are demanding protection from this harmful treatment in court!!!

Anyone accusing a child of lying or domestic violence victim of brainwashing is in fact abusing the victims themselves and should be subjected to criminal punishment for engaging in this behavior. The fact that this group of people is controlling legislation, and engaging in harmful “judicial discretion” in court is evidence of JUDICIAL TYRANNY.

The theory of Parental Alienation Syndrome was developed by pro-pedophilia doctor named Richard Gardner. Anyone supporting these theories needs to be banned from making decisions regarding children. Richard Gardner thought that judges had pedophilic impulses. If the judges are supporting these theories, then they must think that pedophilia is acceptable:

From Stop Family Violence

Posted by at

Wednesday, November 25, 2009

Another Man Hate Site...!! LOL..

It seems there are more and more women that hate men.... here is another one off the top of the crap heap..LOL!!

Read the spunk coming out of the mouths of these lovely commentators!!

--------------------------------------------

Quote of the Day

| posted by Melissa McEwan | Wednesday, November 25, 2009



[Trigger warning.]

"Critics like Australian sociologist Michael Flood say that men's rights movements reflect the tactics of domestic abusers themselves, minimizing existing violence, calling it mutual, and discrediting victims. MRA groups downplay national abuse rates, just as abusers downplay their personal battery; they wage campaigns dismissing most allegations as false, as abusers claim partners are lying about being hit; and they depict the violence as mutual—part of an epidemic of wife-on-husband abuse—as individual batterers rationalize their behavior by saying that the violence was reciprocal. Additionally, MRA groups' predictions of future violence by fed-up men wronged by the family-law system seem an obvious additional correlation, with the threat of violence seemingly intended to intimidate a community, like a fearful spouse, into compliance. MRA critics say the organizational recapitulation of abusive tactics should be no surprise, considering the wealth of movement leaders with records or accusations of violence, abuse, harassment, or failure to pay child support."—From Kathryn Joyce's "Men's Rights" Groups Have Become Frighteningly Effective. Sent to me by Shaker Timm, who hat tips Slacktivist.

Self-identified MRAs and/or men regurgitating MRA rhetoric are, alongside "pro-life" Christians, my most vicious emailers, who regularly pepper their missives with rape threats and sexually violent imagery. They are little more than a thronging conglomeration of aggressively angry bullies, loosely bound by a collective interest in crushing anyone who poses even the most insignificant threat to their perceived right to male privilege. There is no principle behind the "men's rights" movement, unless one imagines "entitlement to abuse women" to be a principle.

View Comments | AddThis

44 Comments

Sort by Community Page
  • These privileged guys feel they are entitled to everything and when they're not, it makes them angry.
  • juliand Today 12:14 PM
    Because I have used the word "hate" to describe my opposition to fruit in otherwise calorie-laden desserts, it seems far too weak a word for how I feel about MRAs.

    But I don't have much else, so: I hate these guys. I want them gone.
  • DerelictDaughter11 Today 12:17 PM
    Wow. That really is a very apt analogy. Scary. Vile. But friggin appropriate as hell.


    Oh, and shout out to sociologists :)
  • You were able to read much more of that article than I could. I was not able to get past the forth paragraph because of the sentence:

    Bernard Chapin, a popular men’s rights blogger, told me over e-mail that he will refer to me as “Feminist E,” since he never uses real names for feminists
  • I must confess that I hadn't really thought about how Fathers 4 Justice (the ones mentioned in the article in their superhero costumes) fitted into this movement.
  • Juliand - I offer one of these: loathe, detest, despise, scorn, abhor, curse. (Sorry my lit/lang degree has been lying unused in my skill-set for about 7 years now and it really wanted an airing).

    The sad thing about the MRA movement is they make life harder for those men who actually have a grievance, who actually DID come across a vindictive woman who really hurt them. Unlike the current leaders of the feminist movement, who are clear that they do not hate men, just patriarchy, the leaders of the MRAs freely admit that they DO hate women (hence why they mostly have convictions etc).

    It's a shame really because feminists are the best friends and natural allies of those men who want, say, to be involved fathers, or to put an end to all domestic violence. Men who truly want parental equality would logically court feminsts not oppose them, because our goals are the same -for example, longer paternity leave for fathers equals less prejudice against working mothers, equals, more choice, freedom and opportunity for self-realization for everyone. The MRAs are only making life harder for the men for whom fatherhood, ending violence etc are a vocation and part of their identity, rather than a stick to beat people with.
  • xxxevilgrinxxx Today 12:32 PM
    I've had to deal with these assholes too, in emails and posts. Their hatred is so evident that it makes it impossible to look at any point they try to bring up without the derision it deserves. I'd have more to say but I think it would devolve to a full on rant, and we're all in that choir already :)
  • This is a scary, scary analogy. I'd never thought about the similarities of tactics. Wow. Screaming Lemur is Screaming because she is FREAKED.
  • samanthab Today 12:34 PM
    The thing is, there COULD be legitimate terms around which to structure a men's activist movement, but it would have to invoke principles of feminism and queer activism to do it properly. There are so many problematic depictions of "masculinity" that deserve addressing. But these dudes are just sick, sick, sick and only focused on promoting the violent subjegation of women.
  • JupiterPluvius Today 12:43 PM
    The thing is that the vast majority of MRA are defining "men's rights" as men's 'rights' to oppress women.
  • I'd like to see Jack Holland's book
    Misogyny: The World's Oldest Prejudice
    taught in high schools all over the country and the world.

    The reading level isn't difficult. The subject matter is. I don't think that education is sufficient but it is a necessary part. And Mr. Holland's work, completed with his daughter while he was dying, is a great resource. To me, a gift.

    I got it about a year ago, and I read it and re-read it, and talk to friends and acquaintances about it.
  • They freak me out because they're so angry. And I think about how society calls feminists "angry", and we are sometimes, because we should be. And then I think about my reaction to these guys being angry, and my immediate sense of fear. Nobody is afraid of feminists. And I wonder what that means.
    And I hate these guys. Because they REFUSE to see how privileged they are, and I wonder when will they stop? And what would the world look like if they got what they wanted? And then I have to go find my pearls and clutch them on the couch, where I have fainted.
  • KiriAmaya Today 12:56 PM
    This is probably the best, and scariest, explanation of the MRA phenomenon that I've ever seen. Thanks for the link.
  • AnneOnne Today 01:01 PM
    I'm with Samanthab. There's so much to be said about how the patriarchy affects men, the pressures men are under, helping men adsress problems in their lives, and involved parenting as a father or guardian. It's a shame because many men could really use support, and all they get is a paltry hate-fest pity party.

    There is a lot of hatred of women out there, and this parallel is as spot on as it is depressing. I have no doubt that there are many abusers among the ranks of MRAs, because a lot of the rhetoric of the movement is about blaming all your problems on women and denying your own responsibility as a father. There may be genuinely concerned members who actually just want equal rights but focus on how the patriarchy affects men, but the movement as a whole does so much to court misogynists who just want to blame everything on women that it does these men a great disservice.

    On a related topic, I was somewhat disappointed to read today in today's Evening Standard about support groups aimed at exploring issues of male identity at British universities being dismissed by the NUS national women's officer Olivia Bailey that 'To suggest that men need a specific space to be 'men' is ludicrous'. Yes, I agree that everywhere is presented as a male space, hence why minorities need a space to call their own and discuss things important to them. However, I don't think it fair to say that there is no place for men meeting to discuss male specific issues, or how the patriarchy affects them. I don't think this has to be at odds with feminism, I think it can be very important in promoting feminism to allow spaces where men can address how the patriarchy hurts them. Knowing the media, though, it is possible that this has been taken out off context, or maybe I missed the point.
  • Nobody is afraid of feminists.

    The MRA's are. Which is why they so angrily attack Melissa and whoever else speaks up.

    The patriarchy fears us. Which is why it demeans, belittles, mocks, and dismisses us. To make us look small and stupid and weak and vile and anachronistic and whatever else it can throw at us.
  • I'll have to read the article, AnneOnne, but are said men's support groups really discussing how patriarchy affects them, or are they effectively just spaces to "be men" in, as Bailey frames it? It's interesting, but I admit I'm skeptical about groups of men exploring issues of male identity without vilifying the feminine and blaming feminism*. Not saying it doesn't happen, but I'd need more info.

    *see Sam Keen, Robert Bly, etc.
  • QLH, I was thinking that as I wrote my comment. I guess I should have clarified- I was thinking of the physical sense of fear, as in attack or retribution. Women are less likely to respond to criticism with violence, so in that sense, feminists are not feared.
  • trifling Today 01:15 PM
    @neilleast, thanks for the recommendation. One copy of the Jack Holland book ordered from Amazon.
  • AnneOnne Today 01:34 PM
    @ SKM: I'm generally sceptical about such groups as well, the article itself frames these groups as 'support networks', though it is fairly light on explaining what they actually do, and doesn't go into depth on either side of the issue. I think that I'm more disappointed that more wasn't said about the feminist potential of such groups, rather than Ms. Bailey's words themselves, except that I wish they had given her a chance to explain more. I don't disagree with the comment that most spaces are male dominated, but rather the implication that despite this there can't be any place for a specific space for men. I'm not sure that I'm being entirely fair to her, and I don't want to blame her for what the article does or doesn't address when it quotes her, or highly selective usage of quotes out of context, which are all too common.

    I guess it may be wishful thinking, but I really want to see more discussion of how patriarchy hurts men (and how it hurts women, obviously) in the mainstream, and more support and guidance for men in fighting against harmful gender roles. I know that runs the risk of MRA groups, though.
  • rowmyboat Today 01:47 PM
    To see an example of what a not-evil men's organization looks like, I submit the Men's Resource Center for Change. From their "About" section:
    "The mission of the Men's Resource Center for Change is to support men, challenge men's violence, and develop men's leadership in ending oppression in ourselves, our families, and our communities. Our programs support men to overcome the damaging effects of rigid and stereotyped masculinity, and simultaneously confront men's patterns of personal and societal violence and abuse toward women, children, and other men."

    http://www.mrcforchange.org/
  • DrFunkenstein Today 01:57 PM
    The MRA's are. Which is why they so angrily attack Melissa and whoever else speaks up.

    The patriarchy fears us. Which is why it demeans, belittles, mocks, and dismisses us. To make us look small and stupid and weak and vile and anachronistic and whatever else it can throw at us.

    On the contrary, the MRA's do not fear feminists in the slightist but they do hate them and have little to no respect for women's rights advocates. Their rhetoric is born from loathing, not fear.
  • honeysuckleflea Today 01:58 PM
    Trish Wilson wrote about this movement for years and years. I'm very, very glad people are taking this seriously now, but I wonder: why now? Joyce and Flood are almost repeating verbatim what Wilson spent at least ten years writing about - what's changed, I wonder?
  • pmsrhino Today 01:59 PM
    Lemur "They freak me out because they're so angry. And I think about how society calls feminists "angry", and we are sometimes, because we should be. And then I think about my reaction to these guys being angry, and my immediate sense of fear. Nobody is afraid of feminists. And I wonder what that means."

    You are so right. When I read MRA statements I automatically feel fearful. I fear for my safety even though I'm not even in contact with these men. But the fact that their ideas are what I see in pretty much every piece of advertising, of television programming, or night time news programs. And they are given so much validity because they are men. I want to see the pictures of all those male victims of domestic violence. Or of all the men who are left destitute and practically homeless with kids to feed after a bad divorce. Or whatever craptastic thing they want to talk about, like they got the same problems as women but WORSE because everyone is too focused on the women to even care about the poor men.

    We fear them because they have the privilege to change laws or make them stay the same. We cannot strike fear because we do not.
  • Michael Flood has some really excellent articles available at www.xyonline.net. He's an amazing public public speaker who does some fantastic work countering MRA claims.
  • JupiterPluvius Today 02:06 PM
    I want to see the pictures of all those male victims of domestic violence

    There are male victims of domestic violence, and although their experience is co-opted by bullshit MRA rhetoric, questioning their very existence is being cruel to people who have already suffered a lot.

    For real info about male victims of domestic violence, I recommend this link roundup.
  • JupiterPluvius Today 02:07 PM
    Sorry, this link should work.
  • pmsrhino Today 02:26 PM
    JupiterPluvius I wasn't saying there aren't male victims of domestic abuse. I would never say that. Maybe I should have capitalized "ALL" because the MRAs make it out to be an epidemic of male victims or at least as prevalent as female victims. So I wasn't saying there aren't any male victims, I was trying to point out that MRAs love to paint the picture like all men are the sad sad victims of feminists and the feminist movement. I didn't mean to have that come off differently and I'm really sorry about it. I guess next time I should choose my words a little better...
  • pmsrhino Today 02:27 PM
    And thanks for the links. I'll be sure to try and give them a look over when I get the chance. It can be hard to find research on that topic. :)
  • @neilleast: That Jack Holland book is good. I got a lot out of it.

    @Lemur: And what would the world look like if they got what they wanted? They're already getting a lot of what they want. Ask any DV survivor who's had to fight for their kids' safety in court. It's truly depressing. And frightening.

    I read this article earlier this month, and it's true. This is the reason why so many female victims of abuse experience revictimization in the family court system. Men are enabled to continue their abuse even after the woman has left by using the courts, which do not take domestic violence seriously, nor is anyone in our legal system required to have specialized training in DV, so far as I know.

    Watch this video. But be prepared to have your heart broken. This is the state of things in our country.

    Breaking the Silence: Children's Stories
  • the MRA's do not fear feminists in the slightist but they do hate them

    No one hates anyone they don't fear.
  • JupiterPluvius Today 02:42 PM
    I was trying to point out that MRAs love to paint the picture like all men are the sad sad victims of feminists and the feminist movement. I didn't mean to have that come off differently and I'm really sorry about it.

    Agreed on this point, and sorry to have so misunderstood the intention of your comment. Sometimes language makes it harder, not easier, for us to communicate.
  • pmsrhino Today 02:46 PM
    So true, JupiterPluvius. Thanks for pointing it out though so I could clarify. :)
  • DrFunkenstein Today 02:48 PM
    No one hates anyone they don't fear.

    I respectfully disagree. Hatred oft times is born from fear, but just as often is born from self-loathing as well as a desire to be rid of that which one percieves as being bad/evil. David Hume said hatred is a concept that cannot be defined.
  • Scott Madin, I couldn't have said it better if I'd tried.

    I also couldn't have said the quote of the day itself better if I'd tried.

    A-freaking-men.
  • KiriAmaya Today 02:53 PM
    There are male victims of domestic violence, and although their experience is co-opted by bullshit MRA rhetoric, questioning their very existence is being cruel to people who have already suffered a lot.

    Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.


    No one hates anyone they don't fear.

    How so, Scott? I'm not disagreeing (I don't know enough about psychology to disagree); I want to understand what you mean.
  • Trish Wilson wrote about this movement for years and years. I'm very, very glad people are taking this seriously now, but I wonder: why now? Joyce and Flood are almost repeating verbatim what Wilson spent at least ten years writing about - what's changed, I wonder?

    I can't speak for Joyce and Flood, obviously, but nothing's changed for my part. I linked to Trish Wilson's work on this issue dozens of times. She is, in my mind, the preeminent expert on MRAs.
  • Kiri, I feel very strongly that all hatred (of people; I think when we say "hate" to refer to something other than a person/group of people, we're describing a different emotion — "I hate anchovies" or "I hate heights" are different kinds of statements from "I hate women" or "I hate that guy") is rooted in fear. Hatred is, too, something different from other emotions; it's not just a more intense form of disliking or being angry at someone. Hatred is vicious, violent; it pushes people to want to remove, harm or destroy the people they hate. Not everyone who hates takes action based on that hatred, of course, but the impetus is there. And it's always rooted in fear: to want to hurt or destroy [group X] makes no sense unless you believe that group is a threat to you, or to those you care about, in some way, and even hate-filled, bigoted people don't do things for no reason.

    There's a reason people who are bigoted against gay people are termed "homophobes" — misogynists might equally well be called "gynophobes." It isn't necessarily fear of direct physical harm, of course. Misogynists often fear that improvements in women's legal and social status will reduce men's, or harm the "moral fiber" of society, or corrupt the social construct of "masculinity" with "soft, weak" ideas. Religious homobigots fear that recognizing same-sex marriage rights will "undermine traditional marriage" (as a side note, they're right, insofar as their concept of "traditional marriage" is not far removed from coverture and marriage as a property contract between father and husband). The current of fear underlying the hatred is barely even disguised, among American racist groups throughout history.

    And MRAs fear that feminism will create a world in which they aren't kings. Of course they hate feminists, and of course that hate is rooted in fear.
  • KiriAmaya Today 04:00 PM
    Wow. Thank you, Scott. That really helps clarify some things in my mind. :)
  • What would happen if those guys got what they wanted? How can we know, if there is no way to please them? A woman who was meek and submissive and dependent on them would bore and/or annoy them. A woman who was assertive and egalitarian and independent would scare the crap out of them. Not to mention that we'll never be pretty enough for them; if we fit their standards of thinness, suddenly that will be too skinny for them. If we remain forever young, they will curse our immaturity. And so on.

    What always cinches it for me with the MRAs is that you almost never hear them talk about the domestic abuse and partner violence men suffer at the hands of other men. Men with male lovers and partners don't exist in their world, because that would interfere with their "wimminz is eeevil to menz" agenda.
  • DrFunkenstein 47 minutes ago
    And it's always rooted in fear: to want to hurt or destroy [group X] makes no sense unless you believe that group is a threat to you, or to those you care about, in some way, and even hate-filled, bigoted people don't do things for no reason.

    But you're ignoring the very basic concept of hatred being born from a desire to just be rid of that which we find unpleasant or evil. You can want a certain person or group to be destroyed simply because you find their existence disgusting without being affraid off them. Fear is not a basic tenet of hatred, anger and disrespect are. The concept of hate is concievably so intense that it defies description or definition.
  • Okay so, that video DID break my heart in a few million pieces. WTF?! I knew family court stuff was in fairly bad shape but I never imagined it was possible that it was that bad.

    Well now I'm fucking terrified. Also, definitely never having kids. Like I was just kinda not sure, before, but after that? HOLY FUCKIN SHIT now I think I'm phobic. I'll have... dollies. Dollies can't feel pain.

    I'm in a very messed up space right now and am going to go... I don't know, do something. else. for a while.
  • Lemur - "what would the world look like if they got what they wanted?"

    The answer is: Saudi Arabia.

    A small cabal of extremely super-privileged men (rich, het, cis, members of the dominant racial and religious group), stomping all over an equally small group of upper-class women (same description only female), and a mass of lower-class men and women (everyone else). The lower-class men would join in stomping all over the lower-class women and not realizing they're therefore just as bad as the higher men they would be resenting all the time, while the upper-class women would go along to get along with the system and occasionally live partially tolerable, if confined, dull, lonely, unfulfilling and dreadfully fragile lives. The lower-class women wouldn't have any choice or freedom at all. Occasionally the various classes of men would throw a bone to the women in the form of the odd act of chivalry like letting a 9-year-old divorce her 60-year-old husband, but mostly it'd just be things like women getting burned to death because they didn't have time to grab their veil before fleeing a building that was on fire. And the whole society would end up poorer, unhealthier, more neurotic, more violent, more miserable and less just.

    We don't need to theorize. We can just look at the place where the ideal MRA world has been allowed to exist. The pockets of sanity or decency in that place - and there are some (eg they do have female doctors to work on female patients), and thank God they are spreading and strengthening - are where the above system is being bucked due to some astonishingly enlightened men and some extremely brave women.
  • DrFunkenstein 32 minutes ago
    MRA's are dangerous in that their mebers ignore the very basic fact that being born a white male in this country automatically gives you a leg up on the competition. Hell, I'm a conservative/libertarian and even I am cognizant of this fact. I watched my mom flatten her head on the corporate glass ceiling for 20 years while white male kids half her age and with half her experience and/or intelligance that were fresh out of college get promotion after promotion. She trained half the executives who ranked higher in the corporation, one of which I got in a fist fight with for talking shit about my mom in an elevator. Funny thing was he got fired for the incident. Anyway, MRA's are populated by white men who see any sort of equality as a direct threat to their station, and as a white guy, it becomes increasingly difficult to distance one's self from these groups because they have a buttload of support in the Feux News crowd and conservative talk radio. Any time I here a white man bemoan his status as a caucasian male I become livid at such a brazen statement of unbridled ignorance.
  • neilleast - I read Holland's book. Outstanding piece of work. I second the recommendation.
Posted by at
Labels: , , , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)