Uechi-Ryu.com

Discussion Area
It is currently Sat Apr 19, 2014 10:10 pm

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 24 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Nov 22, 2005 2:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2001 6:01 am
Posts: 801
Location: Tallahassee, FL
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editor ... f_fathers/

Quote:
By Cathy Young | November 21, 2005

CHILD CUSTODY battles are always wrenching, particularly when there are allegations of abuse. For years fathers' rights groups have complained that men face a pervasive bias in family courts, while many feminists have countercharged that the real bias is against women. The latest round of this debate is being waged over a documentary, ''Breaking the Silence: Children's Stories," which has been airing on Public Broadcasting Service affiliates in the past month.

The film's point is simple: Children in America are routinely ripped from their mothers and given to fathers who are batterers or molesters. The women's claims of abuse are not believed by the courts and are even held against them when mothers are suspected of manufacturing false charges as a divorce strategy.

To fathers' groups, ''Breaking the Silence" is blatant antidad propaganda. In a campaign led by the Boston-based Fathers and Families, PBS has been bombarded with thousands of calls and letters. It is now conducting a 30-day review of the research used in the film.

Film producer Dominique Lasseur told me he was shocked by the backlash. ''I have nothing against fathers," says Lasseur, a father of two, ''but I have outrage about children being given to abusers."

There is no question that our legal system fails children all too often. But the PBS documentary presents a skewed and sensationalist picture.

Thus, Joan Meier, a George Washington University law professor and one of the film's main experts, asserts that ''75 percent of contested custody cases have a history of domestic violence" and that about two-thirds of fathers ''accused or adjudicated of battering" win sole or joint custody of their children.

The website of the film's producers, Tatge/Lasseur productions, lists two sources for these claims: a study of 39 abused women involved in custody litigation in Massachusetts, and the 1990 report of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Gender Bias Study Committee which states that fathers who actively seek custody obtain primary or joint physical custody over 70 percent of the time.

But the 70 percent figure was not limited to domestic violence cases. It is also highly misleading, since it doesn't separate custody disputes from cases in which the father gets custody by mutual consent. In contested custody cases, mothers are two to four times more likely to prevail.

''Breaking the Silence" seems to suggest that abusers who get custody of their children are virtually always male. In response to criticism, the filmmakers say on their site that since ''women are five to eight times more likely than men to be victimized by an intimate partner," to feature one male victim of abuse alongside five women would have ''overstated the problems of men."

The accuracy of their figures is questionable: the federally funded National Violence against Women Survey suggests that over a third of domestic violence victims are male. That aside, doesn't featuring zero abusive mothers significantly understate that problem?

Lasseur told me that if he had encountered cases in which an abusive mother was awarded custody of the children, he would have reported on them. I asked about the claim on a battered men's advocacy site that a man named Tom Gallen had approached him with exactly such a case. Lasseur conceded that Gallen had a well-documented story but explained that, relying on his ''instinct as a producer," he felt that Gallen wouldn't be the right person to use.

It's difficult to assess the credibility of the stories actually used in the film, since their presentation is deliberately one-sided. (Lasseur told me that women's allegations of abuse are often ''dismissed because it's he said/she said," and that he didn't want to recreate that dynamic.) In at least one case, involving a 16-year-old identified as ''Amina," there are serious questions about the film's accuracy.

Official documents supplied by the girl's father, Scott Loeliger, and posted at www.glennsacks.com, show that there were fairly serious child abuse allegations against ''Amina's" mother. Moreover, the only spousal abuse mentioned in these documents is violence toward the father by the mother.

The documents also reveal a messy, complicated case in which most evaluators concluded that both parents were behaving ''abominably." ''Breaking the Silence" simplifies this into a straightforward story of a villainous man and a noble, victimized woman, and does so in the service of a film whose overall effect is to vilify fathers.

The filmmakers contend that their only concern was the well-being of children. Yet, if the film contributes to a climate in which fathers who seek custody are tagged as suspected abusers, it could endanger children as well. PBS should rectify this bias by presenting programs with a different point of view.

Cathy Young is a contributing editor at Reason magazine. Her column appears regularly in the Globe.
© Copyright 2005 Globe Newspaper Company.

_________________
Seek knowledge from cradle to grave


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 22, 2005 2:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2001 6:01 am
Posts: 801
Location: Tallahassee, FL
http://www.glennsacks.com/pbs/memo.php

Quote:
A source at PBS sent us this confidential internal memo on Friday. The memo is an instruction sheet that PBS's national office has dispensed to their affiliates to instruct them as to how to deal with the thousands of people who have called or written them to protest the anti-father documentary Breaking the Silence. As you'll notice, the common theme of this memo is to stonewall protesters.

_________________
Seek knowledge from cradle to grave


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 22, 2005 2:53 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2004 9:40 pm
Posts: 3700
What do you expect from PBS. It's run it's race and should be unfunded.

_________________
I was dreaming of the past...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 23, 2005 3:32 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 17, 2000 6:01 am
Posts: 2813
Location: Massachusetts
You might not like it and you might think it is anti-dad, but I know about the study of custody litigation in Massachusetts. That study was done properly, is very well documented, and has proof to backup the results. There are actually more than 39 cases involved and there is clear and documented evidence of judicial misconduct, G.A.L. misconduct, attorney misconduct, and prejudice against the women in a few different court systems in Massachusetts. It is documented that with the right attorney, the dad, even with documentation of his physical abuse, can use the courts to continue to abuse the ex-wife, gain custody of the children and continue to abuse the children to further mentally/emotionally abuse and control the ex-wife. There is evidence of more than bias from G.A.L.s, there is strong indication of pay-offs to them. Research done on court records over a period of years shows that certain attorneys have statistically high win-rates for their male batterer clients when appearing before certain judges. In the past couple of years, because of complaints, cases have been "shuffled", but confidential interviews with some attorneys have yielded the information that the original judge who were "friendly" with some attorneys, were visiting other judges with "case finding recommendations" to advocate for their attorney "friends". I have personally been involved with more than one case where a good woman/mother had her children ripped from her custody and handed over to a lying, manipulative, abuser... even with medical evidence of the physical abuse and photographic evidence of the ex-husband's continued stalking and threats to kill the ex-wife/mother! In one case in particular, the G.A.L. did not even report the conversation with the doctor who had reported the bruises on the wife & daughters and recommended that not only should the father NOT get custody, but should only have supervised visits. When the father's financial records were compared, there was an unexplained $6k in cash missing from his account and the G.A.L. report gave him glowing accolades, called the mother "paranoid", stated that it was all "made up" by the mother without any corroborating evidence, and recommended that the father get complete and sole custody. The judge refused to listen to any of the mother's counter-evidence to the report OR to even listen to a police officer who was willing to testify about having to respond to one of the domestic violence incidents! Father got sole custody and continues to stalk and harass the mother. That's just one of MANY such cases. The Massachusetts INjustice system... It's not whether you're right, but whether you have the right attorney and how much that attorney can slide to the judge and G.A.L.

So, why do I bother telling you about that? Because the Fatherhood Coalition, which was started to fix some real problems, refuses to acknowledge that there are a large number of actual batterers and abusers who are hiding behind their cause and using it to continue to batter, abuse, stalk, harass, and threaten their ex-wives and children. They refuse to get the whole story and will blindly defend any piece of abusive scum that claims he is being accused falsely. While that has happened and still happens sometimes, the situation in Massachusetts courts now is that the woman gets abused all over again with the full blessing of the court. And when one of these women turns up beaten or dead, it will simply be another case of "ho-hum", guess he really was an abuser just like she said when she asked for the 209A that we turned down. (I actually heard a judge say to one woman, "I don't see any bruises. You aren't bleeding. I don't care if you do say he pulled a gun on you and said that next time he wouldn't miss. I don't think you're in any real danger. What did you do to get him mad? Mouth-off?" Yep... I, personally heard a judge say that to a woman who had been sent in by the police to get an emergency 209A after the ex-husband had pointed a gun at her. In the appeal, the next judge had already been spoken to, without the woman's attorney present, by the first judge and the husband's attorney in chambers and refused to look at medical records or listen to the testimony of the police officer and also turned down the 209A request. The woman was beaten up a few weeks later, but refused to discuss it, even with the doctors, because she had been warned that if she said anything or pressed charges the next time it would be fatal. Welcome to Massachusetts... where COP means Criminals Only Protected!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 25, 2005 6:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2001 6:01 am
Posts: 801
Location: Tallahassee, FL
men=bad
women=perfect angels

_________________
Seek knowledge from cradle to grave


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 25, 2005 7:14 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2001 6:01 am
Posts: 801
Location: Tallahassee, FL
What if the children (in the case of more than one) were automsatically split between the parents........I imagine there would be fewer women falsely claiming abuse so they could automatically get the kids, the house and more of his money.........

I would also imagine that if the woman knew that the kids might be shared more equally, there might be more women willing to share the kids as the courts (as if the courts would actually enforce a court ordered visitation)........

It is oh so common for men to be forced to pay child support by the courts and be refused to see his kids (and the courts refuse to lift a finger to enforce the visitation agreements-in most cases)........

All the woman has to do is falsify claims of abuse and the kids are hers almost automatically.........and he can stand around for years trying to prove her lies as what they are.....all the while being denied his own kids attention........

There isnt a single battered men's shelter in the world (as far as I can tell) and yet women still claim the right to kill their husbands cuz they had nowhere to go......duh. its the battered husbands that have nowhere to go........

I meet one battered husband every few months......they dont profess this as their claim to fame (most wouldnt admit it).....and when i ifnd them sleeping in their cars........cuz this society has no place for these men (and their children) to go.........they usually run back to their wives and girlfriends cuz they are as "trapped" as the women are.........

one buddy of mine had his wife push him down a flight of stairs just as the police arrived to witness the event.......did the guy press charges? did the police arrest her since they had personally witne3ssed the illegal "battering" activity?

please, we all know they didnt cuz it doesnt fit in with their stereotyped notion of who is a a batterer and who isnt.......

thus, our blindness to female battering of men is what allows us not to see it at all...........and of course it is not serious becuase men have been put on this planet so we can be the world's punching bags for women (and kids), but God help you if you ever speak up on your own behalf (or dare you ever lift a finger in your own self-defense)............cuz then the world will know you for the despicable wife beater that you are.......we hold the most venom and hatred for wife beaters (and rapists) while we hold the most comtempt for men who are battered by their wives.......

let me tell you somethign about the men that I know that have been battered by their spouses (or girlfriends), they are the most dedicated family guys I know (and i know several).......

They barely get out of the house and the phone is already ringing......where are you? , who are you with?, what are you doing? WHne are you coming home? Why arent you home? WHy arent you doing more for me? why are you wasting your time with those guys (as in how dare you have friends at all, dont you know your time belongs to me and i own you and you must work for me as I tell you, when i tell you, how i tell you............let me tell you, these women are big time control freaks......she screams at the top of her lungs to him to "get out", "your not a man", "I hate you" (in front of the kids-deliberately-seemingly), with the window opne so the neighbors can here yoru response to havbing your manhood (your identity) challenged in the rudet way possible.....one buddy, who recently had two disks replaced in his back (replacement parts never as good as the original) and a lifetime 30% disability due to his accident at work, would have his wife yell and scream at him to get money from his lawyer or esle she was gonna raise holy hell (manipulation).......she ripped the blankets and sheet off her husband as he was sitting naked in bed and screams at him at the top of her lungs that he is ....................whatever.........get out, forget her,

no one has the right to talk and act in that manner to another person, regardless of historical precendent (men yave been doning it for thousands of years......##### you, that doesnt make it right.......if its wrong, its wrong, regardless of which gender it happens to)...

the interesting thing, though, is that none of thse guys would ever press charges against their physcially and verbally abusive women......i have tried to tell these guys that they are enabling these women to act this badly........but their fear at losing their kids permanently is another factor that must be taken seriously.........

as stated above, if the kids (in the case of more than one) were automatically split betwen the parents, there would be far less fighting in divorce court over the kids....the parents would have to share and if the parent wouldnt swap, they wouldnt see the other kid......too many men are being stripped of visitation right of their kids and not being allowed to see them...and the courts certainly dont give a shiite (or they would do somethign constructive about it).........how many women would continue not allowing their former mates top see their own kids if rights to seeing your own kids were fairly enforced..........and how many men wouldnt get upset that they were denied the right to see their own kids.........

and i have heard of far more judicial activism on the side of women and their false alegations (or simply unproven allegations of abuse) than the other way around..........

keep in mind that in a court of law, a man is innocent until proven guilty, but in the divorce court, nothing in the way of abuse allegatios must be proven beyond any reasonable doubt as is the supposed law of the land.......

and dude, just cuz some few guys who have acces to $100,000 lawyers doesnt mean the rest of us do......the vast majority of us guys cannot afford a custody fight for our own kids, and if the system worked a little more fairly (85% of all custody goes to mothers-so much for gender fiarness).........

we guys know full well that the divorce playing field is anything but level, so while you try to avoid the big issues of fairness, you are just saying that men are bad and the men that infect courthouses are real bad........so until the perfect women (who never ever lie-as if) are automatically given everything they desire and more because men are bad and we all know it.......

anyone who denies the badness of men is a bad man (or a horrible woman)......proof of men's badness is not needed and even asking for the proof is beginning to threaten the sacred cow of our society (women)........

Where is the proof that men are more violent? because we lock em up in prison at rates higher than those for women............havent we defined all the crimes such that men are the oens likely to get arrested?

if a woman has concensual sex with a fourteen year old boy (she is his teacher), she goes to jail for statutory rape for how long? 4 years (a s a man would???????!?!?!??!?!!) yeah, freakking right, she goes to jail for zero days (and she gets a holiday named after her and a statue in her honor....................The same male teacher doing the same crime with a female student would spend years in jail, the rest of his life on the sex offenders list whiel this woman gets a little probabtion and lots of sympathy..........

i dont know about you, but i am tired of the double standards and the cowcrap that pass for research........women batter and they dont get thrown in jail and no one even bothers to ask if women are violent towards their husbands (etc) cuz the truth might cause some people (like men) to ask the right questions.......like if hitting is wrong, why is it ok for women to do it, but not men???????

There is a rule of law crisis in this country and somehting needs to be done about it cuz we are headed for the crapper in this society and i for one, unless we do something, not just sit on our hands saying, gee, this is horrible, let's do nothing........

_________________
Seek knowledge from cradle to grave


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 25, 2005 7:31 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2001 6:01 am
Posts: 801
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Quote:
Children in America are routinely ripped from their mothers and given to fathers who are batterers or molesters.



And how often does this happen in reverse?

How often in america are chidren ripped from their fathers (not that anyone would give a crap if fathers were discriminated against) and given to mothers who are batterers or molesters?

We dont know because that is a question we will likely never ask. We have already made the sexually biased assumption (read sexist) that women are the best to raise children (fairness and equality be damned).

All this feminist bullcrap about fariness and equality are just that. They have no intention of being fair or equal when it comes to doling out the kids; they want the kids to go to women the vast majority of the time and anything short of that will brings cries of hysteria and infairness.

We already have assumed that children are safer with their mother than their father. Thus, we have created a discriminatory court system that enforces our stereotypical view of who is the best parent and who is the most violent........and the feminists and their stooges pretend that the (divorce) courts act in favor of men to get you to have sympathy for them and to get you to cede more of your rights willingly while thinking that you are safe from their minions.

_________________
Seek knowledge from cradle to grave


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 25, 2005 8:53 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 16, 1999 6:01 am
Posts: 1495
Location: Halifax, NS Canada
Quote:
We already have assumed that children are safer with their mother than their father.


"not that anyone would give a crap if fathers were discriminated against"

Now THAT sounds like an assumption to me.

Akil, please don't lump us all together.
Thank you.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Nov 26, 2005 12:35 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 17, 2000 6:01 am
Posts: 2813
Location: Massachusetts
Domestic Violence is wrong regardless of female on male or male on female (or, as has now happened in Massachusetts, same-sex spouse on same-sex spouse!)...

ATH, you make a lot of claims, stake your position, and are very passionate about it. No problem. Your snide or flippant comments about "men = bad, women = perfect angels" doesn't help you out any simply because no one (here, on these forums) has claimed that women can't be batterers or that they can't make false claims of battery or that women are the only ones that can be a good parent. As a guy, I don't believe any of that and take issue with such positions. Indeed, the opposite positions are just as off base.

The problem with some groups, such as the Fatherhood Coalition, is that they take the position that NO man is ever a batterer, that EVERY claim of abuse from a woman is false, and that men are denied access to their children while being forced to pay child support but the opposite NEVER happens. Then, these groups assist attorneys and fathers to win in court, even when there is hard evidence of the man's abuse, the "allegations" are proven to be true, until the abusive father is given custody of the children while the mother is forced to pay, often outrageously disproportional to their income, child support to her former abuser who doesn't allow her to see her children.

Regardless of which way this happens, there is a recognized psychological term for it. "Parental Alienation Syndrome". (I've done my homework on this one...) When either parent in a divorce makes false allegations, that is not only wrong, but it gives fodder in the future to others taking the position that other claims (even credible, proveable ones) are false. I understand where you are coming from and I would fight if I were falsely accused in that situation, however, it is not something that happens only to men. At least when discussing Massachusetts, I know various women who have had the same thing happen to them as each of the items that you reference point by point.

As stated earlier, it isn't about what is right, fair or just... it isn't about what is in the best interests of the children... it is about who hires the most sleazy, unethical, well-connect to the judges and G.A.L.s, win-at-all-costs weasel of an attorney. When the judges who are responsible for "judicial oversight of the code of ethics" are the ones who have inpromptu ex-parte meetings with certain connected attorney "friends", then the situation is basically that of the fox guarding the hen-house.

I've seen and heard of it both ways. The other thing I will point out is that in Massachusetts, if you are a man and unlucky enough to live in certain counties, you are screwed... if you are a woman and unlucky enough to live in some other counties, you're just as screwed... and if you are a woman in the those first counties or a man in the second counties, and you have the right connections, you can use the system to totally destroy your ex...

When I went through my divorce a number of years ago, I knew that I could get screwed because of where I was living, but fortunately, I convinced my ex to go a different route. We mediated everything, came to a mutual agreement in advance and then simply filed it and presented it to the judge. Done... and... DONE. For a number of reasons I got asked to help someone who was attempting to leave an abusive long-term marriage protect herself. (The martial arts tie-in here...) When I saw how she was getting totally screwed and the way even her ex's ATTORNEY was part of the conspiracy to allow his client to keep stalking her, I was outraged. So, I started doing some digging for information. That's how I came across the studies you say are "made up" and biased and not true. From my research, the cases (numerous ones) where I went back and checked the data, were very well documented and were factual. Then I started wondering if it was just a few counties where this was happening to women and found that there were others... and THEN I found that there were a number of counties/courts where the opposite was true... where men couldn't get a fair deal regardless.

This is the way it is. It's broken, but I can't fix it... The "powers that be" won't listen and they don't what to be told that the statisical evidence has been compiled by some people to show that one gender is treated better over the other in certain venues. They also don't want to acknowledge any statistical evidence that certain attorneys have higher than average "win rates" with certain judges... and higher than average G.A.L. reports that are "favorable" to their clients... but it was done and some folks who have been "warned" to keep their noses clean did the research.

Welcome to the InJustice System. What I would really like to see you realize is that it goes both ways and depending on who/what/where/how, both genders have the exact same valid arguments. Blind Justice my @$$...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Nov 26, 2005 6:42 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2005 10:49 pm
Posts: 3519
Location: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
i slap ma bitches alllll da time!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Nov 26, 2005 2:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 17, 2000 6:01 am
Posts: 2813
Location: Massachusetts
AAAhmed46 wrote:
i slap ma bitches alllll da time!


There are a number of ways that I could respond to this comment, but I'm reserving my personal comments to perhaps a future time. Instead, I will respond in the capacity of moderator and state that this comment was uncalled for. If you can only respond by degenerating the thread further, then the thread should be closed.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 30, 2005 2:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2001 6:01 am
Posts: 801
Location: Tallahassee, FL
http://www.glennsacks.com/pbs/loeliger.php

Quote:
Fatherhood advocates have publicly revealed extensive court findings, records and testimony that indicate that Sadia Loeliger--portrayed as a heroic mom in a recent, nationally-broadcast PBS documentary--abused children under her care. A Tulare County Juvenile Court concluded in August of 1998 that Sadia Loeliger had committed multiple acts of abuse, and adjudged both her daughters as dependents of the Juvenile Court.

Sadia Loeliger and her 16 year-old daughter Fatima were key figures in PBS's Breaking the Silence: Children's Stories. The film purports to detail an alleged crisis of fit mothers losing custody of their children to violent husbands in divorce. In the film, Sadia is portrayed as the victim of anti-mother bias in family courts.

The documents were revealed by Los Angeles-based newspaper columnist Glenn Sacks, who has helped lead a protest of the show, and Scott Loeliger, Fatima’s father who was divorced from Sadia in 1991. According to Sacks:

"It’s amazing that PBS and the filmmakers decided--despite repeated warnings--to nationally televise Sadia and her claims. Not only were there clear Juvenile Court findings of her abuse of Fatima and also of Fatima's cousin Sara, who lived with Sadia, but we have extensive testimony from Sadia's babysitter, Sara, and several mental health professionals about Sadia's violence. The filmmakers put a child [Fatima] in an extremely difficult position."

Doris Nava Arellano, Sadia's babysitter for 18 months, testified that "every child in the house is afraid" of Sadia and that “Sara actually has scars on the back of her legs and on the left side of her head from Ms. Ali-Loeliger's attacks on her.”

Sara, then aged 15, penned a desperate letter detailing the abuse she suffered at Sadia's hands, writing “she hits in front of anyone anywhere with anything. I fear for my life sometimes. Just recently she hit me in the head.”

In the documents--posted on Sacks' website at www.glennsacks.com/pbs --Sadia is portrayed by numerous mental health, judicial and investigative authorities as violent and abusive towards the children under her care.

A child abuse investigator for Tehama County wrote that Fatima, then age eight, "says she is afraid to go home because she fears being hit again. She also expressed concern for the two other female minors in her mother's residence."

A therapist who conducted investigations for Shasta County Child Protective Services wrote that Fatima "told me she did not want to go home because she was afraid her mother was going to hit her."

Another therapist wrote "On two separate occasions this child reported to me that she was burned 'with a match' by her mother, Sadia Ali Loeliger....I am extremely concerned regarding this child's welfare."

Among the documents revealed are a series of letters, written to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and Breaking the Silence co-producers Tatge-Lasseur Productions and Connecticut Public Broadcasting, informing them of Sadia's history of child abuse. The letters were written earlier this year by Scott Loeliger, a Northern California physician, and his attorney Dennis Roberts. They asked that footage of Scott’s daughter Fatima be excluded from the film. Despite this, PBS went forward with the broadcast, including the sections featuring Sadia and Fatima.

Breaking the Silence is already the source of considerable controversy. At the instigation of Sacks, Fathers and Families, Help Stop PAS Inc., the American Coalition for Fathers & Children, and others, PBS and its affiliates have been flooded with over 10,000 calls and letters protesting the show. Sacks calls the show a "direct assault on fatherhood" which "portrays fathers as batterers and child molesters who steal children from their mothers."

Holstein, President of Fathers and Families, says:

"A few groups are concerned about the accelerating trend towards joint custody of children, and are striking back by accusing most fathers who seek custody of being batterers and child abusers. It's a shame PBS has dispensed with objective reporting and chosen to air an extremist point of view without looking at the political motives of the advocates it features.”

Sacks adds:

“It’s a shame they didn’t check the backgrounds of the mothers they chose to lionize more carefully, too."

_________________
Seek knowledge from cradle to grave


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 30, 2005 2:12 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2001 6:01 am
Posts: 801
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Mary,

I was told all my life by my loving mom how bad men are and how grreat women are......If women are so great, they should feel free to stand up for what is right in this situation?.....or just sit on the sidelines despising that which requires action......

sorry, mary, i have no pride for abusive mothers (oh, and I assume from your previous posts that you are not an abusive mother), but i wonder if you would even bother to figure out if this campaign needs support, if the issue is of great concern........or do you not have an oune of concern (you expressed outrage at me and my statements, but seem sometwhat unconcerned about the plight of fathers.....

I call em as I see em......and if anybody's feelings get hurt, it is not that I do not care, it is that there is a higher purpose than me or you, the children......

but the way I see it, feminists jump up and down all day saying we want equality, just dont take the kids...........horsedung......that aint equality.........that is self serving manipulation......like this fake pbs documentary, that is trying to make sure that dads dont have equality......

_________________
Seek knowledge from cradle to grave


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 30, 2005 4:52 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 16, 1999 6:01 am
Posts: 1495
Location: Halifax, NS Canada
Quote:
http://trishwilson.typepad.com/blog/2005/11/fathers_rights__1.html#more


Akil, this will be my last post on this topic. You might find the above interesting - it is reputedly the response given by the child at the centre of this maelstrom...

For the record - I never expressed outrage at any of your statements, merely requested that you refrain from "lumping us all togther" followed politely by a "thank you".

Mary S


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 30, 2005 6:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
Posts: 17032
Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
A couple of comments....

1) I think you need to deal with some issues, Akil.

We ALL have issues. ;)

Your feelings sometimes appear unhealthy. I can get just as excited as the next person when I see an injustice. But when justice or injustice is blind in one eye, that's just plain not healthy.

It's OK to be angry at things. It's OK to have a cause. Then what?

Whatever you do, don't ever get in the position of looking just like the feminazis you love to hate. Then who has won? Who emotionally hijacked whom?

2) Mary is good people. I would trust Mary with my life. We don't agree on everything, but she'd never, ever do you wrong - to a fault. She also happens to have legal expertise. So when you think Mary is being unreasonable...

Deep breath, Daniel san.

3) Panther, I know of the situations you speak of. *****... Makes a grown man (me) want to cry.

- Bill


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 24 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group