Sunday, December 19, 2004

Redressing The Balance: The Men’s Manifesto

Tuesday, 14 December 2004, 9:56 am
Press Release: Men’s Coalition

Redressing The Balance: The Men’s Manifesto

The social landscape of New Zealand will be need to be changed dramatically if men are to have a “fair go” in New Zealand society, according to James Nicolle, Coordinator of the Men’s Coalition.

Mr. Nicolle was commenting on the release today of the Executive Summary of the MENZTABLE REPORT; a manifesto for men’s rights.

“Men in New Zealand are increasingly marginalised and persecuted by powerful trends in the socio-political agenda", he said.

”Men have reached this conclusion because of the raw deal we are getting in the Family Court, the Child Support system, social development, health and education.”

“Our political and social systems have progressively devalued the place of men in New Zealand today.”

“It is time for Men to reassert what is valuable to us and reclaim our right to be men,” he said.

The MENZTABLE REPORT has come from a meeting of representatives of men’s organisations held at Taupo in July.

The product of this meeting, the Men’s Coalition of New Zealand, is coordinating the preparation and release of the Report.

Mr. Nicolle said the body of the Report would be released in sections during 2005 to highlight men’s concerns throughout the election year.

“We see this as a seminal document which provides the vision and agenda of real men seeking to redress the balance and even out the scales.” Concluded Nicolle.

Mobile phones: The home invader

Mobile phones can be a useful safety device for children, but also make them vulnerable.

11.12.04
by Chris Barton

Whoever thought it was a good idea to equip mobile phones with cameras probably didn’t anticipate people taking photographs of their genitals and transmitting the images to websites for all to see.

But having places on the internet where people could send and publish - “post” - instant images taken with camera phones, was always part of the plan. They’re known as “moblogs” and most are innocuous - homes for electronic albums of family, pets, holidays, gatherings, and the like. Plus the weird craze of the moment in “drive-by shootings” - photos of buildings, roadsides, scenery or anything else one drives by.

But there are also a few moblogs where people have used the technology for less wholesome things - like the aforementioned instant DIY porn. Sick exhibitionists? Undoubtedly. But such sites also represent the avant-garde of mobile phone use - creativity gone mad when it comes to what one can do with a fledgling technology. Why? Because they can.

Surprising, new uses for mobiles are cropping up all time. Like the gang member in an Auckland District Court seen last week using a camera phone to photograph members of the jury. The judge was not impressed and immediately had the jury taken to a secret location.

The behaviour also has court officials and Government ministers wondering whether the incident represents a new tactic for causing mistrials - and whether mobile phones should be banned in court. Besides the spectre of pornographic postings and juror intimidation, other mobile phone behaviours may give parents pause for thought if they’re considering buying their daughter or son the latest in mobile gadgetry this Christmas.
(more…)

Open Letter to Men's "Activists"

I'm not sure how old this open letter by Robert Sides is

Christina Hoff Sommers, not Warren Farrell, writes pro-male pieces for the NYT and WSJ. Mona Charen, not Robert Bly, challenges the idea of women in the military. Men simply no longer know the difference between thinking and doing. Even on (the Internet), Betty and Gisele call for action...not men (who seem content to talk forever and ever and ever and ever while their ship not only sinks, it lays barnacled on the ocean floor).

This is very odd, since whenever men DO get off their duffs, media DO respond by printing their letters, etc. Nonetheless, like infants, most men still expect reporters to be mommy-mindreaders who "feed" them without their having to DO anything. Over and over and over and over again, cyber-groups form saying they're going to act. Then, they do everything BUT act.

From time to time, someone says, "Hey, we're still just talking, not acting. Feminists both talk AND act. When are WE going to act?" Then the group starts talking about acting. They wonder what "action" means, and in what context. Alternate spellings are offered. Historical roots are dug up. Angels are counted on the heads of pins. And on and on the b.s. goes. Fire consumes the "House of Men" because given water, men refuse to use it.

Inactivism aside, this also gnaws: In one of my posts, I wrote...Pretend I'm a reporter. I've read an (Internet) mailshot. Now...Whom do I call to talk about it...Groups attract talkers and dissuade doers, dilly-dallying all the live-long days.

It seems men's groups actually LIKE reinventing wheels. They have no sense of urgency. Their "patience" and "reason" and "Big Picture-itis" lets femi-madness like a cancer grow. All that's required for evil to stop is for good men to stand up and kick ass. Yet men won't.

Passivity, acquiescence, and modern maleness let [anti-male] feminism grow. The meek do indeed inherit the dirt.

Media do NOT ignore men [I doubt that]. They ignore meek, mild, tepid, silent, "nice" groups. Guys have been talking like schoolboys for a long, long, long time. The only reason feminists win is because men won't do more than talk. Men's groups leave the field wide open to NOW, never opposing it. Men refuse to play the media game. Grown men whine over media they never use. They cry, "The NYT is biased!" Yet they never do anything for reporters to cover. When you ask such men how many letters they've actually written, it's usually "zero."

Men are such ball-less babies.

Honest to god, it's amazing any males have jobs. They have no concept how to use PR judo, how to get covered by even hostile papers, how to spin disasters to advantages, and so on. What's worse, you can't tell them anything, show them anything. After a while, you think 'Geez, these guys are so stubborn, blind, and pig-headed, I think their exes were right to dump them. Even Mother Theresa tires [tired] of talking to walls."

Women's groups contact media daily. They repeat known lies forever. Yet men think a hundred guys emailing one Truth to each other online matters.
Wake up!

Men sit on a beach raked with enemy gun fire, playing cards. They ignore calls from others to seek cover and fight back. Modern men have a death wish, Big Time.
Men's groups are always "going to" put ads here, send letters there, do this and that. Only they never do. They're Walter Mitty, facing Panzers in their minds, pushing grocery carts for hen-pecking wives in reality.

Guys now think putting messages in email bottles will "kick-ass." In another thirty years they'll go, "Shazam! Maybe we should hold some creative, attention-getting events, too."

You roll on the floor watching them, guys desperately trying to find their butts with both hands. And failing.

Told and shown- time and again- what works (that is, what grabs media's attention, what media can be used for, what politicians look for), men's groups CHOOSE to act deaf, dumb, blind, lame, and halt.

Some say it takes "weeks" to get media addresses, for example. Yet anyone with Internet access and 2-3 search engines can download, sort, and log-by-category (country, state, county, province, city, etc.) email addresses for several hundred media outlets (print, TV and radio) in 1 hour.

Period. I know. I just did it.

Ah, what's the use...

Bwahahahahahahaha!

I'm going rogue again. I've done media alone before, I'll return to it now. Only this time, I'm going to bash males. Not for being men, but for NOT being men. The public has the right to belly-laughs.

Tales of grown men losing their honor, kids, jobs, savings, and lives while playing Keystone Kops WILL entertain the public. So get ready for some multi-media hoots.

Media DO carry pro-male stories when, once every blue moon, men do more than blather. They also carry feminist stories because women always act. They've also printed/aired a lot of my words/thoughts. So they'll positively LOVE my tales lunacy in the non-moving men's movement...the gangstas who wouldn't shoot straight.

Look, I've cried with men. Coddled them. Coached them. I've economically carried, emotionally consoled, and small-talk kvetched with hundreds of guys. No matter. Men want to fail. It's time the public knows what "really" goes on in men's groups.

So check your local papers. Read 'em and weep. Let the tears of laughter flow.

(Who knows, maybe men will finally get pissed off enough to ACT! Then again, given the lure of beer, peanuts, and watching football..) Spare me lectures on "misandry," too. I've no patience for it. I've been at this -actively - for 20 years. If you've done more, I'll listen. If not, stuff it.

Gender war rages all around. The time for false, ms-placed outrage is long past. Men had 3 whole decades to get pissed at the real enemy: fembots. Getting angry with me now for pointing out the obvious is just more male hooey. Anyone who wants to know why men are in such a sorry state needs only to study the boneheads "leading" most (all?) men's group. Kindergartners could whup their collective behinds.

After 30 years of non-stop, one-sided feminist bombardments, men STILL "think" about whether to fight back or not. They spew pearl-like nuggets of wisdom like, "we need to unite under one big umbrella." then to absolutely nothing to make that happen. Any man showing balls, who will slap a woman who slaps him, is immediately pulled down by weenies who think Boy Scout essays matter.

God help us: women DO have bigger testicles today. Money in hand, copy ready, weak-willed crybaby men couldn't even follow-through to put one tiny ad in one small paper. Then these same guys have the gall to say feminism is "failing" since NOW has "only" 250,000 members and "only" comment on every gender issue under the sun.

It's time to round up all males over age 12 and put them on feminist farms. Let them pull plows and be useful. Just give them beer and let them sit at computers at night, whining to each other about how hard their lives are. Then watch them fall over each other each day, showing Big Nurse how many acres THEY can till for the humans (females)!

Modern men: ice cream cones on their foreheads, "kick me!" signs on their backs.

Robert Sides, MA.

PS. If hearing all this makes you angry, good. There's still hope for you then. Now, you can either (1) vent on me - who's done more alone than most men's groups combined (not bragging, just stating the facts) or (2) unite and fight, marching against feminists. No "leader" will galvanize you. Men who want to fight WILL, though bare-handed and leaderless. Men who don't want to fight will sit on their backsides no matter who tries to lead them (El Cid, Saladin, Washington, DeGaulle, Peter The Great, Ho Chi Minh, etc.).

Sunday, December 12, 2004

Fwd:HIS SIDE: Are Child Support Levels Too High?

Glenn Sacks <glenn@glennsacks.com> wrote:
Subject: Are Child Support Levels Too High?
Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2004 02:48:07 -0500

Are Child Support Levels Too High?

December 8, 2004

The promo for this week's His Side--"Are Child Support Levels Too High?"--is below.

I invite you to call the show and join the discussion in progress at 5 PM PST/8 PM EST at 1-877-590-KTIE (in California) or 1-800-439-4805 (out of state). 

For those who are outside of our radio stations' coverage ranges, you can listen to the show live this Sunday (12/12) via our station's excellent Internet stream at Listen Live.

His Side with Glenn Sacks can be heard on WSNR AM 620 in New York City and North-Eastern New Jersey, and on WWZN AM 1510 in Boston on Sundays at 10 PM EST. The show can also be heard in Southern California on KTIE AM 590 at 5 PM PST.

Also, you can have CDs of all His Side shows for six months mailed to you by clicking here.

The archive of Sunday evening's show, NY Family Law: Justice or Bloodsport?, can be found here.

The American Coalition for Fathers and Children is America's shared parenting organization. With thousands of members nationwide and affiliated organizations in many states, the ACFC is dedicated to creating a family law system which promotes equal rights for all parties affected by divorce. Shared Parenting is the real child support. Contact the ACFC at 1-800-978-3237 or visit them on the web at www.acfc.org.  

If you own a business or professional practice and are interested in advertising on the show, please contact Advertise@HisSide.com. To support the advertisers who support His Side, go to His Side Advertisers.

As always, all information about the show can be found at HisSide.com. I welcome your comments and suggestions.

Best Wishes,
Glenn Sacks
Listen to His Side with Glenn Sacks
GlennSacks.com

 

Are Child Support Levels Too High?

According to economist R. Mark Rogers, "Child support guidelines currently in use by the U.S. states typically generate awards that are three to four times what they should be if based on economically sound cost tables and on a true equal duty of support standard for both parents" (emphasis added). 

Rogers also believes that support levels have become so skewed in favor of custodial parents that even custodial parents with a substantially lesser income will still end up with a "significantly higher standard of living than the non-custodial parent." The situation is even more inequitable in cases where the custodial parent has a significantly higher income than the noncustodial.

Rogers of Guideline Economics believes that child support levels are too high in practically every U.S. state and has proposed a Cost Shares guideline which he says will remedy the problem. Debbie Kline is the Executive Director of the Association for Children for the Enforcement of Support, a nationwide organization which advocates higher child support levels and tougher child support enforcement. Mark and Debbie will join Glenn on His Side with Glenn Sacks on Sunday, December 12 at 5 PM PST/8 PM EST.

You can call the show and join the discussion in progress at 1-877-590-KTIE (in California) or 1-800-439-4805 (out of state).

For those who are outside of our radio stations' coverage ranges, you can listen to the show live via our station's excellent Internet stream at Listen Live.  His Side with Glenn Sacks can be heard on WSNR AM 620 in New York City and North-Eastern New Jersey, and on WWZN AM 1510 in Boston on Sundays at 10 PM EST. The show can also be heard in Southern California on KTIE AM 590 at 5 PM PST.

To learn more about child support, see:

His Side with Glenn Sacks can be heard on WSNR AM 620 in New York City and North-Eastern New Jersey, and on WWZN AM 1510 in Boston on Sundays at 10 PM EST. The show can also be heard in Southern California on KTIE AM 590 at 5 PM PST. To listen live via the Internet from anywhere in the world, go to Listen Live. Both radio and Internet listeners are encouraged to call and participate in the show live and on the air at 1-877-590-KTIE (in California) or 1-800-439-4805 (out of state). All callers will be mailed a free CD of the show in which they appeared at their request.

GlennSacks.com / HisSide.com


Do you Yahoo!?
The all-new My Yahoo! – Get yours free!

Fwd:HIS SIDE" NY Fathers, Supporters Battle Leading Feminist Attorney on NY Family Law Crisis

Glenn Sacks <glenn@glennsacks.com> wrote:
Subject: NY Fathers, Supporters Battle Leading Feminist Attorney on NY Family Law Crisis
Date: Mon, 06 Dec 2004 15:50:47 -0500

NY Fathers, Supporters Battle Leading Feminist Attorney on NY Family Law Crisis

December 6, 2004

The archive of Sunday evening's show, NY Family Law: Justice or Bloodsport?, can be found here. The show is yet another example of what many of us have maintained for a long time--when fathers' supporters are able to debate the defenders of the current family law system in an open and fair forum, it quickly becomes clear that fathers have many legitimate grievances and irrefutable arguments.

Melanie I. Cummings wrote an excellent letter to the New York Matrimonial Commission taking apart NOW's myth that New York fathers get custody 70% of the time when they fight for it--to read it, click here.

Many New York activists are doing fine work on these issues, and I urge our New York listeners to support the efforts of The Coalition of Fathers and Families of New York--go to www.fafny.org or contact FaFNY VP Mr. Randall L. Dickinson at Dickins895@aol.com  / (518) 899-3302 or FaFNY coordinator Debbie Fellows at DAFellows2001@yahoo.com / (518) 381 6948.

A new Seattle Post-Intelligencer article, More thirtysomethings are putting off the marital knot (12/2/04), speculates on the statistical trend towards later marriages. The reporter, Vanessa Ho, focuses on why women are hesitating to marry, ignoring the many reasons why men are increasingly turning their backs on marriage. In a column I co-authored a few years ago, Have Anti-Father Family Court Policies Led to a Men's Marriage Strike? (Philadelphia Inquirer, 7/5/02), we speculated that men's fear of losing their children and financial ruin in divorce were driving men away from marriage. The enormous reaction the piece generated, particularly after Rush Limbaugh read the piece on the air, certainly lends credence to the idea that men increasingly see marriage as a disadvantageous and even dangerous institution.

Vanessa Ho also notes that "Societal pressures to marry before having children also have decreased, driving the unmarried percentage up," leading to a tripling of the rate of out of wedlock births over the past three decades. This problem--and some of the ways family law practitioners are aggravating it--is discussed in my co-authored column Undermining the American Family (Human Events, 1/27/03).

As I mentioned last week, Verizon has informed His Side listeners and supporters that the "Homework" ad which was the subject of our protest will no longer be aired. We commend Verizon for understanding our concerns. It is our hope that, given the extensive publicity and support our campaign has received, Verizon and other companies will keep these concerns in mind when planning future advertising campaigns. Thanks to the thousands of you who called and wrote Verizon. 

You can have CDs of all His Side shows for six months mailed to you by clicking here.

David R. Burroughs, President of Fairhill Financial Services LLC, has been offering guidance to individual investors for 18 years. Dave specializes in working with individuals to develop a comprehensive investment plan that meets their short-term needs while building a nest egg for the future. He prides himself in providing personal service to his clients which includes ensuring clients know all the pluses and minuses of the investment options available to them. If you're looking to invest and you need a source for stocks, bonds or mutual funds, Dave Burroughs can be reached at 410-392-8244 or via his website here.
Securities and advisory services offered through Commonwealth Financial Network, Member NASD, SIPC. A registered investment advisor.

If you own a business or professional practice and are interested in advertising on the show, please contact Advertise@HisSide.com. To support the advertisers who support His Side, go to His Side Advertisers.

As always, all information about the show can be found at HisSide.com. I welcome your comments and suggestions.

Best Wishes,
Glenn Sacks
Listen to His Side with Glenn Sacks
GlennSacks.com

 

NY Family Law: Justice or Bloodsport?

The New York State National Organization for Women has declared a crisis for women in family law and made it the theme of their December 4-5 Annual Convention. According to NOW-NYS, the NY family court system "routinely deprives mothers and their children of their human and civil rights. These violations frequently result in mothers losing custody of their children to batterers, even in instances where there are outstanding allegations of child abuse...[the] court system allows batterers to destroy [mothers] financially through years of costly litigation, supervised visits, and related practices." 

By contrast, fathers' groups view the NY family law system and its sole custody norm as bloodsport, where parents must fight like gladiators in a ring for custody in a match which is thoroughly rigged against dads.

Between the New York State Matrimonial Commission hearings, a public re-examination of New York's fault-based divorce system, the high profile Bridget Marks case, the federal class-action lawsuit filed on behalf of noncustodial parents in New York and in dozens of other states, the NYS NOW convention, and others, New York family law is under scrutiny.

Pioneer family law attorney Cecile C. Weich has represented women and championed feminist causes for over four decades. Family law attorney Michael Varble helps parents fight visitation interference and gain equal access to their children. Cecile and Michael joined Glenn on His Side with Glenn Sacks on December 5.

To learn more about New York Family Law and family court bias, see:

His Side with Glenn Sacks can be heard on WSNR AM 620 in New York City and North-Eastern New Jersey, and on WWZN AM 1510 in Boston on Sundays at 10 PM EST. The show can also be heard in Southern California on KTIE AM 590 at 5 PM PST. To listen live via the Internet from anywhere in the world, go to Listen Live. Both radio and Internet listeners are encouraged to call and participate in the show live and on the air at 1-877-590-KTIE (in California) or 1-800-439-4805 (out of state). All callers will be mailed a free CD of the show in which they appeared at their request.

GlennSacks.com / HisSide.com

 


Do you Yahoo!?
Send holiday email and support a worthy cause. Do good.

Tuesday, December 07, 2004

Not what the doctor ordered:The Pseudo-Science of Same-Sex Marriage

 

The Pseudo-Science of Same-Sex Marriage

Not what the doctor ordered:

Psychologists aren't helping by trying to
turn a moral issue into a matter of mental health

August 11, 2004

Gay marriage is good for mental health -- well, if not yours, then at least for that of your gay friends and acquaintances. That's what the American Psychological Association, the world's largest association of psychologists, says. At their annual conference this summer, they passed a policy statement that same-sex couples should have the right to marry.

Their reasoning goes something like this: "If it can't hurt and it might help, we'll support it."

As for the "can't hurt" part, the APA calls on that good old incontestable word "research" to camouflage what would otherwise be recognized as mere opinion and wild speculation.

Since legalizing same-sex marriage is something new, none of us can honestly claim to know the short-term effects -- let alone the long-term ones -- on couples, their children or society. But, as the APA puts it, psychological research, "provides no evidence to justify discrimination against same-sex couples."

Or, in less formal language, if there is no "scientific" reason to be against it, then, hey, let's go for it.

As for the "might help" argument, APA president Diane Halpern puts it best. She says that denying gays the right to marry "puts a particular stress on them just because of their sexual orientation. It's a health issue and a mental-health
issue."

In the psychologist's worldview, stress is ubiquitous. If a group that's in the majority experiences stress, it is called "life stress." If a minority group experiences it, it has another name: "minority stress." But whichever variety it is, psychologists believe stress is always bad. It's unhealthy and we must, according to current psychological wisdom, do whatever we can to eliminate it.

So, if allowing gays to marry serves to reduce their stress level, it's good and we should all be saying "yes" to gay marriage.

The American Psychological Association is saying this at a time when U.S. President George W. Bush is stomping across America championing "family values." That, in his conservative thinking, means saying "no" to same-sex marriage. Last week, Missouri voters did just that when they overwhelmingly approved an amendment to the state constitution barring such marriages, thus becoming the first state to do so. A dozen other states are preparing to vote on similar amendments.

So why, I am wondering, would the APA take such a stance in this stormy political climate? Ms. Halpern herself acknowledged the riskiness of the move. We're going out on a limb," she said.

The answer, I think, has nothing to do with mental health and everything to do with politics. Leading up to the last U.S. election, psychology clearly wanted Al Gore to win. While never officially endorsing the Democrats, they coached Gore around mental-health issues and they embraced his wife, Tipper, seeing her as the First Lady of Mental Health, someone sure to champion their causes whole-heartedly.

But the shoe dropped, the chads hung and psychology's plans were cast into disarray.

President Bush isn't psychology's ally. He openly favours faith-based initiatives over professional programs, arguing that faith can accomplish what secular programs can not. And he is undermining the control psychology has jealously held for decades over who can provide therapy and counselling. In A Charge to Keep, he writes that he "supports alternative licensing, so effective efforts aren't buried or compromised by government regulations."

None of this is good for psychology's business.

It seems that psychology, having no friend in the White House now and seeing that John Kerry has a chance of winning, has chosen to throw its lot with the Democratic challenger.

Like Ronald Reagan Jr., when he stopped just short of taking a partisan stance by ending his speech at last month's Democratic National Convention with the words "vote for stem-cell research," psychologists have spoken out on an issue
that aligns them with the Democrats.

While Mr. Kerry doesn't personally approve of same-sex marriage, he doesn't oppose the notion of legalizing civil unions and he wants the issue to be decided by individual states. Ditto for the APA, which says it will work with "states and provinces to provide civil marriage and to recognize the parent rights of lesbians and gay men."

Since the Democrats have historically been more in line than the Republicans with psychology's interests and initiatives -- whether they were supporting greater access to psychological services, counselling for the poor or drug-abuse treatment -- John Kerry is its better bet.

The APA says its policy is in the public's best interest because legalizing same-sex marriage is good for the mental health of our society. But how can turning a moral and legal dilemma into a mental-health issue be genuinely
helpful to anyone?

Sure, those lobbying for legalizing same-sex marriage can now draw on this APA-sanctified "scientific" argument in favour of their cause. They can use that to shoot down the equally unscientific arguments that the proponents of
traditional marriage throw at them, all that bogus research that supposedly shows that gay marriage is unhealthy.

This "it's healthy versus it's unhealthy" bantering serves only to muddy the matter. Psychology could have done what it virtually never does -- point out that there is no real scientific evidence that favours either side and that
psychologists should leave it to individuals and governments to struggle with the competing values of fairness and faith and with the social complexity that would come with adopting this new understanding of "marriage."

Printable Copy

Ottawa Citizen Aug. 11, 2004 Pg. A13

tanadineen.com
@ Dr.Tana Dineen
1998-2003


by Dr. Tana Dineen, special columnist,
The Ottawa Citizen


Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we.