Sunday, May 29, 2011
Women pissed off about being held accountable
When you watch this video a lot of words comes to mind:brazen,amoral,psychotic,evil and narcissistic just to mention a few. I'll tell you one thing if this had been males who did this they would have been the recipients of violence. Guaranteed. But with women no such thing,not even by other females. Just goes to show that when you play for team woman you can be a self-centered amoral bitch and no one is going to hold you to the same standards that they would apply to men. Sounds like business as usual in the wasteland we call the anglosphere.
Saturday, May 28, 2011
Feminism:the white women's movement
Over the last thirty years I've worked with a variety of white-dominated feminist organizations that have expressed a wish to "diversify." While feminist organizations differ in structure and intent, the reasons these various organizations gave for bringing me in as a consultant or to hold workshops were strikingly similar. "Why," they wanted to know, "can't we attract women of color to our organization? And when they do show up, why don't they stay?" Sometimes I worked alone, but often I worked with an African American feminist partner. We found, over time, a depressing similarity of pattern as, one after another, the organizations we counseled decided that our suggestions would be "too difficult" to implement. This diary describes my experiences in the world of white feminist organizations and NGOs, and offers an analysis of the key problems of white privilege and the investment of many white feminist institutions in racist practices.
I'll start this essay with this comment: If you're a white feminist and an anti-racist, I'm not talking about you (though I would be interested in talking with you). If you're a white feminist and you don't like how I'm talking about racist white feminists, that's fine. But if you want to convince me that most white feminists aren't also racists (conscious or unconscious), forget it because it won't work. You'll be doing the racists' work for them,by distracting from a discussion about racism, and diverting to a lament about poor,misunderstood white feminists. Finally, if you're a white, racist feminist and you know it,get a clue, or take a hike. Or show your ass. And if you're not any sort of feminist at all,go bark up somebody else's tree.
Whoa. So let me get this straight: if the reader is not feminist then they can go to hell. In other words if the reader isn't a feminist then they are inferior. When feminists do stuff like this they wonder why people call them "feminazis".
One spring afternoon in the late 1990s I get a call from an African American feminist colleague. (We'll call her Mary, though that's not her name.) There's a white feminist501(c)(3) that is interested in bringing in diversity counselors to help them... diversify. Let's call the organization Too White For Comfort (TWFC). (There's no point in picking on a single organization in this diary, because this story was repeated countless times.)They're too cheap or too broke to pay for diversity counselors, so we're asked if we'll volunteer. Because we believe in what we do, and also have university jobs, we agree. We set up a time to meet together with the TWFC Board. When we all meet, Mary and I find ourselves at a table with thirteen white women, two Latinas, and one African American woman. Like many feminist NGOs, this one clearly has a small core leadership group of about 4-5 women, all of whom are white. The white women are the ones who describe the problem: they simply can't get women of color, and especially African American women, to join the organization or to get involved with programs in any real numbers. Mary looks at the women of color and invites them to contribute to the discussion, but they generally demur or repeat what the white women have said. We're used to this -- Mary will hear something different when she gets them alone. And that's our first proposal -- we'd like Mary to meet with the women of color in the organization and brainstorm, while I meet with the white women and discuss possible strategies to invite more participation. The women of color nod in agreement, but the white women are nervous. "Is this a good idea?" one of them asks. "Won't it divide us instead of bringing us together?" Mary explains that women of color are often able to speak more freely when they don't have to fear offending or being misinterpreted by white colleagues. I explain that white women also need a space to open up about feelings and attitudes without fear of offending non-white peers. Only when we can be open about our attitudes can we begin to address any problems that are caused by our beliefs. We both explain that meeting separately is temporary, and that the goal is for everyone to come together and to express themselves in constructive ways. So we set a date for the meetings, which take place at the same time in different parts of the building. Afterwards, Mary and I meet to discuss our findings. For us, it's business as usual. Mary reports that most of the women of color associated with the organization showed up --25 attended the meeting. It took a little while to break the ice, but after introductions and a brief discussion of the expectations that participants had, Mary asked her usual questions, which elicited the usual answers. The women of color felt strongly that the organization was mainly "white" and that "white issues" had priority. All of the women present were aware of working "outside" their own communities, and most did so because they felt "the cause" was of primary importance. A majority felt that TWFC had not been responsive to their attempts to introduce issues of importance to their communities, and some had agitated for exactly the kind of diversity counseling that Mary and I were supposed to provide. Mary broke the women out into focus groups based on interest and suggested that each group concentrate on the specific, constructive, and realistic measures they felt TWFC could take to serve the communities they felt were excluded. After 45 minutes in break-out groups, the whole group came together to discuss and compile a document that included all suggestions for improvement. Emotions ran strong at several points during the meeting, when women described situations of racial friction that had caused them pain or angered them, but the bulk of the meeting was spent working cooperatively with the intent of offering the organization a path to improvement. What I had planned for my meeting with the white women of TWFC was a set of introductions,and an initial discussion of what, in their opinion, a truly diverse organization would look and feel like. As I expected, their views were universally that a diverse TWFC would be just like the current TWFC, except there would be more women of color attending events and volunteering for the organization. Their focus was on "attracting" more women of color. I urged them to shift the focus in two separate directions:
Question 1: "How do women of color stand to benefit by joining the current TWFC?"
Question 2: "Can you see anything about the current structure of TWFC that might serve as an impediment to attracting women of color."
Answers to Question 1 were clustered around the belief that TWFC helped "all women" and that a woman of color's interests were also served by the work of the organization because "they're women too." No one on the board suggested that the category of "women" was not universal, and that communities of women (or women from different communities) might have different needs, and different opinions on how to achieve those needs. There was a distinct air, in some of the comments, that women of color should be "grateful" that organizations like TWFC were fighting for "their" interests, and that the failure of women of color to join TWFC was a kind of ingratitude.
Answers to Question 2 were a bit more interesting. Some suggested that TWFC events were not held in black or Hispanic neighborhoods, that public transportation in the city was terrible for people who needed to travel from those neighborhoods, and that perhaps the hours of meetings were not convenient. Others attempted to argue that TWFC placed no impediments in the way, but that women of color "were just not interested" in participating -- the flaw was in them and not in the organization. The President of TWFC seemed to be in the latter camp. She mentioned, repeatedly, that they did have women of color on the Board, and that Jeannie (the African American board member) had no problems participating.
After that part of the discussion ended, I suggested that they not think about race in isolation, but also include the dimension of class. Is it easier to be a contributing member of TWFC if you are upper- or comfortably middle-class? Is it harder to attend events if you are a working mother? What class of women were TWFC events attracting? Were they serving poor women as well as they were serving everyone else? I asked them to take notes and return with their observations.
Mary and I held two more separate sessions. Mary's group refined their suggestions and researched what it would take for the organization to implement each of them. Her group worked cooperatively to come up with strategies to support each others' attempts to bring about change and to diversify TWFC. I met with the white women to further discuss the issues we had raised in the first meeting. Several white members reported back that TWFC events and meetings attracted primarily white middle- and upper-class members, with private transportation, copious free time, and a history of volunteerism for women's causes.
How did these women acquire their wealth? Did they work for it? No,to work for it they wouldn't have all this free time on their hands being that their time would be taken up by their jobs. No I'm willing to bet these wealth was acquired by their husbands.
The black and Hispanic women on the Board were also upper- and middle-class, with similar characteristics. Charity fundraising events were priced out of the range of working-class and poor women, although the funds were being raised in part to provide services to women in those communities. TWFC meetings and general assemblies were held in places that were difficult for poor women to reach. And when working class women and poor women did attend,they didn't seem to "fit in" -- some women confessed to feeling uncomfortable around "them."
It became clear that working class & poor women of color fell into the category most like to inspire thoughts about "not fitting in." This was something new for most of the white women in the meeting, who became very uncomfortable when they realized their biases. During these meetings, the white consensus evolved to accept that both the attitudes of the white women and some of the characteristics of the organization indeed had to change. In my third meeting with "my" women, the tone of the meeting shifted to the confessional. My observation, in these situations, is that when white feminists come face to face with their prejudices, they feel bad about them. They talk about their realizations as if their lives have already changed by the mere fact of their recognition.
That's the thing about them. They think they can latch onto anyone who has a legitimate gripe like the black man of the past and any man today. They think if they talk about it they have solved the problem without doing anything to change the situation.
They tell stories to show each other how "bad" they have been, and are consoled by their peers, who describe similar mistakes. The meeting usually gets quite emotional, and it takes a lot of moderation to make sure that it doesn't dissolve into a mass pity-fest about how bad making other people feel bad makes white women feel. Our next meeting will be a joint meeting where we will begin to discuss concrete ways that TWFC can meet the needs of women of color, both as members and in terms of services it provides.
Mary and I meet jointly with our groups. The women of color present their document to the white women, who are given an hour to read and reflect on its content, and to prepare constructive responses. (The women of color sip coffee in another room.) And the big meeting reconvenes. Again, the pattern is predictable. The white women apologize to the women of color, still a bit mired in confessional murk. The women of color speak encouragingly to the white women, and forgive them for their sins, because the women of color want to move things along to a discussion of the meat of their proposals. White women's reactions to the suggestions of women of color vary from, "Oh, that would be easy to implement! Let's do it!" to "I'm not sure that's the mission of this organization," to "But isn't that too specialized and wouldn't that exclude white women?" to "But we'd have to restructure the whole organization!" Costs and resource allotment are mulled over. The women of color want movement and some pay-off for their efforts. The majority of the white women want time to think the suggestions over. There is always some tension in the room,and virtually always there is one woman of color (often on the Board) and one white women who attempt to ease the others' discomfort by serving as bridges and conciliators.
We hold two more joint meetings to further discuss the philosophy and practice of changing the organization. Both are focused on examining concrete suggestions and devising practical implemenations. It is at this juncture that it becomes clear to Mary and me if the task of diversification will succeed or fail. If it is successful, we will see women of color and white women increasingly begin to separate into multi-racial groups based on interest in particular program changes, and we will hear a lot of exchanging of phone numbers, and suggestions for meeting dates. This delights me and Mary when we see it, though, sadly, it happens rarely.More often, however, splits emerge along racial lines -- the white women simply aren't receptive to the core ideas put forward by the women of color. Those ideas are "too expensive" in money, time or resources. They're outside the boundaries of "the purpose of the organization." The white women "don't think they'll work" or don't feel they're "fair." The donors might object. And so on. White rejection is usually passive aggressive, and resembles the Transactional Analysis game of "Yes, but..." The women who attempt to bridge are shut down by both communities because the women of color feel that "it's happening all over again," and the white women experience the list of proposals as some kind of "attack." This is the moment when personal prejudice can be coupled with power to enforce discrimination at an institutional level: this, in short, is where racism lives.
Well these women are sexists why not racist as well? Why stop at one? They didn't.
It is a small group of 4-5 women who really control all the decisions and resources of the organization, and who will set a tone of cooperation or poison the atmosphere. 501(c)(3)s-- especially the small ones -- are personality driven. This means that a small group of women pour their hearts and souls and much of their financial resources into building the organization, and feel a strong proprietary interest. They are comfortable with each other,often because they are all the same race and class, etc. Mary and I eventually came to realize that unless the core group wants the change, no change will ever happen. Short of voting with their feet (which many feminists do), the members of the organization have no instrument with which they can force positive change that the Powers That Be don't want to make.
I could go on for quite a while, talking about the passive aggressive and covert power relationships that thrive in many "feminist" environments, but a lot has been written about that already, and about "trashing," so I won't take up more time repeating those analyses.
Instead I want to focus on the incredible rarity of genuine and committed diversity in feminist organizations. In the beginning, when Mary and I hadn't experienced this process enough times to see the patterns clearly, we used to meet "our" groups separately for one final time, to see what each constituency thought had happened. But if the group meeting had degenerated into "choosing sides," my final meetings with the white women were monumentally unproductive -- I inevitably faced a wall of resistance more entrenched than it had been when I met them.
Mary and I believe that this isn't because we were bad teachers, but because were were good ones. The core group began by thinking it was easy to go beyond tokenism to integrate women of color into the organization. They ended, however, with the realization that genuine integration means not only attracting more women of color to events, but also shifting the structure of the organization to include women of color as powerful forces in shaping the organization. Perhaps because their racism made them see me as a "white ally," these resistant white feminists were often very up-front with me about their decision not to share power with women of color. One Board president told me it "simply isn't worth it" to consult women of color about what they want, because she realized it would take the organization in a direction she didn't want it to go, and serve a constituency she now realized (as a result of our "counseling") she didn't want to serve. Other white women said that it would make them "too uncomfortable," and that, for them, TWFC would no longer be a refuge and a place that boosted their egos by affirming they "did good." Instead, they'd have to be "careful" all the time, and would be self-conscious about what the women of color thought of them. In short, given the comfort of racism, and the discomfort of active anti-racism, they chose racism, outright. What was there for me to do at that point, except clarify that they had chosen to perpetuate racism, rather than to end it?
Feminists are hypocrites. When you accept that it is easy to believe they would do this.
Mary, however, did continue her final meetings with the women of color, and invited me to participate in them. Eventually she changed her tactics and invited everyone to participate -- even the white women who didn't want to change. In this meeting, we laid it out like we'd seen it unfold -- we praised and offered further assistance to the few organizations that faced or embraced the difficult process of true diversification. And if the core group decided not to pursue diversification, we called them on it, in front of the entire constituency. We then encouraged women of color to find other ways to get their needs met,and offered to share resources so they could start their own foundations to serve their own -- and other --communities.
Anyone who has done anti-racist work for more than a few years has run up against this problem: most racists are happy being racists, and simply don't want to change. But at the same time they want to be protected from accusations of racism, and resent anyone who makes them "feel bad" about it. White feminists are no different from other white people in that regard, as feminists of color well know.
You just painted with a broad brush yourself and you're labelling other people "racist"? Typical feminist hypocrisy knows no color lines.
A few are truly committed to diversity and anti-racist action, but the majority of us are not, and get angry and nasty when we're driven out of our comfort zone. In my estimation, however, a racist feminist is no feminist at all. Eventually I stopped doing diversity counseling for white feminist organizations -- it's a task best left to people who still possess the idealism and energy that I no longer have. There's the old joke about the therapist and the light bulb: Q: How many therapists does it take to change a light bulb? A: One, but it has to want to change. So the only feminists I have time for these days are the ones for whom anti-racism is a motivating force...
How can you do anti-racism work when you are racist too? Does that ever come up?
Source:click here
I'll start this essay with this comment: If you're a white feminist and an anti-racist, I'm not talking about you (though I would be interested in talking with you). If you're a white feminist and you don't like how I'm talking about racist white feminists, that's fine. But if you want to convince me that most white feminists aren't also racists (conscious or unconscious), forget it because it won't work. You'll be doing the racists' work for them,by distracting from a discussion about racism, and diverting to a lament about poor,misunderstood white feminists. Finally, if you're a white, racist feminist and you know it,get a clue, or take a hike. Or show your ass. And if you're not any sort of feminist at all,go bark up somebody else's tree.
Whoa. So let me get this straight: if the reader is not feminist then they can go to hell. In other words if the reader isn't a feminist then they are inferior. When feminists do stuff like this they wonder why people call them "feminazis".
One spring afternoon in the late 1990s I get a call from an African American feminist colleague. (We'll call her Mary, though that's not her name.) There's a white feminist501(c)(3) that is interested in bringing in diversity counselors to help them... diversify. Let's call the organization Too White For Comfort (TWFC). (There's no point in picking on a single organization in this diary, because this story was repeated countless times.)They're too cheap or too broke to pay for diversity counselors, so we're asked if we'll volunteer. Because we believe in what we do, and also have university jobs, we agree. We set up a time to meet together with the TWFC Board. When we all meet, Mary and I find ourselves at a table with thirteen white women, two Latinas, and one African American woman. Like many feminist NGOs, this one clearly has a small core leadership group of about 4-5 women, all of whom are white. The white women are the ones who describe the problem: they simply can't get women of color, and especially African American women, to join the organization or to get involved with programs in any real numbers. Mary looks at the women of color and invites them to contribute to the discussion, but they generally demur or repeat what the white women have said. We're used to this -- Mary will hear something different when she gets them alone. And that's our first proposal -- we'd like Mary to meet with the women of color in the organization and brainstorm, while I meet with the white women and discuss possible strategies to invite more participation. The women of color nod in agreement, but the white women are nervous. "Is this a good idea?" one of them asks. "Won't it divide us instead of bringing us together?" Mary explains that women of color are often able to speak more freely when they don't have to fear offending or being misinterpreted by white colleagues. I explain that white women also need a space to open up about feelings and attitudes without fear of offending non-white peers. Only when we can be open about our attitudes can we begin to address any problems that are caused by our beliefs. We both explain that meeting separately is temporary, and that the goal is for everyone to come together and to express themselves in constructive ways. So we set a date for the meetings, which take place at the same time in different parts of the building. Afterwards, Mary and I meet to discuss our findings. For us, it's business as usual. Mary reports that most of the women of color associated with the organization showed up --25 attended the meeting. It took a little while to break the ice, but after introductions and a brief discussion of the expectations that participants had, Mary asked her usual questions, which elicited the usual answers. The women of color felt strongly that the organization was mainly "white" and that "white issues" had priority. All of the women present were aware of working "outside" their own communities, and most did so because they felt "the cause" was of primary importance. A majority felt that TWFC had not been responsive to their attempts to introduce issues of importance to their communities, and some had agitated for exactly the kind of diversity counseling that Mary and I were supposed to provide. Mary broke the women out into focus groups based on interest and suggested that each group concentrate on the specific, constructive, and realistic measures they felt TWFC could take to serve the communities they felt were excluded. After 45 minutes in break-out groups, the whole group came together to discuss and compile a document that included all suggestions for improvement. Emotions ran strong at several points during the meeting, when women described situations of racial friction that had caused them pain or angered them, but the bulk of the meeting was spent working cooperatively with the intent of offering the organization a path to improvement. What I had planned for my meeting with the white women of TWFC was a set of introductions,and an initial discussion of what, in their opinion, a truly diverse organization would look and feel like. As I expected, their views were universally that a diverse TWFC would be just like the current TWFC, except there would be more women of color attending events and volunteering for the organization. Their focus was on "attracting" more women of color. I urged them to shift the focus in two separate directions:
Question 1: "How do women of color stand to benefit by joining the current TWFC?"
Question 2: "Can you see anything about the current structure of TWFC that might serve as an impediment to attracting women of color."
Answers to Question 1 were clustered around the belief that TWFC helped "all women" and that a woman of color's interests were also served by the work of the organization because "they're women too." No one on the board suggested that the category of "women" was not universal, and that communities of women (or women from different communities) might have different needs, and different opinions on how to achieve those needs. There was a distinct air, in some of the comments, that women of color should be "grateful" that organizations like TWFC were fighting for "their" interests, and that the failure of women of color to join TWFC was a kind of ingratitude.
Answers to Question 2 were a bit more interesting. Some suggested that TWFC events were not held in black or Hispanic neighborhoods, that public transportation in the city was terrible for people who needed to travel from those neighborhoods, and that perhaps the hours of meetings were not convenient. Others attempted to argue that TWFC placed no impediments in the way, but that women of color "were just not interested" in participating -- the flaw was in them and not in the organization. The President of TWFC seemed to be in the latter camp. She mentioned, repeatedly, that they did have women of color on the Board, and that Jeannie (the African American board member) had no problems participating.
After that part of the discussion ended, I suggested that they not think about race in isolation, but also include the dimension of class. Is it easier to be a contributing member of TWFC if you are upper- or comfortably middle-class? Is it harder to attend events if you are a working mother? What class of women were TWFC events attracting? Were they serving poor women as well as they were serving everyone else? I asked them to take notes and return with their observations.
Mary and I held two more separate sessions. Mary's group refined their suggestions and researched what it would take for the organization to implement each of them. Her group worked cooperatively to come up with strategies to support each others' attempts to bring about change and to diversify TWFC. I met with the white women to further discuss the issues we had raised in the first meeting. Several white members reported back that TWFC events and meetings attracted primarily white middle- and upper-class members, with private transportation, copious free time, and a history of volunteerism for women's causes.
How did these women acquire their wealth? Did they work for it? No,to work for it they wouldn't have all this free time on their hands being that their time would be taken up by their jobs. No I'm willing to bet these wealth was acquired by their husbands.
The black and Hispanic women on the Board were also upper- and middle-class, with similar characteristics. Charity fundraising events were priced out of the range of working-class and poor women, although the funds were being raised in part to provide services to women in those communities. TWFC meetings and general assemblies were held in places that were difficult for poor women to reach. And when working class women and poor women did attend,they didn't seem to "fit in" -- some women confessed to feeling uncomfortable around "them."
It became clear that working class & poor women of color fell into the category most like to inspire thoughts about "not fitting in." This was something new for most of the white women in the meeting, who became very uncomfortable when they realized their biases. During these meetings, the white consensus evolved to accept that both the attitudes of the white women and some of the characteristics of the organization indeed had to change. In my third meeting with "my" women, the tone of the meeting shifted to the confessional. My observation, in these situations, is that when white feminists come face to face with their prejudices, they feel bad about them. They talk about their realizations as if their lives have already changed by the mere fact of their recognition.
That's the thing about them. They think they can latch onto anyone who has a legitimate gripe like the black man of the past and any man today. They think if they talk about it they have solved the problem without doing anything to change the situation.
They tell stories to show each other how "bad" they have been, and are consoled by their peers, who describe similar mistakes. The meeting usually gets quite emotional, and it takes a lot of moderation to make sure that it doesn't dissolve into a mass pity-fest about how bad making other people feel bad makes white women feel. Our next meeting will be a joint meeting where we will begin to discuss concrete ways that TWFC can meet the needs of women of color, both as members and in terms of services it provides.
Mary and I meet jointly with our groups. The women of color present their document to the white women, who are given an hour to read and reflect on its content, and to prepare constructive responses. (The women of color sip coffee in another room.) And the big meeting reconvenes. Again, the pattern is predictable. The white women apologize to the women of color, still a bit mired in confessional murk. The women of color speak encouragingly to the white women, and forgive them for their sins, because the women of color want to move things along to a discussion of the meat of their proposals. White women's reactions to the suggestions of women of color vary from, "Oh, that would be easy to implement! Let's do it!" to "I'm not sure that's the mission of this organization," to "But isn't that too specialized and wouldn't that exclude white women?" to "But we'd have to restructure the whole organization!" Costs and resource allotment are mulled over. The women of color want movement and some pay-off for their efforts. The majority of the white women want time to think the suggestions over. There is always some tension in the room,and virtually always there is one woman of color (often on the Board) and one white women who attempt to ease the others' discomfort by serving as bridges and conciliators.
We hold two more joint meetings to further discuss the philosophy and practice of changing the organization. Both are focused on examining concrete suggestions and devising practical implemenations. It is at this juncture that it becomes clear to Mary and me if the task of diversification will succeed or fail. If it is successful, we will see women of color and white women increasingly begin to separate into multi-racial groups based on interest in particular program changes, and we will hear a lot of exchanging of phone numbers, and suggestions for meeting dates. This delights me and Mary when we see it, though, sadly, it happens rarely.More often, however, splits emerge along racial lines -- the white women simply aren't receptive to the core ideas put forward by the women of color. Those ideas are "too expensive" in money, time or resources. They're outside the boundaries of "the purpose of the organization." The white women "don't think they'll work" or don't feel they're "fair." The donors might object. And so on. White rejection is usually passive aggressive, and resembles the Transactional Analysis game of "Yes, but..." The women who attempt to bridge are shut down by both communities because the women of color feel that "it's happening all over again," and the white women experience the list of proposals as some kind of "attack." This is the moment when personal prejudice can be coupled with power to enforce discrimination at an institutional level: this, in short, is where racism lives.
Well these women are sexists why not racist as well? Why stop at one? They didn't.
It is a small group of 4-5 women who really control all the decisions and resources of the organization, and who will set a tone of cooperation or poison the atmosphere. 501(c)(3)s-- especially the small ones -- are personality driven. This means that a small group of women pour their hearts and souls and much of their financial resources into building the organization, and feel a strong proprietary interest. They are comfortable with each other,often because they are all the same race and class, etc. Mary and I eventually came to realize that unless the core group wants the change, no change will ever happen. Short of voting with their feet (which many feminists do), the members of the organization have no instrument with which they can force positive change that the Powers That Be don't want to make.
I could go on for quite a while, talking about the passive aggressive and covert power relationships that thrive in many "feminist" environments, but a lot has been written about that already, and about "trashing," so I won't take up more time repeating those analyses.
Instead I want to focus on the incredible rarity of genuine and committed diversity in feminist organizations. In the beginning, when Mary and I hadn't experienced this process enough times to see the patterns clearly, we used to meet "our" groups separately for one final time, to see what each constituency thought had happened. But if the group meeting had degenerated into "choosing sides," my final meetings with the white women were monumentally unproductive -- I inevitably faced a wall of resistance more entrenched than it had been when I met them.
Mary and I believe that this isn't because we were bad teachers, but because were were good ones. The core group began by thinking it was easy to go beyond tokenism to integrate women of color into the organization. They ended, however, with the realization that genuine integration means not only attracting more women of color to events, but also shifting the structure of the organization to include women of color as powerful forces in shaping the organization. Perhaps because their racism made them see me as a "white ally," these resistant white feminists were often very up-front with me about their decision not to share power with women of color. One Board president told me it "simply isn't worth it" to consult women of color about what they want, because she realized it would take the organization in a direction she didn't want it to go, and serve a constituency she now realized (as a result of our "counseling") she didn't want to serve. Other white women said that it would make them "too uncomfortable," and that, for them, TWFC would no longer be a refuge and a place that boosted their egos by affirming they "did good." Instead, they'd have to be "careful" all the time, and would be self-conscious about what the women of color thought of them. In short, given the comfort of racism, and the discomfort of active anti-racism, they chose racism, outright. What was there for me to do at that point, except clarify that they had chosen to perpetuate racism, rather than to end it?
Feminists are hypocrites. When you accept that it is easy to believe they would do this.
Mary, however, did continue her final meetings with the women of color, and invited me to participate in them. Eventually she changed her tactics and invited everyone to participate -- even the white women who didn't want to change. In this meeting, we laid it out like we'd seen it unfold -- we praised and offered further assistance to the few organizations that faced or embraced the difficult process of true diversification. And if the core group decided not to pursue diversification, we called them on it, in front of the entire constituency. We then encouraged women of color to find other ways to get their needs met,and offered to share resources so they could start their own foundations to serve their own -- and other --communities.
Anyone who has done anti-racist work for more than a few years has run up against this problem: most racists are happy being racists, and simply don't want to change. But at the same time they want to be protected from accusations of racism, and resent anyone who makes them "feel bad" about it. White feminists are no different from other white people in that regard, as feminists of color well know.
You just painted with a broad brush yourself and you're labelling other people "racist"? Typical feminist hypocrisy knows no color lines.
A few are truly committed to diversity and anti-racist action, but the majority of us are not, and get angry and nasty when we're driven out of our comfort zone. In my estimation, however, a racist feminist is no feminist at all. Eventually I stopped doing diversity counseling for white feminist organizations -- it's a task best left to people who still possess the idealism and energy that I no longer have. There's the old joke about the therapist and the light bulb: Q: How many therapists does it take to change a light bulb? A: One, but it has to want to change. So the only feminists I have time for these days are the ones for whom anti-racism is a motivating force...
How can you do anti-racism work when you are racist too? Does that ever come up?
Source:click here
Sunday, May 22, 2011
Good news for men in California
Victory for Men’s Equal Rights!
October 14, 2008
By NCFM
For Immediate Release
Victory for Men’s Equal Rights!
CA Appellate Court Says Excluding men from domestic violence programs is unconstitutional
Contact: Marc E. Angelucci, Esq.
Men’s Legal Center
619-234-3838
626-319-3081
marc@menslegal.com
SAN DIEGO, CA – 10/14/08 – Today the Third District Court of Appeal in Sacramento ruled California’s exclusion of men from domestic violence violates men’s constitutional equal protection rights. Woods. v. Shewry; 3rd Dist. C056072
Court Info
The taxpayer lawsuit was initially filed in 2005 by four male victims of domestic violence. In 2007, Sacramento Superior Court Judge Lloyd Connelly dismissed the case, ruling that men are not entitled to equal protection regarding domestic violence because they statistically are not similarly situated with women.
Today the Court of Appeal reversed that decision and held: ‘The gender classifications in Health and Safety Code section 124250 and Penal Code section 13823.15, that provide state funding of domestic violence programs that offer services only to women and their children, but not to men, violate equal protection.’
Harry Crouch, a San Diego child custody coach and President of the National Coalition of Free Men (NCFM), a men’s rights organization that filed and backed the plaintiffs, said: “All victims need services regardless of gender. Services should be need-based, not gender-based. This decision can profoundly affect on the equal treatment of victims.”
The plaintiffs’ attorney, Marc E. Angelucci of the Men’s Legal Center in San Diego and founder of NCFM’s Los Angeles chapter, called this a victory for men’s equal rights, particularly male domestic violence victims and inmate fathers. He said: “We’ve been through the daisy wheel of judicial activism on this issue. Now the courts have finally addressed the injustice, but the struggle is not over. Many taxpayer-funded programs, especially in Los Angeles, still deny men services such as counseling, advocacy, shelter or hotel vouchers, which is endangering their children. Men pay at least half of the taxes that fund these programs and they should be entitled to services regardless of sex. I have seen the damage this does to men and kids and I will never stop fighting to end it, even if it means filing more lawsuits.”
Numerous experts submitted sworn declarations supporting the plaintiffs and explaining that this is a serious but hidden problem in which children are being emotionally harmed as witnesses of the violence while their dads get no help. Experts explained that although men report it less than women, empirical survey data consistently shows women are at least as violent as men in relationships and men suffer one-third of injuries. One expert, California State Long Beach Professor Martin Fiebert, summarizes over 200 of the studies in an online bibliography:
Source
In the early 1970s, federally-funded research by Professors Murray Straus, Suzanne Steinmetz and Richard Gelles found women are as violent as men in relationships. As a result, all three researchers received death threats by those who saw the findings as a threat to the “patriarchy” theory of domestic violence. See Prof. Linda Kelly, ‘Disabusing the Definition of Domestic Abuse,’ 30 Florida State Law Review 791 (2003)
Source
Today over 200 studies – and growing – confirm the same findings using various methodologies. Further research into context and motives found self-defense did not explain away the female violence. See, Prof. Don Dutton, ‘Transforming a flawed policy: A call to revive psychology and science in domestic violence research and practice,’ Aggression and Violent Behavior, (11) 2006, 457-483
Source
Additional sources on male DV victims:
Harvard Medical School:click here
University of New Hampshire:
click here
Canadian Government Report:click here
Article source:click here
October 14, 2008
By NCFM
For Immediate Release
Victory for Men’s Equal Rights!
CA Appellate Court Says Excluding men from domestic violence programs is unconstitutional
Contact: Marc E. Angelucci, Esq.
Men’s Legal Center
619-234-3838
626-319-3081
marc@menslegal.com
SAN DIEGO, CA – 10/14/08 – Today the Third District Court of Appeal in Sacramento ruled California’s exclusion of men from domestic violence violates men’s constitutional equal protection rights. Woods. v. Shewry; 3rd Dist. C056072
Court Info
The taxpayer lawsuit was initially filed in 2005 by four male victims of domestic violence. In 2007, Sacramento Superior Court Judge Lloyd Connelly dismissed the case, ruling that men are not entitled to equal protection regarding domestic violence because they statistically are not similarly situated with women.
Today the Court of Appeal reversed that decision and held: ‘The gender classifications in Health and Safety Code section 124250 and Penal Code section 13823.15, that provide state funding of domestic violence programs that offer services only to women and their children, but not to men, violate equal protection.’
Harry Crouch, a San Diego child custody coach and President of the National Coalition of Free Men (NCFM), a men’s rights organization that filed and backed the plaintiffs, said: “All victims need services regardless of gender. Services should be need-based, not gender-based. This decision can profoundly affect on the equal treatment of victims.”
The plaintiffs’ attorney, Marc E. Angelucci of the Men’s Legal Center in San Diego and founder of NCFM’s Los Angeles chapter, called this a victory for men’s equal rights, particularly male domestic violence victims and inmate fathers. He said: “We’ve been through the daisy wheel of judicial activism on this issue. Now the courts have finally addressed the injustice, but the struggle is not over. Many taxpayer-funded programs, especially in Los Angeles, still deny men services such as counseling, advocacy, shelter or hotel vouchers, which is endangering their children. Men pay at least half of the taxes that fund these programs and they should be entitled to services regardless of sex. I have seen the damage this does to men and kids and I will never stop fighting to end it, even if it means filing more lawsuits.”
Numerous experts submitted sworn declarations supporting the plaintiffs and explaining that this is a serious but hidden problem in which children are being emotionally harmed as witnesses of the violence while their dads get no help. Experts explained that although men report it less than women, empirical survey data consistently shows women are at least as violent as men in relationships and men suffer one-third of injuries. One expert, California State Long Beach Professor Martin Fiebert, summarizes over 200 of the studies in an online bibliography:
Source
In the early 1970s, federally-funded research by Professors Murray Straus, Suzanne Steinmetz and Richard Gelles found women are as violent as men in relationships. As a result, all three researchers received death threats by those who saw the findings as a threat to the “patriarchy” theory of domestic violence. See Prof. Linda Kelly, ‘Disabusing the Definition of Domestic Abuse,’ 30 Florida State Law Review 791 (2003)
Source
Today over 200 studies – and growing – confirm the same findings using various methodologies. Further research into context and motives found self-defense did not explain away the female violence. See, Prof. Don Dutton, ‘Transforming a flawed policy: A call to revive psychology and science in domestic violence research and practice,’ Aggression and Violent Behavior, (11) 2006, 457-483
Source
Additional sources on male DV victims:
Harvard Medical School:click here
University of New Hampshire:
click here
Canadian Government Report:click here
Article source:click here
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
Freedom of speech
We talk a lot about gender issues on this blog and how those issues concern men. One of the great things about the United States is the Constitution especially the 1st Amendment but it seems that the 1st Amendment is under attack. There is impending legislation that will curb freedoms on the internet. You can read more about it here. I think their goal is to get rid of those of us who are not the cool ones on the gender block the way the feminists and gay community are,according to the PC crowd. And since we are not one of the cool ones I'm sure they want us to go away and stop bothering people. Since the PC crowd hates men and favors women they want to make sure everyone does and the best way to do that is attempting to pass draconian legislation to shut up your opponents. I'm sure that sites that are PC will probably be exempt if this monstrosity of a bill ever becomes law. I'm sure they will be spared but what about us MRA's? Will we be spared? Not on your life,in fact it was probably sites such as mine that they had in mind when they drafted this bill. We are making progress and there are those that want to shut us up and perhaps this is an attempt to do so. Don't let them win oppose this bill today.
The Dominique Strauss-Kahn case
By now you've probably heard of the Dominique Strauss-Kahn situation and how his name and face are plastered all over the place and you've probably heard the talking heads,feminists and manginas alike,condemn Dominique Strauss-Kahn without having all the facts. Pretty much what the media did with Duke and Holfstra they are doing here and that is licking feminist boots. That won't happen here. Now what the MSM won't devulge is the woman's identity however I will and her identity is Nafissatou Diallo. Who is Diallo? Well for one thing she is an immigrant woman who is fluent in French. Let's take it from the immigrant angle:she currently has a green card and authorization to work in the US. If she is pursuing citizenship a false accusation can get her on her way. Can you say VAWA? A charge such as this is a fast track for women seeking citizenship considering she can now be her own sponsor. Also the fact that she speaks French is also interesting and pretty damn convenient. A little too convenient to be a coincident. I'm sure Kahn being an international man probably speaks English and would be considering he was in the United States at the time so a French speaking maid would be unnecessary. Also maids usually stop by the room after the guest has checked out so there would be no conversation taking place.Something to think about.
I'll let Human Stupidity take if from here:
Dominique Strauss-Kahn, IMF Managing Director and French presidential candidate, has been accused of rape. As the feminist dominated press is scared to even think that the rape accusations are false, Human-Stupidity has to speak up. The story is very strange, and dominated by clear mistakes and screwups committed by the accuser. A five-star hotel maid trespasses into a naked client’s room? Unforgivable.
Five-star hotel security let a rapist check out without complaint? The maid wasn’t trained to instantly report crimes to security staff?
Maid Violates Professional Ethics and Walks Into a Prominent, Naked Guest’s Room
The New York Police Department claims that at about 1 p.m. on Saturday, a hotel maid entered a $3,000-a-night suite at the Sofitel near Times Square, believing that it was empty.
Talk about a bad start! She mistakenly entered a room thinking it was empty? This is not supposed to happen in a high-class hotel. Were the sex roles inverted, were a male employee to walk in on a prominent female guest, like Mrs. Hillary Clinton, the male employee would be fired and arrested for sexual harassment. Usually,hotels have a policy to ensure their staff avoid such embarrassments: cleaners are supposed to knock on the door, ring the bell, or yell “room service” when entering rooms.
Strauss-Kahn then emerged naked from the bathroom, and grabbed her, pulled her into the bedroom and threw her on to the bed, before trying to lock the suite’s main door, according to New York Police Dept. Deputy Commissioner Paul Browne, who outlined the charges to reporters. “She fights him off, and then he drags her down the hallway to the bathroom,where he sexually assaults her a second time,” he told Reuters.
Wait, what? A hitherto well behaved, civilized man, suddenly goes crazy? Just because he was naked, he wanted to take advantage of her and rape her?
A man pictured on the covers of magazines, admired by millions of women, who could get any woman he wanted with a snap of his fingers. A man from a country with legalized prostitution who could afford two luxury prostitutes per day, if he happened to be a sex addict. And this guy, exactly the moment the woman walks in, illegally, incorrectly, grabs her and rapes her?
The maid, 32, finally managed to push Strauss-Kahn away and escape, according to Browne,and her colleagues called 911. Strauss-Kahn had checked out by the time police arrived at the hotel, leaving behind his cell phone.
Very strange. No rapist should be able to just leave a
five-star hotel, packed full of security agents who are trained to catch thieves, impostors,and other ne’er do wells – ESPECIALLY people who cause trouble and then want to slip away without getting caught. High-class hotels have a very professional security staff. I am sure maids are trained to instantly report crimes to security. So any delay in reporting would be her second professional failure of the day.
The NYPD usually does not take longer then five minutes to arrive on the scene of a crime,and Strauss-Kahn made it all the way onto the plane before they got to the hotel? Check out,check into the airport, pass through security?
Strauss-Kahn was arrested on charges of attempted rape, conducting a criminal sexual act,and unlawful imprisonment of the woman.
“Arrest of IMF Chief on Attempted Rape Charges Throws French Presidential Race Into Chaos” Time Magazine
A VIP, at that:
In fact DSK, as the French call one of the country’s leading political figures, happens to be on the cover of virtually every French magazine this week as the country’s possible next President…
Across Europe, too, Strauss-Kahn’s arrest will have a major impact. It could impact critical negotiations over the E.U.’s deep debt crisis, in which Strauss-Kahn has been a key — if not the key — player. He was due to be at emergency debt meetings in Brussels this week, and perhaps mindful that he could soon be one of the E.U.’s most powerful leaders
False Rape Charges to Cover Up Her Screwup, or for Political Reasons? What are the alternative explanations? Don’t forget that she committed a serious professional lapse, almost a crime. So it is quite likely that she did that for a reason,with intent.
1.Many political and economic enemies would pay millions to get Strauss-Kahn out of the way.Is is inconceivable that they would bribe a lowly hotel maid to lodge a phony rape charge against him? But there is a much more plausible and more parsimonious explanation:
The room maid, in a SERIOUS violation of her professional duties, walked into a client’s room while he was buck naked. Even if that was a honest mistake, it could have serious consequences for her.
2.Maybe he became angry and threatened to get her fired (for good reasons). That scared her.
3.Maybe she walked in with the intent to steal and was caught.
4.Maybe she walked in with the intent to seduce a famous man.
5.Maybe she planned to seduce him and was rejected. “Hell hath no fury like a woman
scorned!”
6.Maybe she walked in with the intent to seduce a famous man and then blackmail him by threatening to cry rape. As we’ve learned, time and time again, from The False Rape Society, many women have a knee-jerk reaction to cry “rape” in order to save them from their own problems. Have you noticed that nobody in the media is saying that the maid should be fired for her transgression?
Let us see if there is any hard, corroborating evidence for this case, and if it isn’t merely another “cry wolf” story by a guilty woman seeking to salvage her job after committing a serious, unforgivable professional mistake.
Jacques Attalli, the economist, a prominent Socialist and friend of Strauss-Kahn said:“The most likely outcome is that this case will stick and even if he pleads not guilty,which he may be, he won’t be able to be candidate for the Socialist primary for the presidency and he won’t be able to stay at the IMF.”
Michel Taubmann, author of a new official and approved biography of Strauss-Kahn, said: “He is a well-known seducer but does not have the profile of a rapist.”
“Dominique Strauss-Kahn Charged with Sex Attack on New York Hotel Maid“ The Guardian
Source:here
Monday, May 16, 2011
American shame
I'm one who likes to see the U.S. Constitution honored,respected and abided by our governmental institutions and when they don't we need to call them on it. Now the crimes that one can lose Constitutional rights is in what is called "politically correct crimes". A politically correct crime is one in which the alleged victim is a member of a protected group in this case that group would be women. Such crimes can be rape,domestic violence or sexual harassment. For the purposes of this post we will discuss domestic violence. In the United States domestic violence is a hot button topic in which the prevailing lie is that only women are victims of domestic violence and I will show you where the U.S. Constitution and particularly the 14th Amendment have been killed off by the U.S. judiciary.
Let's consider the following:
In Iowa, the Attorney General’s Crime Victim Assistance Division has openly acknowledged,“The prosecutors we fund are prohibited from prosecuting female cases.”
In Lexington County, South Carolina, a diagram outlining program procedures reveals that all persons who are arrested for non-felony battery cases of domestic violence are meted some sort of punishment: treatment, fine, and/or jail. There is no legal option that allows a person arrested for a domestic violence offense to be found innocent of the allegations.
In Warren County, Pennsylvania, a person who is arrested on a charge of domestic violence can choose between two Orwellian possibilities: Go to jail, or sign a pre-printed admission of guilt that reads, “I have physically and emotionally battered my partner…I am responsible for the violence I used. My behavior was not provoked.” Some say these procedures are tantamount to extracting a forced confession.
In Portland, Oregon, the deferred sentencing program has developed literature explaining the program procedures. The literature always refers to the perpetrator as “he” and the victim is denoted as “she.” An administrator for the program defends this bias with the dubious claim that “Using gender-neutral language would devalue the fight against domestic violence in the overwhelming majority of cases.”
Source:here
What is causing lopsided laws? Feminism. But feminism is just one aspect of it there is a mangina tendency called "chivalry" and chivalry has been one hell of a feminist enabler. In fact they have a symbiotic relationship for one wouldn't exist without the other. It is chivalry that has kept men from questioning women's motives and it is through feminism that women have exploited the good nature of men. When we take the blinders of chivalry off we see things for what they truly are. Perhaps not in a way that conform to our romantic fantasies but is nevertheless quite real and we have to deal with it real quick. One of these ways we can counter feminist lies is by FACTS and the facts are on our side. The best way the facts can help our cause is if get them out for public consumption and by telling our elected leaders our concerns.
I'm going to go a bit off topic now. I know I haven't done that before but now I'll make an exception. The recent posts on this blog have shown signs of hope. From the Kellett situation with the press conference and the judge's decision not to oblige Kellett on her gag order to getting our point across to elected officials to standing up to feminists and their white knight enablers. If we are united in our demands for justice and act united we can accomplish great things.Never forget that. The only ones that want us to stop are the feminazis that wish to eradicate the male gender and I'll be damned if I'm going to let them win. Fuck that. Fuck surrendering. We are on the right track as our enemies' responses to us show that we are on the right path. Forward we press on.
Let's consider the following:
In Iowa, the Attorney General’s Crime Victim Assistance Division has openly acknowledged,“The prosecutors we fund are prohibited from prosecuting female cases.”
In Lexington County, South Carolina, a diagram outlining program procedures reveals that all persons who are arrested for non-felony battery cases of domestic violence are meted some sort of punishment: treatment, fine, and/or jail. There is no legal option that allows a person arrested for a domestic violence offense to be found innocent of the allegations.
In Warren County, Pennsylvania, a person who is arrested on a charge of domestic violence can choose between two Orwellian possibilities: Go to jail, or sign a pre-printed admission of guilt that reads, “I have physically and emotionally battered my partner…I am responsible for the violence I used. My behavior was not provoked.” Some say these procedures are tantamount to extracting a forced confession.
In Portland, Oregon, the deferred sentencing program has developed literature explaining the program procedures. The literature always refers to the perpetrator as “he” and the victim is denoted as “she.” An administrator for the program defends this bias with the dubious claim that “Using gender-neutral language would devalue the fight against domestic violence in the overwhelming majority of cases.”
Source:here
What is causing lopsided laws? Feminism. But feminism is just one aspect of it there is a mangina tendency called "chivalry" and chivalry has been one hell of a feminist enabler. In fact they have a symbiotic relationship for one wouldn't exist without the other. It is chivalry that has kept men from questioning women's motives and it is through feminism that women have exploited the good nature of men. When we take the blinders of chivalry off we see things for what they truly are. Perhaps not in a way that conform to our romantic fantasies but is nevertheless quite real and we have to deal with it real quick. One of these ways we can counter feminist lies is by FACTS and the facts are on our side. The best way the facts can help our cause is if get them out for public consumption and by telling our elected leaders our concerns.
I'm going to go a bit off topic now. I know I haven't done that before but now I'll make an exception. The recent posts on this blog have shown signs of hope. From the Kellett situation with the press conference and the judge's decision not to oblige Kellett on her gag order to getting our point across to elected officials to standing up to feminists and their white knight enablers. If we are united in our demands for justice and act united we can accomplish great things.Never forget that. The only ones that want us to stop are the feminazis that wish to eradicate the male gender and I'll be damned if I'm going to let them win. Fuck that. Fuck surrendering. We are on the right track as our enemies' responses to us show that we are on the right path. Forward we press on.
a couple of things-part 2
Remember emailing Bangor Daily News reporter Bill Trotter,telling him about the Vladek Filler case in which rogue prosecutor Mary N. Kellett tried to railroad the accused and asking him to look into it? Well he did and it is here. Thanks to our efforts we have the media looking into Kellett and now more people are becoming aware of her deplorable actions. You guys did good and take this moment to give yourselves a pat on the back. The united actions of MRA's are having an effect. Don't let anyone talk you out of men's rights activism because we are on the right track.
Second issue is there is censorship on America speaking out. America speaking out is a site funded by TAXPAYER DOLLARS and authorized by the Speaker of the House. I have emailled the admin for this site and received no reply so the Speaker of the House,John Boehner,was contacted regarding this. The problem is that America speaking out is censoring while being a government agency and that goes against the First Amendment stating Congress cannot abolish free speech. We should contact the Speaker and tell him what they are doing. When selecting issue select "ethics". The more of us he hears from the better so email him today.
Second issue is there is censorship on America speaking out. America speaking out is a site funded by TAXPAYER DOLLARS and authorized by the Speaker of the House. I have emailled the admin for this site and received no reply so the Speaker of the House,John Boehner,was contacted regarding this. The problem is that America speaking out is censoring while being a government agency and that goes against the First Amendment stating Congress cannot abolish free speech. We should contact the Speaker and tell him what they are doing. When selecting issue select "ethics". The more of us he hears from the better so email him today.
Feminism from women
The following is in the words of women themselves so if someone out there thinks that I'm talking out of my ass they can listen to the following:
The Story of Feminism--As Told By WOMEN! by mansays
The Story of Feminism--As Told By WOMEN! by mansays
Filler press conference
There was a press conference concerning Mary N. Kellett in Bangor,Maine in which members of SAVE brought to the public's attention the persecutorial antics of Mary N. Kellett in her quest to lock up as many men as possible.
Here is that press conference:
Here is that press conference:
Sunday, May 15, 2011
Mary N. Kellett tried to shut us up
Evil rogue prosecutor Mary N. Kellett tried to get a judge to issue a gag order on MRA sites seeking to disbar her. Fortunately the judge refused. It seems that we have her attention and that she is scared and as well as she should be. I'm sure Hitler was scared when the allies stormed Berlin too and just like the allies we are trying to vanquish a force of evil as well.
I'll let Paul Elam take it from here:
Just a brief update on the Vladek Filler rape case. It seems there was more action in the case after the team of advocates from S.A.V.E. left Bangor.
According to sources, "The prosecutor (Paul Cavanaugh and Kellett's assistant) requested for the judge to issue a gag order to silence Vladek and the Men's Rights Activists. They mentioned the press conference and the MRA actions and websites, asking the judge to order it stopped. The judge refused stating he had no right to order the media or "men's groups" to stop following and covering the case."
NOR WOULD WE STOP IF HE DID.
Kellett is scared now, and should be.
I assure you it is not about the Filler case in particular. It is about the fact that there could be, as we approach the court date for Filler, a lot more media starting to ask questions about what Kellett has been up to for all this time.
If that happens, she is fucking done in the justice system, and her license to practice law is toast. And while I cannot promise success, I can tell you that AVfM has only begun efforts to expose Kellett's corruption to the world at large.
Mark my word on it.
Source:here
This is great as this shows that if we work together we can make this a better place. You've probably heard about the petition to disbar this rogue prosecutor. If you haven't signed it now would be a good time.
I'll let Paul Elam take it from here:
Just a brief update on the Vladek Filler rape case. It seems there was more action in the case after the team of advocates from S.A.V.E. left Bangor.
According to sources, "The prosecutor (Paul Cavanaugh and Kellett's assistant) requested for the judge to issue a gag order to silence Vladek and the Men's Rights Activists. They mentioned the press conference and the MRA actions and websites, asking the judge to order it stopped. The judge refused stating he had no right to order the media or "men's groups" to stop following and covering the case."
NOR WOULD WE STOP IF HE DID.
Kellett is scared now, and should be.
I assure you it is not about the Filler case in particular. It is about the fact that there could be, as we approach the court date for Filler, a lot more media starting to ask questions about what Kellett has been up to for all this time.
If that happens, she is fucking done in the justice system, and her license to practice law is toast. And while I cannot promise success, I can tell you that AVfM has only begun efforts to expose Kellett's corruption to the world at large.
Mark my word on it.
Source:here
This is great as this shows that if we work together we can make this a better place. You've probably heard about the petition to disbar this rogue prosecutor. If you haven't signed it now would be a good time.
Friday, May 6, 2011
Rick Santorum is critical of feminism
I was watching the Republican Presidential candidates' debate on FOX last night and heard that one of the candidates,Rick Santorum,is critical of feminism. In fact he wrote about it in one of his books. That is a extremely courageous thing to do in these politically correct times and for that he should be commended. Santorum is testing the waters politically so there is no reason he shouldn't hear from us. Send him an email telling him the awful truths about feminism and promoting men's rights. The more of us he hears from the better. His email address is:
explore@ricksantorum.com
He was the only candidate to touch this issue and he should be contacted to let him know he's not alone on his stance on this issue. We may have gotten a politician's attention. Let's not let this opportunity slip away contact him today.
explore@ricksantorum.com
He was the only candidate to touch this issue and he should be contacted to let him know he's not alone on his stance on this issue. We may have gotten a politician's attention. Let's not let this opportunity slip away contact him today.
Tuesday, May 3, 2011
Tell the President about prostate cancer awareness
Dear Mr President: Please Light the White House Blue for One Evening During Prostate Cancer Awareness Month, September, 2011
Source:click here
There is a petition at the bottom of the Light the Whitehouse blue page please sign to help raise awareness of this disease. The life you save may be your own.
Prostate Cancer affects the lives of millions of Americans. Whether by diagnosis, treatment costs, lost work and family hours and, even death, prostate cancer resonates pain throughout our nation, every minute of every day. Lighting the White House blue for one night during Prostate Cancer Awareness Month September 2011 will raise Prostate Cancer awareness by asking all Americans to consider Prostate Cancer’s impact on our country. Lighting the White House blue might even get some guys to think about going to see their doctors and ask about Prostate Cancer testing.
Mr. President, please light the White House blue to honor the more than 300,000 American men who have died from prostate cancer in the past decade; for the more than 218,000 new cases that will be diagnosed this year; for the 32,000 men in the U.S. who will die from it this year; for African-American men who are 60 percent more likely to be diagnosed with prostate cancer and 2.4 times more likely to die from it and for the nearly 2.5 million American men and their families who are currently challenged by this cancer.
We, the undersigned, rally in support of lighting 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, the people’s house, blue, this September.
Source:click here
There is a petition at the bottom of the Light the Whitehouse blue page please sign to help raise awareness of this disease. The life you save may be your own.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)