Wednesday, June 8, 2011
Girls sexually assault boy
FORT MYERS, Fla. -- A Fort Myers mother says she feels powerless after her 11-year-old son was pinned down at his neck and stripped naked by two middle school girls.
At first glance the minute-long YouTube video looks like kids playing. But it soon takes a disturbing turn as the boy cries out for help, humiliated and pinned down to the ground.
"Mommy!," he yells.
The video, which has since been taken down, shows two Dunbar Middle School girls holding the boy down in broad daylight, inside a gated community. The boy begs the girls to stop as the rip off his bathing suit, leaving him naked lying on the ground. The title of the video, which was online for more than 24 hours, says the boy is getting "owned."
"I'm surprised these girls can just do that and get away with it," said the boy's mother. "Or there are no repercussions."
Thank feminists and their white-knight mangina lackeys.
Fox 4 is not releasing the names of anyone involved. The mother says Fort Myers police filled out a report but weren't much help at first. The officer "said he didn't know if there was a crime committed but said it looked like a prank."
The police report taken Tuesday described the incident twice as a "prank" and says "police incident closed."
They would have to explain to feminists why the girls were arrested the feminists would accuse the police of "oppressing" the girls and then the politicians would grovel at the feminists feet begging for forgiveness.
"Nobody cares, nobody cares," the mother said. "If this was my son doing it to a little girl there would have been lights and sirens at my door."
Along with a neighborhood lynch mob with "castrate" signs,blowhards like Nancy Grace and Jane Velez Mitchell telling everyone how much of a danger teen-age boys are. But since it is girls sexually assaulting a boy no one cares. Then these same deadbrain idiots can't figure out why some of us are misogynistic.
Shortly after Fox 4 contacted police they showed up at the mother's daughter. A spokesperson for the department says it has nothing to do with the media's involvement in the story.
They tell us the plan was always to follow up.
Sure they were-and donkeys fly.
We wanted to talk with Chief Doug Baker about the case. After agreeing to an interview, he backed out because he didn't want to cause the boy further embarrassment, according to spokesperson Shelly Flynn.
He doesn't give a fuck about the boy,his department has proven that. This is a political embarrassment and he wants to distance himself as fast as possible.
Fort Myers attorney E.B. Newberry says at the very least this is a misdemeanor battery because the girls touched the boy against his will.
If he had did this to a girl he would be looking at a felony. So much for equality before the law.
She says it could even be considered child pornography.
Newberry says if the situation have been reversed, the boy most likely would have been arrested - and admits there's a "double standard."
No.Really.A double-standard? You don't say.(/sarcasm)
"Kids need to know they can't do these things and get off without anything," said Newberry. "But I also don't think that their future should be ruined either. It's a Catch-22."
No,it's not a catch-22 it is cut and dry. These girls committed a crime and a sex based crime at that and now the state is trying to find any excuse not to investigate much less prosecute. Fuck these cunts futures how is the future going to be for this young male victim? Yes,this boy is the VICTIM and a lot of fucking assholes who are supposed to be safeguarding the public from these types of crimes drop the ball especially when the victim is male.
And that is something the boy's mother is struggling with. She's not sure if she will press charges but feels the girls should face some sort of punishment.
Well bitch if you don't press charges they won't be punished (considering the culprits are female look for a slap on the wrist at the most).
Fort Myers police confirm this would have been a misdemeanor battery charge. They say unless the mother is willing to press charges there's not much they can do.
If the culprits were male and the victim female they would be pulling out all the stops and they wouldn't be charging males who did this with misdemeanors either,they would be charging them with felonies.
They say they are looking into what charges, if any, the YouTube element could bring but wouldn't elaborate.
Watch for YouTube to be in bigger trouble than the girls who did this.
"I think they should be held accountable for what they did," she said. "You can't do this to people. What gives you the right to do this?"
What give them the right? Feminists and the mangina lackeys that enable them give this power over to females on some stupid belief that women are incapable of evil. We MRA's know about the evil side of women now hopefully more people do too but I wouldn't hold my breath.
Source:click here
Anthony the hypocritical Weiner
Keeping the Internet Devoid of Sexual Predators Act of 2007 – Anthony Weiner
June 6, 2011 By Internet Lawyer
In the interest of protecting the children, U.S. Congressman Anthony Weiner (Pervert – N.Y.), sponsored the Keeping the Internet Devoid of Sexual Predators Act of 2007 a.k.a. KIDS Act of 2007. The text of the legislation is below.
But here’s a great quote from the Weiner about his interest in stopping Internet predators.
“Sadly, the Internet is the predator’s venue of choice today. We need to update our strategies and our laws to stop these offenders who are a mere click away from our children.” – Anthony Weiner
At first, Congressman Weiner accused others of the crime of hacking his Twitter account to tweet a special “weiner” pic of him in his undies. Instead of calling in the FBI to pursue the alleged crime, Anthony Weiner then relabeled the event as a “prank.”
After denials and evasions for a week, Congressman Anthony Weiner was forced by additional lewd photos to admit he’s been trolling for cybersex relationships for years and has engaged in them with at least six women.
And Anthony Weiner doesn’t know if any of his communications have been with minors either. If so, would he qualify as the same type of Internet sexual predator he’s pontificating against in legislation and related press releases?
Of course, now that he’s said he’s sorry (that he got caught), Weiner considers this to be a resume enhancer and refuses to resign from office. Perhaps he will continue with his plans to run for New York City Mayor.
I won’t pretend to be the moral police. But then again, neither should Anthony Weiner.
Lessons From The Anthony Weiner Cybersex Escapades
Here’s a few lessons to learn from the Anthony Weiner fiasco.
■Not all creepy married guys trolling for sex online are registered sex offenders. There’s even congressmen like Anthony Weiner.
■Legislation like the KIDS Act of 2007 won’t do much to protect anyone from registered sex offenders or guys like Anthony Weiner.
■Protect yourself when dealing with strangers online and don’t rely upon leglislation to protect your kids in cyberspace either. Parental supervision is key.
Text of Anthony Weiner’s Internet Sexual Predators Legislation.
Here’s a copy of Anthony Weiner’s anti-sexual predator legislation…
110th CONGRESS 1st Session – H.R. 719
To require convicted sex offenders to register online identifiers, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. Short title.
This Act may be cited as the “Keeping the Internet Devoid of Sexual Predators Act of 2007” or the “KIDS Act of 2007”.
SEC. 2. Registration of online identifiers of sex offenders.
(a) In general.—Section 114(a) of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (42 U.S.C. 16914(a)) is amended—
(1) by redesignating paragraphs (4) through (7) as paragraphs (5) through (8); and
(2) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following:
“(4) Any electronic mail address, instant message address, or other similar Internet identifier the sex offender used or will use to communicate over the Internet.”.
(b) Updating of information.—Section 113(c) of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (42 U.S.C. 16913(c)) is amended by inserting “and before any use of an electronic mail address, instant message address, or other similar Internet identifier not provided under subsection (b) by the sex offender to communicate over the Internet,” after “or student status,”.
(c) Failure To register online identifiers.—Section 2250 of title 18, United States Code, is amended—
(1) in subsection (b), by inserting “or (d)” after “subsection (a)”; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
“(d) Failure To register online identifiers.—
“(1) IN GENERAL.—It shall be unlawful for any person who is required to register under the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (42 U.S.C. 16901 et seq.) to fail to provide an electronic mail address, instant message address, or other similar Internet identifier used by that person to communicate over the Internet to the appropriate official for inclusion in the sex offender registry, as required under that Act.
“(2) PENALTY.—Any person who violates paragraph (1) shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.”.
SEC. 3. Release of electronic mail addresses, instant message addresses, or other similar Internet identifiers.
(a) Public access.—Section 118(b) of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (42 U.S.C. 16918(b)) is amended—
(1) in paragraph (3), by striking “and” at the end;
(2) by redesignating paragraph (4) as paragraph (5); and
(3) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following:
“(4) any electronic mail address, instant message address, or other similar Internet identifier used by the sex offender; and”.
(b) National registry.—Section 119 of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (42 U.S.C. 16919) is amended by adding at the end the following:
“(c) Release of electronic mail addresses, instant message addresses, or other similar Internet identifiers to commercial social networking website.—
“(1) IN GENERAL.—The Attorney General shall maintain a system allowing a commercial social networking website to compare the database of registered users of that commercial social networking website to the list of electronic mail addresses, instant message addresses, and other similar Internet identifiers of persons in the National Sex Offender Registry.
“(2) PROCESS FOR RELEASE OF ELECTRONIC MAIL ADDRESSES, INSTANT MESSAGE ADDRESSES, OR OTHER SIMILAR INTERNET IDENTIFIERS.—A commercial social networking website desiring to compare its database of registered users to the list of electronic mail addresses, instant messages, and other similar Internet identifiers of persons in the National Sex Offender Registry shall provide to the Attorney General—
“(A) the name, address, and telephone number of the commercial social networking website;
“(B) the specific legal nature and corporate status of the commercial social networking website;
“(C) an affirmation signed by the chief legal officer of the commercial social networking website that the information obtained from that database shall not be disclosed for any purpose other than for comparing the database of registered users of that commercial social networking website against the list of electronic mail addresses, instant message addresses, and other similar Internet identifiers of persons in the National Sex Offender Registry to protect children from online sexual predators and that disclosure of this information for purposes other than those under this section may be unlawful; and
“(D) the name, address, and telephone number of a natural person who consents to service of process for the commercial social networking website.
“(3) USE OF DATABASE.—After a commercial social networking website has complied with paragraph (2) and paid any fee established by the Attorney General, the commercial social networking website may screen new users or compare its database of registered users to the list of electronic mail addresses, instant message addresses, and other similar Internet identifiers of persons in the National Sex Offender Registry as frequently as the Attorney General may allow for the purpose of identifying a registered user associated with an electronic mail address, instant message address, or other similar Internet identifier contained in the National Sex Offender Registry.
“(4) LIABILITY RELIEF FOR SOCIAL NETWORKING SITES USING THE REGISTRY INFORMATION TO PROTECT USERS.—
“(A) IN GENERAL.—If a commercial social networking website complies with this section, a covered civil action against that commercial social networking website or any director, officer, employee, or agent of that commercial social networking website may not be brought in any Federal or State court.
“(B) DEFINITION.—In this paragraph, the term ‘covered civil action’ means a civil action relating to the use of the information in the National Sex Offender Registry by a commercial social networking website to screen users or compare its database of registered users for the purpose of identifying a registered user associated with an electronic mail address, instant message address, or other similar Internet identifier information contained in the National Sex Offender Registry.
“(5) INTERIM PERIOD.—In any interim period before the National Sex Offender Registry is implemented, any commercial social networking website shall have access to the electronic mail addresses, instant message addresses, and other similar Internet identifiers of persons required to register in a jurisdiction’s sex offender registry through the methods set forth in paragraphs (2) and (3). Until such time as the National Sex Offender Registry is implemented, the term ‘Attorney General’ shall be replaced with ‘the jurisdiction’ and the term ‘the National Sex Offender Registry’ shall be replaced with ‘a jurisdiction’s sex offender registry’ in paragraphs (2) and (3).”.
SEC. 4. Definitions.
Section 111 of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (42 U.S.C. 16911) is amended—
(1) in paragraph (7)(H), by striking the period and inserting the following: “, except that it shall not be necessary to show that the sexual conduct actually occurred or to offer proof that the defendant engaged in an act, other than use of the Internet to facilitate criminal sexual conduct involving a minor.”; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
“(15) The term ‘commercial social networking website’ means a commercially operated Internet website that—
“(A) allows users to create web pages or profiles that provide information about themselves and are available publicly or to other users; and
“(B) offers a mechanism for communication with other users, such as a forum, chat room, electronic mail, or instant messenger.
“(16) The term ‘chat room’ means any Internet website through which a number of users can communicate in real time via text and that allows messages to be almost immediately visible to all other users or to a designated segment of all other users.
“(17) The term ‘Internet’ has the meaning given that term in section 1101 of the Internet Tax Freedom Act (47 U.S.C. 151 note).
“(18) The term ‘electronic mail address’ has the meaning given that term in section 3 of the Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing Act of 2003 (15 U.S.C. 7702).
“(19) The term ‘instant message address’ means an identifier that allows a person to communication in real-time with another person using the Internet.”.
SEC. 5. Criminalization of age misrepresentation in connection with online solicitation of a minor.
Section 2252C of title 18, United States Code, is amended—
(1) by redesignating subsections (c) and (d) as subsections (d) and (e), respectively; and
(2) by inserting after subsection (b) the following:
“(c) Age misrepresentation.—Any person 18 years or older who knowingly misrepresents their age with the intent to use the Internet to engage in criminal sexual conduct involving a minor, or to facilitate or attempt such conduct, shall be fined under this title and imprisoned for not more than 20 years. Such penalty shall be in addition to any penalty pursuant to the laws of any jurisdiction for the crime of using the Internet to engage in criminal sexual conduct involving a minor, or to facilitate or attempt such conduct.”
…
You have to wonder. How many more Congressmen are like Anthony Weiner?
Source:click here
What is it about the Democrat New York politician and the fact they are often found with their trousers around their ankles,from Eliot Spitzer to Anthony Weiner? Weiner is not only a feminist enabler he is a blantant hypocrite as well. He has no problem fucking over other men and now he gets knocked on his mangina ass. These manginas have no problem sending other men to prison so fuck his male feminist ass. I hope he gets put through the ringer.
June 6, 2011 By Internet Lawyer
In the interest of protecting the children, U.S. Congressman Anthony Weiner (Pervert – N.Y.), sponsored the Keeping the Internet Devoid of Sexual Predators Act of 2007 a.k.a. KIDS Act of 2007. The text of the legislation is below.
But here’s a great quote from the Weiner about his interest in stopping Internet predators.
“Sadly, the Internet is the predator’s venue of choice today. We need to update our strategies and our laws to stop these offenders who are a mere click away from our children.” – Anthony Weiner
At first, Congressman Weiner accused others of the crime of hacking his Twitter account to tweet a special “weiner” pic of him in his undies. Instead of calling in the FBI to pursue the alleged crime, Anthony Weiner then relabeled the event as a “prank.”
After denials and evasions for a week, Congressman Anthony Weiner was forced by additional lewd photos to admit he’s been trolling for cybersex relationships for years and has engaged in them with at least six women.
And Anthony Weiner doesn’t know if any of his communications have been with minors either. If so, would he qualify as the same type of Internet sexual predator he’s pontificating against in legislation and related press releases?
Of course, now that he’s said he’s sorry (that he got caught), Weiner considers this to be a resume enhancer and refuses to resign from office. Perhaps he will continue with his plans to run for New York City Mayor.
I won’t pretend to be the moral police. But then again, neither should Anthony Weiner.
Lessons From The Anthony Weiner Cybersex Escapades
Here’s a few lessons to learn from the Anthony Weiner fiasco.
■Not all creepy married guys trolling for sex online are registered sex offenders. There’s even congressmen like Anthony Weiner.
■Legislation like the KIDS Act of 2007 won’t do much to protect anyone from registered sex offenders or guys like Anthony Weiner.
■Protect yourself when dealing with strangers online and don’t rely upon leglislation to protect your kids in cyberspace either. Parental supervision is key.
Text of Anthony Weiner’s Internet Sexual Predators Legislation.
Here’s a copy of Anthony Weiner’s anti-sexual predator legislation…
110th CONGRESS 1st Session – H.R. 719
To require convicted sex offenders to register online identifiers, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. Short title.
This Act may be cited as the “Keeping the Internet Devoid of Sexual Predators Act of 2007” or the “KIDS Act of 2007”.
SEC. 2. Registration of online identifiers of sex offenders.
(a) In general.—Section 114(a) of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (42 U.S.C. 16914(a)) is amended—
(1) by redesignating paragraphs (4) through (7) as paragraphs (5) through (8); and
(2) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following:
“(4) Any electronic mail address, instant message address, or other similar Internet identifier the sex offender used or will use to communicate over the Internet.”.
(b) Updating of information.—Section 113(c) of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (42 U.S.C. 16913(c)) is amended by inserting “and before any use of an electronic mail address, instant message address, or other similar Internet identifier not provided under subsection (b) by the sex offender to communicate over the Internet,” after “or student status,”.
(c) Failure To register online identifiers.—Section 2250 of title 18, United States Code, is amended—
(1) in subsection (b), by inserting “or (d)” after “subsection (a)”; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
“(d) Failure To register online identifiers.—
“(1) IN GENERAL.—It shall be unlawful for any person who is required to register under the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (42 U.S.C. 16901 et seq.) to fail to provide an electronic mail address, instant message address, or other similar Internet identifier used by that person to communicate over the Internet to the appropriate official for inclusion in the sex offender registry, as required under that Act.
“(2) PENALTY.—Any person who violates paragraph (1) shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.”.
SEC. 3. Release of electronic mail addresses, instant message addresses, or other similar Internet identifiers.
(a) Public access.—Section 118(b) of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (42 U.S.C. 16918(b)) is amended—
(1) in paragraph (3), by striking “and” at the end;
(2) by redesignating paragraph (4) as paragraph (5); and
(3) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following:
“(4) any electronic mail address, instant message address, or other similar Internet identifier used by the sex offender; and”.
(b) National registry.—Section 119 of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (42 U.S.C. 16919) is amended by adding at the end the following:
“(c) Release of electronic mail addresses, instant message addresses, or other similar Internet identifiers to commercial social networking website.—
“(1) IN GENERAL.—The Attorney General shall maintain a system allowing a commercial social networking website to compare the database of registered users of that commercial social networking website to the list of electronic mail addresses, instant message addresses, and other similar Internet identifiers of persons in the National Sex Offender Registry.
“(2) PROCESS FOR RELEASE OF ELECTRONIC MAIL ADDRESSES, INSTANT MESSAGE ADDRESSES, OR OTHER SIMILAR INTERNET IDENTIFIERS.—A commercial social networking website desiring to compare its database of registered users to the list of electronic mail addresses, instant messages, and other similar Internet identifiers of persons in the National Sex Offender Registry shall provide to the Attorney General—
“(A) the name, address, and telephone number of the commercial social networking website;
“(B) the specific legal nature and corporate status of the commercial social networking website;
“(C) an affirmation signed by the chief legal officer of the commercial social networking website that the information obtained from that database shall not be disclosed for any purpose other than for comparing the database of registered users of that commercial social networking website against the list of electronic mail addresses, instant message addresses, and other similar Internet identifiers of persons in the National Sex Offender Registry to protect children from online sexual predators and that disclosure of this information for purposes other than those under this section may be unlawful; and
“(D) the name, address, and telephone number of a natural person who consents to service of process for the commercial social networking website.
“(3) USE OF DATABASE.—After a commercial social networking website has complied with paragraph (2) and paid any fee established by the Attorney General, the commercial social networking website may screen new users or compare its database of registered users to the list of electronic mail addresses, instant message addresses, and other similar Internet identifiers of persons in the National Sex Offender Registry as frequently as the Attorney General may allow for the purpose of identifying a registered user associated with an electronic mail address, instant message address, or other similar Internet identifier contained in the National Sex Offender Registry.
“(4) LIABILITY RELIEF FOR SOCIAL NETWORKING SITES USING THE REGISTRY INFORMATION TO PROTECT USERS.—
“(A) IN GENERAL.—If a commercial social networking website complies with this section, a covered civil action against that commercial social networking website or any director, officer, employee, or agent of that commercial social networking website may not be brought in any Federal or State court.
“(B) DEFINITION.—In this paragraph, the term ‘covered civil action’ means a civil action relating to the use of the information in the National Sex Offender Registry by a commercial social networking website to screen users or compare its database of registered users for the purpose of identifying a registered user associated with an electronic mail address, instant message address, or other similar Internet identifier information contained in the National Sex Offender Registry.
“(5) INTERIM PERIOD.—In any interim period before the National Sex Offender Registry is implemented, any commercial social networking website shall have access to the electronic mail addresses, instant message addresses, and other similar Internet identifiers of persons required to register in a jurisdiction’s sex offender registry through the methods set forth in paragraphs (2) and (3). Until such time as the National Sex Offender Registry is implemented, the term ‘Attorney General’ shall be replaced with ‘the jurisdiction’ and the term ‘the National Sex Offender Registry’ shall be replaced with ‘a jurisdiction’s sex offender registry’ in paragraphs (2) and (3).”.
SEC. 4. Definitions.
Section 111 of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (42 U.S.C. 16911) is amended—
(1) in paragraph (7)(H), by striking the period and inserting the following: “, except that it shall not be necessary to show that the sexual conduct actually occurred or to offer proof that the defendant engaged in an act, other than use of the Internet to facilitate criminal sexual conduct involving a minor.”; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
“(15) The term ‘commercial social networking website’ means a commercially operated Internet website that—
“(A) allows users to create web pages or profiles that provide information about themselves and are available publicly or to other users; and
“(B) offers a mechanism for communication with other users, such as a forum, chat room, electronic mail, or instant messenger.
“(16) The term ‘chat room’ means any Internet website through which a number of users can communicate in real time via text and that allows messages to be almost immediately visible to all other users or to a designated segment of all other users.
“(17) The term ‘Internet’ has the meaning given that term in section 1101 of the Internet Tax Freedom Act (47 U.S.C. 151 note).
“(18) The term ‘electronic mail address’ has the meaning given that term in section 3 of the Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing Act of 2003 (15 U.S.C. 7702).
“(19) The term ‘instant message address’ means an identifier that allows a person to communication in real-time with another person using the Internet.”.
SEC. 5. Criminalization of age misrepresentation in connection with online solicitation of a minor.
Section 2252C of title 18, United States Code, is amended—
(1) by redesignating subsections (c) and (d) as subsections (d) and (e), respectively; and
(2) by inserting after subsection (b) the following:
“(c) Age misrepresentation.—Any person 18 years or older who knowingly misrepresents their age with the intent to use the Internet to engage in criminal sexual conduct involving a minor, or to facilitate or attempt such conduct, shall be fined under this title and imprisoned for not more than 20 years. Such penalty shall be in addition to any penalty pursuant to the laws of any jurisdiction for the crime of using the Internet to engage in criminal sexual conduct involving a minor, or to facilitate or attempt such conduct.”
…
You have to wonder. How many more Congressmen are like Anthony Weiner?
Source:click here
What is it about the Democrat New York politician and the fact they are often found with their trousers around their ankles,from Eliot Spitzer to Anthony Weiner? Weiner is not only a feminist enabler he is a blantant hypocrite as well. He has no problem fucking over other men and now he gets knocked on his mangina ass. These manginas have no problem sending other men to prison so fuck his male feminist ass. I hope he gets put through the ringer.
Monday, June 6, 2011
Anthony the Weiner
NEW YORK – A tearful Rep. Anthony Weiner on Monday admitted sending a lewd photo of his underwear-clad crotch to a young woman over Twitter and then lying repeatedly to protect himself. In a flash of defiance, Weiner refused to resign even as Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi called for a House ethics investigation into whether he broke the rules.
The extraordinary confession at a packed Manhattan news conference was a remarkable turn of events for the brash Weiner, who conceded to a "hugely regrettable" lapse in judgment. House Democratic leaders tersely expressed disappointment and embarrassment, reflecting an erosion of support for the 46-year-old New York congressman and casting doubts on whether Weiner could hold onto his House seat let alone turn a once-promising political career into a 2013 bid for mayor.
Weiner insisted he had done nothing wrong and said he would fully cooperate with a House inquiry.
"People who draw conclusions about me are free to do so," Weiner said. "I've worked for the people of my district for 13 years and in politics for 20 years and I hope they see fit to see this in the light that it is."
But in a new twist, the married Weiner also acknowledged that he had engaged in inappropriate contact with six women over the course of three years through social networking sites like Twitter and Facebook and occasionally over the phone. He said he had never met or had a physical relationship with any of the women and was not even sure of their ages. He also said he had never had sex outside of his marriage.
The news conference, unusually blunt even by New York standards, went on nearly half an hour and capped a week of double-entendre, tabloid-headlines and late-night jokesters' snide comments. With eyes welling and voice breaking, Weiner fielded questions from dozens of shouting reporters as the cameras clicked.
Weiner said over and over that he had made "terrible mistakes" and done "a very dumb thing" for which he alone bore responsibility, and he apologized repeatedly to his wife, Huma Abedin, a top aide to Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton.
"My wife is a remarkable woman. She's not responsible for any of this," he said. "I apologize to her very deeply."
Abedin did not attend his news conference, but Weiner said they would not be separating over the scandal.
Among the women Weiner contacted, Meagan Broussard, told ABC News that Weiner "friended" her on Facebook after she commented on one of his speeches posted online on April 20. They exchanged more than 100 messages, and Weiner constantly tried to steer the conversation toward sex.
"I don't think he's a bad guy. I think he's got issues just like everybody else," Broussard, 26, said in an interview aired Monday night.
During Weiner's news conference, the lawmaker confirmed that Broussard was one of the women with which he had exchanged messages.
The scandal began more than a week ago when a conservative website reported that a photo of a man's crotch had been sent from Weiner's Twitter account to a college student in Seattle.
For days, Weiner claimed that he hadn't sent the photo and that he was the victim of a hacker. But he caused guffaws when he said that he couldn't say with "certitude" that the underwear shot was not a picture of him.
The scandal escalated Monday when the website, BigGovernment.com, run by conservative activist Andrew Breitbart, posted photos purportedly from a second woman who said she received shirtless shots of the congressman. The site said the pictures were in a cache of intimate online photographs, chats and email exchanges the woman claimed to have. The website did not identify the woman.
One photo showed Weiner on a couch with two cats nearby. The website said Weiner sent the photo using the anthonyweiner(at)aol.com account with the subject line "Me and the pussys."
Also, the celebrity website RadarOnline.com said a woman claimed to have 200 sexually explicit messages from Weiner through a Facebook account that Weiner no longer uses. It was not clear whether the woman who claimed to have the new photo was the person who claimed to have received the text messages.
At Monday's news conference, Weiner said he sent the underpants photo as a joke and called it a "hugely regrettable mistake."
"I haven't told the truth and have done things I deeply regret," he said. "I brought pain to people I care about."
Genette Cordova, 21, the intended recipient of the crotch photograph, is a college student in Washington state. Weiner said he and Cordova had exchanged a few messages before he sent the photo May 27, which he said was intended to be "a joke."
In a strange twist, Breitbart attended Weiner's news conference and spoke to reporters before Weiner appeared. He claimed to have another photo of Weiner which he described as "X-rated" but would not say if he planned to release it.
"I would like an apology from him. I'm here for some vindication," Breitbart said. Weiner did apologize to Breitbart.
Weiner said he used his home computer and personal Blackberry, not government computers, in his exchanges with the women. But that may not protect him from House rules that say a member "shall conduct himself at all times in a manner that shall reflect creditably on the House."
On numerous occasions, the House ethics committee has cited that general rule in finding that lawmaker violated standards of conduct.
In her brief statement, Pelosi said she was "deeply disappointed and saddened about this situation." She mentioned Weiner's wife, his family, staff and constituents, but pointedly did not mention the congressman.
New York's senior senator, Chuck Schumer, said in a statement that he was "deeply pained and saddened by today's news. By fully explaining himself, apologizing to all he hurt and taking full responsibility for his wrongful actions, Anthony did the right thing. He remains a talented and committed public servant, and I pray he and his family can get through these difficult times."
Weiner succeeded Schumer in the House district that includes parts of Brooklyn and Queens.
The picture showing Weiner shirtless was reminiscent of a photo of former Rep. Chris Lee, a New York Republican who abruptly resigned from office earlier this year after a shirtless photo he sent a woman on Craigslist became public. A Democrat, Kathy Hochul, was sworn in to replace Lee last week after winning a special election May 24.
Weiner gained a national profile during the debate over President Barack Obama's health care plan when he outspokenly professed support for a government-run "single-payer" program for everyone and later a "public option" to compete with private health insurance. He got the notice of liberals even though both proposals failed to make it into law.
Source:click here
Weiner is an anti-male politician who has kissed feminist ass throughout his political career and now he sees that the sword that he swung was double-edged and cut him as well. He was opposed to a statue in New York City a few years ago,complaining it was "misogynistic". Now the sword of political correctness cuts him as well,how fitting. What can I say? Time for the Weiner roast.
The extraordinary confession at a packed Manhattan news conference was a remarkable turn of events for the brash Weiner, who conceded to a "hugely regrettable" lapse in judgment. House Democratic leaders tersely expressed disappointment and embarrassment, reflecting an erosion of support for the 46-year-old New York congressman and casting doubts on whether Weiner could hold onto his House seat let alone turn a once-promising political career into a 2013 bid for mayor.
Weiner insisted he had done nothing wrong and said he would fully cooperate with a House inquiry.
"People who draw conclusions about me are free to do so," Weiner said. "I've worked for the people of my district for 13 years and in politics for 20 years and I hope they see fit to see this in the light that it is."
But in a new twist, the married Weiner also acknowledged that he had engaged in inappropriate contact with six women over the course of three years through social networking sites like Twitter and Facebook and occasionally over the phone. He said he had never met or had a physical relationship with any of the women and was not even sure of their ages. He also said he had never had sex outside of his marriage.
The news conference, unusually blunt even by New York standards, went on nearly half an hour and capped a week of double-entendre, tabloid-headlines and late-night jokesters' snide comments. With eyes welling and voice breaking, Weiner fielded questions from dozens of shouting reporters as the cameras clicked.
Weiner said over and over that he had made "terrible mistakes" and done "a very dumb thing" for which he alone bore responsibility, and he apologized repeatedly to his wife, Huma Abedin, a top aide to Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton.
"My wife is a remarkable woman. She's not responsible for any of this," he said. "I apologize to her very deeply."
Abedin did not attend his news conference, but Weiner said they would not be separating over the scandal.
Among the women Weiner contacted, Meagan Broussard, told ABC News that Weiner "friended" her on Facebook after she commented on one of his speeches posted online on April 20. They exchanged more than 100 messages, and Weiner constantly tried to steer the conversation toward sex.
"I don't think he's a bad guy. I think he's got issues just like everybody else," Broussard, 26, said in an interview aired Monday night.
During Weiner's news conference, the lawmaker confirmed that Broussard was one of the women with which he had exchanged messages.
The scandal began more than a week ago when a conservative website reported that a photo of a man's crotch had been sent from Weiner's Twitter account to a college student in Seattle.
For days, Weiner claimed that he hadn't sent the photo and that he was the victim of a hacker. But he caused guffaws when he said that he couldn't say with "certitude" that the underwear shot was not a picture of him.
The scandal escalated Monday when the website, BigGovernment.com, run by conservative activist Andrew Breitbart, posted photos purportedly from a second woman who said she received shirtless shots of the congressman. The site said the pictures were in a cache of intimate online photographs, chats and email exchanges the woman claimed to have. The website did not identify the woman.
One photo showed Weiner on a couch with two cats nearby. The website said Weiner sent the photo using the anthonyweiner(at)aol.com account with the subject line "Me and the pussys."
Also, the celebrity website RadarOnline.com said a woman claimed to have 200 sexually explicit messages from Weiner through a Facebook account that Weiner no longer uses. It was not clear whether the woman who claimed to have the new photo was the person who claimed to have received the text messages.
At Monday's news conference, Weiner said he sent the underpants photo as a joke and called it a "hugely regrettable mistake."
"I haven't told the truth and have done things I deeply regret," he said. "I brought pain to people I care about."
Genette Cordova, 21, the intended recipient of the crotch photograph, is a college student in Washington state. Weiner said he and Cordova had exchanged a few messages before he sent the photo May 27, which he said was intended to be "a joke."
In a strange twist, Breitbart attended Weiner's news conference and spoke to reporters before Weiner appeared. He claimed to have another photo of Weiner which he described as "X-rated" but would not say if he planned to release it.
"I would like an apology from him. I'm here for some vindication," Breitbart said. Weiner did apologize to Breitbart.
Weiner said he used his home computer and personal Blackberry, not government computers, in his exchanges with the women. But that may not protect him from House rules that say a member "shall conduct himself at all times in a manner that shall reflect creditably on the House."
On numerous occasions, the House ethics committee has cited that general rule in finding that lawmaker violated standards of conduct.
In her brief statement, Pelosi said she was "deeply disappointed and saddened about this situation." She mentioned Weiner's wife, his family, staff and constituents, but pointedly did not mention the congressman.
New York's senior senator, Chuck Schumer, said in a statement that he was "deeply pained and saddened by today's news. By fully explaining himself, apologizing to all he hurt and taking full responsibility for his wrongful actions, Anthony did the right thing. He remains a talented and committed public servant, and I pray he and his family can get through these difficult times."
Weiner succeeded Schumer in the House district that includes parts of Brooklyn and Queens.
The picture showing Weiner shirtless was reminiscent of a photo of former Rep. Chris Lee, a New York Republican who abruptly resigned from office earlier this year after a shirtless photo he sent a woman on Craigslist became public. A Democrat, Kathy Hochul, was sworn in to replace Lee last week after winning a special election May 24.
Weiner gained a national profile during the debate over President Barack Obama's health care plan when he outspokenly professed support for a government-run "single-payer" program for everyone and later a "public option" to compete with private health insurance. He got the notice of liberals even though both proposals failed to make it into law.
Source:click here
Weiner is an anti-male politician who has kissed feminist ass throughout his political career and now he sees that the sword that he swung was double-edged and cut him as well. He was opposed to a statue in New York City a few years ago,complaining it was "misogynistic". Now the sword of political correctness cuts him as well,how fitting. What can I say? Time for the Weiner roast.
Wednesday, June 1, 2011
Gingrich acknowledges anti-male bias in family court
Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich acknowledged the anti-male bias of the family court. A question was asked of Gingrich by one of Glenn Sacks people at Fathers and Families. The article says:
Gingrich added that he was “in favor of fathers having rights…We live in an age that is very different than 50 years ago and I think that it is very often very important…that we have a much greater sensitivity that both sides, both parents, both have rights and have responsibilities…”
Fathers aren't the only ones trying to preserve their rights in the anglosphere in fact everyman who is awake and activist is trying to safeguard himself as well. Family court is not the only court that has an anti-male bias. Criminal court has a very anti-male bias as well when you consider that men get more time for the same crime than women do and that men are the exclusive recipients of capital punishment. It sounds like Newt maybe receptive to what we have to say and the more of us that email him the better. He can be reached here. If he is willing to discuss men's issues then we should present our concerns to him and the more of us he hears from the better.
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)