Sack jew Sacks

 

In typical jew LIE fashion, jew Glenn Sacks quotes the very same feminazis he rightly condemns when it serves his JEW best interest:

"A section of Family Court Report 2002 attacks the fathers' movement which, we are told, is a cabal of misogynists and wife-beaters who seek to restore patriarchy. The core of the NOW report's evidence is the "Fathers' Manifesto," an Internet document signed by many fathers' rights activists, which calls for stripping women of the right to vote.

"In reality, the "Fathers' Manifesto" was a hoax employed by an anti-Semitic, racist, woman-hater on the fringe of the men's movement.  NOW's report identifies this individual as "John Knight." An Internet petition called the "Fathers' Manifesto" was circulated which proclaimed equal rights for fathers and the importance of fathers in the life of a child.  Over one hundred fathers' rights activists signed this Internet petition, including many Jewish and African-American activists.    

"Signatories were horrified when the petition reappeared on a white supremacist website in a radically altered form--a form which included a call to repeal the 19th amendment. Dozens of signatories demanded that their names be removed, and many activists made clear statements disassociating themselves from it."

 

Note that the paragraphs above in blue, which are patently false, which are just more of the same jew LIES that we've all heard on all the internet forums and in the putative "news", are jew Sacks' words, not NOW's, nor the other flaming feminazis.

Where does this disinformation come from?

His own infertile imagination?

Here are the facts:

  1. To 3.5 million Signatories, The Fathers' Manifesto was never and never will be a "hoax".
  2. jews like Sacks can just take a hike, right straight to Madagascar where they might be welcomed with open arms http://fathersmanifesto.net/poll.htm
  3. jew Sacks use of the term "anti-Semitic" has been exposed for the jew LIE that it is, because WE are Semites and jews like Sacks are NOT Semites.
  4. Many of the Signatories are women who have been far more critical of the selfish behavior of ex-wives than many of the fathers, but it's doubtful if they "hate" them.
  5. The figure "over one hundred' is off by thirty five THOUSAND times, as there are now over 3.5 million Signatories.
  6. There's only one "African-American" Signatory, a farmer who was chased out of Rhwanda--for being a White man.
  7. There were EIGHT jews, less than 0.0003% of the Signatories, and each of them was removed for the vilest profanity and obscenity that you could ever imagine.
  8. Besides the jews who were removed, a grand total of 9 Signatories asked to have their name removed because they were in sensitive positions where "politically incorrect" language threatened their very careers and employment.   They did, however, confide by private email that they still supported us 100% and wished us the best of luck.

Here's the challenge for jew Sacks. He writes "Dozens of signatories demanded that their names be removed, and many activists made clear statements disassociating themselves from it".

By "dozens", let's assume this STUPID jew means 24.   Let's demand that this STUPID jew produce 24 such statements, in WRITING, SIGNED by valid Signatories and not some STUPID jew, OR that he retract this FALSE jew LIE from every publication it might appear in.

This is called "slander", jew Sacks.

Produce, or SHUT UP, and go to Madagascar.

To get an idea of what the Signatories REALLY think, see the polls and surveys at http://fathersmanifesto.net/surveys.htm and give jew LIES from LYING jews like Sacks NO credence, whatsoever.

jewLIE update July 29, 2005--jew Sacks has not produced even ONE Fathers' Manifesto Signatory who agrees with a single word of jew Sacks' heinous screed, proof enough that a single word this LYING jew [though I repeat myself] is even worthy of comment, much less should it be believed.

 

California NOW's Family Court Report 2002:
Faulty Research, False Conclusions

By Glenn Sacks

 

In an apparent attempt to thwart the growing movement in the US for equal rights for fathers and for shared parenting, the California National Organization for Women recently released its Family Court Report 2002. The report turns reality on its head by claiming that California family courts are biased against women.  

The study upon which NOW's claims are based is not a randomized, scientifically credible poll, but instead a Self-selected Listener Opinion Poll, known among authentic researchers as a SLOP.  The poll was conducted exclusively from a pool of less than 300 of NOW's own sympathizers, all of whom were willing to spend hours filling out NOW's 20 page, 331 question Internet questionnaire. NOW's poll was conducted in a manner which guaranteed a biased response. In fact, its solicitation for survey respondents even says "Did you find justice in the Family Law Courts? If not, fill out our questionnaire to help more women and children get justice." NOW's survey is junk social science.

What was NOW's basis for its conclusion that California family courts discriminate against women? NOW asked its all-female survey pool "do you feel that you were discriminated against because you are a woman?" Respondents were given the choice to answer "yes" or "no."  Since there was no question asked about bias against men, and no male respondents to the survey, the survey was structured so that it could only demonstrate bias against women.

On nine occasions the report mentions fathers' desire for more parenting time or joint custody, and on all nine occasions the report promptly explains that these fathers' motivation is to have their child support payments reduced. How did NOW come to this conclusion?  By posing only one question about fathers' motivations for more parenting time: "Do you believe the father is trying to gain greater amounts of custody to avoid paying child support?" No other possibilities are allowed for by the survey. Not once in the entire report does NOW consider that fathers might want more time with their children because they love them and want to play a meaningful role in their lives.

NOW uses its SLOP to make a number of startling assertions about anti-woman gender bias which are contradicted by established, scientifically credible research. NOW asserts that "the present system takes children from fit mothers who have been sole or primary care givers because of false ‘parity' with the father as soon as separation occurs" and claims that women's "loss of custody through gender bias" is widespread.  Yet every scientifically credible study ever conducted, including the well-known work of Stanford University psychologist Eleanor Maccoby and Stanford law professor Robert Mnookin, has found that women win custody in 80% to 90% of contested cases.  

Perhaps the most comprehensive study of divorce ever conducted is Margaret Brinig and Douglas Allen's "These Boots Are Made For Walking": Why Most Divorce Filers Are Women" from the American Law and Economics Review. Studying 46,000 divorces, they found that the vast majority of divorces involving children are initiated by women, in part because women expect to and usually do receive both temporary and permanent custody of the children in the overwhelming majority of cases.

NOW's report and public statements assert that judges commonly grant custody to abusers with criminal records. According to Dianna Thompson, Executive Director of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children, NOW's assertions are exactly the opposite of what typically happens in family courts in California or elsewhere, where charges of abuse are taken very seriously. She adds:

"In the context of an impending divorce is not unusual for a woman to make a false accusation of domestic violence against a man in order to obtain a restraining order or eviction order and to seize control of both the children and marital property. NOW terms a man who is a victim of this tactic an ‘abuser with a criminal record'--because of the unproven allegations in the ex parte restraining order."

NOW also claims that family court mediators and evaluators "side with the father, especially when abuse is an issue," but Thompson says, "I doubt that NOW would get many judges, lawyers, or anybody else involved in the family court system to go on record as endorsing this ridiculous assertion."

NOW also claims that the quality of legal representation is better for fathers than for mothers. However, in divorce it is husbands, not wives, who are more likely to be left without legal representation. In fact, the Violence Against Women Act's reauthorization in 2000 provided for $200 million of federal money in legal assistance to mothers. Similarly, most of the child support apparatus provides representation to mothers.  In low-income cases where neither party can afford a lawyer, public funds usually provide only mothers with legal representation.  In middle and upper-income cases, the father may be able to afford quality representation, but generally he will be required to pay for his wife's lawyer too.

A section of Family Court Report 2002 attacks the fathers' movement which, we are told, is a cabal of misogynists and wife-beaters who seek to restore patriarchy. The core of the NOW report's evidence is the "Fathers' Manifesto," an Internet document signed by many fathers' rights activists, which calls for stripping women of the right to vote.

In reality, the "Fathers' Manifesto" was a hoax employed by an anti-Semitic, racist, woman-hater on the fringe of the men's movement.  NOW's report identifies this individual as "John Knight." An Internet petition called the "Fathers' Manifesto" was circulated which proclaimed equal rights for fathers and the importance of fathers in the life of a child.  Over one hundred fathers' rights activists signed this Internet petition, including many Jewish and African-American activists.    

Signatories were horrified when the petition reappeared on a white supremacist website in a radically altered form--a form which included a call to repeal the 19th amendment. Dozens of signatories demanded that their names be removed, and many activists made clear statements disassociating themselves from it.

However, Trish Wilson and Liz Kates, two web-based opponents of the fathers' rights movement, posted brief biographies of many of the Father's Manifesto signatories, and mischaracterized them as misogynists based largely on the altered, illegitimate document. NOW cites Wilson and Kates as its sources for much of its most serious charges against the fathers' movement. As one fathers' rights activist remarked, "If the Fathers' Manifesto's author had been an active opponent of equal rights for fathers, he could not have done anything more effective and more devastating than what he did."

NOW's strategy in Family Court Report 2002 is transparent. They began by conducting a rigged and scientifically indefensible report.  They then publicized a few aberrant examples to bolster the report's alarming conclusions, such as the Idelle Clarke child custody case in Los Angeles, and they portrayed these rarities as the norm.  Finally, they declared a "crisis" for women, and urged the media to publicize results which completely contradict serious research, as well as common sense.

And what will NOW say as critics take a closer look at the "research" and discredit it? The report itself already provides the answer--NOW will explain that the opposition is a "backlash" by men who "wish to turn back all progress made by the women's movement."

 

This column first appeared in the Los Angeles Daily Journal and
San Francisco Daily Journal (7/11/02)

Glenn encourages readers to read the National Organization for Women's Family Court Report 2002 for themselves.  To read it, click here.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

My latest article, "Popular Women's Studies 101 Textbook: Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics," might interest your readers. It's pasted below and is available on my website at www.GlennJSacks.com .

Best Wishes, Glenn Sacks

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

Popular Women's Studies 101 Textbook: Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics

By Glenn Sacks

Women are under siege and oppressed, while men have it easy. This is the unmistakable message of Margaret L. Andersen's Thinking About Women: Sociological Perspectives on Sex and Gender, one of America's most popular Women's Studies 101 textbooks.

The mischaractarizations and distortions begin in Chapter One on page one, where Andersen speaks briefly of the progress which women have made, but soon cautions the reader that "there's still a long way to go" for women to achieve equality. To support her point, she tells us:

1) "In the 1990s, women college graduates who worked full-time earned, on average, 70 percent of what men college graduates earned working full time";

2) "Each year five million women experience some form of violence, two-thirds of it committed by someone they know";

3) "Employed women" work 13 hours a week more than "employed men" on "household tasks."

All three of these statements are extremely misleading. Yes, full-time employed women do earn less money, on average, than full-time employed men do, but they also: work 400+ hours a year less than men do; work only a tenth as many overtime hours; have 25% less overall work experience; comprise only 5% of workplace fatalities (because they do not do the hazardous jobs which necessarily pay better); and are far less likely than men to work nights, weekends, have long commutes, or to travel for their jobs. Surveys which take these factors into consideration have shown that, for the same job, women earn within 2% of what men do.

The "five million women experience some form of violence" statistic is misleading because it is driven sharply upward by domestic violence studies which lump trivial acts which women do as often as men (such as swearing at or insulting your partner, slamming doors or stomping out of rooms, etc.) with serious violence. Whenever two-sex surveys of domestic violence are taken, women are shown to be just as likely to initiate and engage in spousal abuse as men, and roughly 75% of all violent crime victims are male.

Women may do an extra 13 hours a week of "household duties" but the average full-time employed man works eight hours a week more than the average full-time employed woman. Andersen's survey allows for the inclusion of people who are "employed" but who don't work full-time, and since most part-time workers are female, this pushes the disparity in hours worked between men and women in the survey even higher. Together with the fact that men spend more time commuting and work more physically strenuous jobs than women do, what the survey really tells us is that the overall labor of a household is, in fact, being divided evenly between men and women, a finding consistent with most research on the subject.

The book also spins myths about "deadbeat dads" (actually, over 80% of the men who have jobs and can see their children pay their child support in full), women's supposedly ignored health care needs (the government at every level spends more on women's health than men's, even though it is men who dominate in most diseases and it is women who live longer), and numerous others.

Andersen urges readers to notice women's role both in society and in everyday life - good advice, except that she instructs women to look only for female suffering and male privilege. For example, she counsels readers to look at the "bright lights shining in the night skyline" and see that they "represent thousands of women... who clean the corporate suites."

Fair enough, but what about the thousands of men who risked their safety and even their lives (including yours truly) to build those same skyscrapers? What about the men who pick up the trash, crawl through the sewers to make repairs, or who work on power lines 50 feet up in the air? In Andersen's book such men are as invisible as she imagines women to be.

Like most Women's Studies textbooks, materials, and lectures, Andersen's text ignores the growing number of strong, articulate female scholars, researchers, writers, activists, and leaders who call themselves "equity feminists" and support feminism's basic goals but oppose the rampant distortions and out and out man-hating of the established feminist movement. These include: Canadian Senator Anne Cools, a former shelter director and a pioneer of the battered women's movement who is now a fathers' rights advocate; author/activist Erin Pizzey, who set up the first battered women's shelter ever in England in 1971 and now advocates for abused men; Camille Paglia, the legendary author and cultural observer; author and '60s feminist icon Doris Lessing, who says that in modern culture men are "continually demeaned and insulted by women without a whimper of protest"; Cathy Young, co-founder of the Women's Freedom Network and author of Ceasefire: Why Women and Men Must Join Forces to Achieve Equality, author and columnist Wendy McElroy, founder of Independent Feminists (ifeminists.com); Christina Hoff Sommers, author of Who Stole Feminism?, former Women's Studies professor Daphne Patai, author of Professing Feminism; crime journalist Patricia Pearson, author of When She Was Bad: Violent Women and the Myth of Innocence; and countless others.

Instead, Andersen chooses to trot out the standard collection of cranks and hate-mongers such as Catherine MacKinnon (who wrote "all heterosexual sex is rape"), and Andrea Dworkin (who wrote "I want to see a man beaten to a bloody pulp with a high-heel shoved in his mouth, like an apple in the mouth of a pig").

Andersen also cites numerous discredited feminist researchers such as Diane Russell, who arrives at high numbers of female victims in her surveys by classifying consensual sex as rape and hugs and horseplay from male relatives as incest, and Carol Gilligan, whose baseless and unscientific research led in part to the myth that girls are silenced and oppressed in the classroom. Ms. Gilligan's scholarly reputation was permanently laid to rest by Christina Hoff Sommers, in her chapter "Gilligan's Island" from her book The War Against Boys. To Andersen's credit, at least she spares students any reference to feminist "researcher" Mary Koss and her infamous "1 in 4 college women has been raped" hoax.

American college students (male and female) need a balanced textbook which includes dissident feminist voices and which looks honestly at the many challenges women face as well as the many advantages they enjoy. Instead, they are saddled with factually-challenged propaganda tracts, which are allowed to exist because of PC intimidation mixed with an unspoken, condescending university atmosphere which says, "don't argue with the little ladies - you can't expect those gals who teach Women's Studies to keep their facts straight."

---

http://www.GlennJSacks.com/ 

Glenn Sacks is a columnist who has written for The Los Angeles Times, The Los Angeles Daily Journal, The Salt Lake City Tribune, The San Francisco Daily Journal, and The Los Angeles Daily News. He invites readers to visit his website at www.GlennJSacks.com

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