Michele Chang

http://www.courthouseforum.com/forums/view.php?id=983839

with that gang as friends… we won’t need enemies. The LAST thing I (and I hope the bulk of us) want is for our movement to have too much in common with the radical right… or the radical left for that matter.

Personally I’ve never seen a persuasive argument that SSM should be anything other than a non-issue for us, and to waste our limited resources fighting it while the rug is being legislated out from under us seems ill concieved to me. The failure of marriage in this country is real and has absolutely nothing to do with SSM, and reversing the trend will not hinge on defeating SSM – but rather strengthening the legal underpinnings of marriage.

IMO as long as someone can go in and get a divorce as effortlessly as they currently can, can GAIN from that divorce financially even if they’re completely in the wrong, and can expect to walk away from it with sole custody of the most important thing shared in marriage – children, we won’t see any change in the abuse of divorce. Stopping SSM won’t change these fundamentals… not a bit.

As far as the focus on Glen goes, I can only see the accusation of Womans Supremacist as pure Ad Homimin, an opinion founded in black and white thinking that brooks no opposition. This is the sort of divisive internal dissent that has weakened the Feminist Movement – but at least they were well along before it became a major issue, we can’t afford it.

Personally, aside from being a great guy and a gifted speaker, I think Glen is a voice of reason that those outside the movement can listen to… without being alienated in the first paragraph. IMO his public opinions regarding SSM are reasoned and liberal but not radical… consistant with the bulk of the nation. I don’t agree with everything Glen has to say, but then again… he doesn’t demand that I do.

While every movement needs those with strongly held beliefs, those folks need to be kept in check as much as possible, their efforts directed towards productive enterprise as opposed to divisive internal bickering (which is the default result when you get a lot of folks together with strong but divergent beliefs). I’m sure these sort of articles are comforting to those who would like to see us go away.

It’s basically three parts:

Stop genetic engineering babies with a federal “Egg and Sperm law” that prohibits creating children any way except fertilizing an egg of a woman with the sperm of a man.

Preserve the right of all marriages to conceive with their own genes.

Give federal recognition to state civil unions that are defined as all of the rights of marriage except the right to conceive together with the couple’s own genes.

States couldn’t give marriage to same-sex couples because the spouses in a marriage could not be prohibited from conceiving together. It’s the sort of permanent, principled distinction between marriage and civil unions that all the candidates are grasping for, and it gives the rights that feminists and gays claim to be asking for, so if we put it in their lap, we might just end up with marriage rights preserved and SSM stopped.

I think David might like it because it stops the advance of SSM and Roger might like it because it requires women to actually use men’s sperm, not just engineer some from their own genes, and even Sacks and Blankenhorn and Gallagher too might all agree too, if this was put in their laps.

I have a blog with links on same-sex conception technology. Those new stem cells from adults can be tweaked to make opposite sex gametes, too, so it’s just a few more years before they try seeing if they work to make babies.

I am not discrediting the movement when I point out that the movement has been politically stupid in the past. It is a fact of our history, cited for reflection and comparison. In this case, is being politically stupid again. We are a niche movement who can never get anything passed on our own. Ask Baskerville or any of the DCRally leadership — this is common knowledge. I wrote this piece because it would be irresponsible for me to sit silently while this movement loses connections with conservatives by following Sacks down the feminist toilet.

I have always been known as someone who talks about the hard issues that need to be addressed. We can’t afford major Abilene paradoxes in this movement (Abilene paradox defined at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abilene_paradox). It is painful in the short run to deal with these things, but it is far less painful than what happens if we don’t deal with them.

conservativation: This is about politics, trends, and what happens when folks take positions that alienate them from the larger political world. There are no studies to cite, so it is absurd to call for them. Politics 101 says that you do not alienate those who would align with you. Sacks is aligned with liberal causes, and attacks conservatives. Bad idea. Since feminists own the Democrat party, his chances are about zero. Enacting SSM will simply abort every man’s chance to be a husband and father.

However, be aware that there are many fakes out there who carry the banner but are not sincere in either religion or conservativism. Their occupation is soley to encourage regious conservatives to stick with the Republican Party – no matter how far they go astray. IMO, those who write response commentary, should show no mercy to those who carry pro-marriage and family, pro-Family Values flags while promoting an anti-family agenda.

My primary concern though is the notion that by opposing SSM there will be an appeal to the so called religious right, and suddenly with that in common the church is on board the program. Ain’t so.

The church combats SSM vehemently now, all the while inadvertently facilitating divorces in the midst, and offering little but the same anti-male propaganda we see everywhere else, but worse, wrapped in scripture.

The movement is more than a movement to be embraced by the right wing – if it is to succeed, it needs a bigger base than one just encompassing the political right, a group that has abandoned consideration of fathers to the same degree the far left has.

For all your ranting, I’ve seen no statistics to support any of the theses of your argument. Are you raising money for any legislative activities in the coming year> Are you contacting congressmen with whom you might have a dialogue or visibility? Do they return your calls?

My suspicion is that the answer to these questions is a flat “no”, followed by an adjustment of your tinfoil hat.

I believe that Dave Usher is correct. I have been smelling a rat with respect to Glenn Sacks and his motives with respect to SSM and N.O.W. for some time now.

Mjaybee’s point about the evils of family law being of overriding concern in comparison with the evils of SSM is indeed relevant, although not as he believes.

Such tactics are called “misdirection”.

Simply because the current state of family law is so toxic to father’s rights and families in general, it does not mean that SSM provides no dangers of its own to American society.

Feminists’ dream of completely displacing men from marriage may not succeed, but there’s no limit to the magnitude of potential damage possible in their attempt to impose that end on our society.

For what it’s worth, I found Dave Usher’s recounting of the takeover attempt of the Missouri Family Alliance by Kaye Steinmetz’ “plant” most educational in terms of getting a peek at feminist tactics.

And anyone with a modicum of imagination ought to wonder just how far feminists will go to subvert and overcome obstacles to their objectives.

Who is paying Glenn Sacks’ meal ticket?

SSM provides zero benefits to men’s and father’s rights.

That Sacks continues to support SSM is a red flag. I believe that there’s a hidden agenda at work here, and as Mr. Usher points out, the truth will out, all in good time.

And the Gonzman’s post highlights the nature of the actual SSM agenda as eloquently as anyone posting on this thread.

And Glenn takes a strong stance too with the various enemies of men and marriage and society that he focuses his attention on. He does a great job not only as a psywar commander but as a logistics man too. I have several times had a question mark over some of Glenn’s tactics and thinking, but they are running neck and neck with the question marks I sometimes pose to you. (probably why neither of you seem to like me much).

There are nuances of force-marshalling that one can take issue with, with both of you, but you are both Generals facing particular fronts and arguing over whose tactics and strategies are better. Is this an artifact of the stress of war, I wonder. You and Glenn both, are great warriors worthy of respect and some understanding. I take seriously what you both say and marvel at the tenacity and skill you both bring. But David, you and Glenn command quite different force types, suited to different theatre operations.

I seem to recall Generals Patton and Eisenhower and Montgomery having heated argument too, with some slandering of each others style and person. Battle does bring that unfortunate behaviour out from time to time. But they at least did not do their arguing in full vision of the enemy and thereby give succour to them (as well as a measure of entertainment).

And to all those outside the immediate battle discussed here, look to the contributions of ‘lesser’ ranks whose inputs are essential – just as those Generals at Normandy would have been in deep shit were it not for AVM Bouchier who organised and provided all the close quarter air support. I bet few here have ever heard of Bouchier. Some of these other contributors here are your support.

You are in danger of alienating, David. You cannot, and Glenn cannot fight without the support elements and contributors.

So get with the program. The enemy is THAT way, not sitting at the chart table with you. If one of you has a thing about the enemy’s sartorial elegance, who cares? If the enemy has tactics and resources that can be used to subvert their intent, then let us let the attempt be made. If the focus of one of you is fast tank movement and the other is emplacement digging, let the priorities determine. Both are worthy tactics and one can support the other. But don’t overlook the air support without which you won’t even get onto the soddin’ beach.

I am glad to see that you and Glenn communicate and discuss matters. But David, temper your criticisms with some praise and attempt to understand Glenn’s strategic imperatives. Maybe he will do the same with you. But if you can’t get along, then stick to the fronts you are each dealing with and stop intefering with one another.

Lets take a moment to look at this from a cockpit view. What Sacks is doing is exactly how N.O.W. co-opted the church, the state, and federal government. They get somebody who is respected in an organization, often by paying them off, planting somebody, or using sex or threats of sex abuse allegations, to get them to do their bidding. Or they send in somebody who has some sort of credentials and is a smooth talker to come on strong. The actor does some things to gain trust, and then they start asserting the agenda of the organization they wish to take over. This is the classic Marcusian / Frankfurt school methodology. I have seen feminists attempt to take over various organizations.

One such takeover attempt was the Missouri Family Alliance, which in 1991 consisted of about 80 advocates around the state. I was Legislative Analyst at the time. Then-Representative Kaye Steinmetz, Missouri’s top feminist legislator sent in a feminist plant to our annual organizational agenda meeting, where plans and papers were to be evaluated for statewide adoption. A sharply-dressed, cute woman nobody had ever seen before waltzed in with a professionally-done 90-page document that sounded fabulous. She was a very persuasive talker, and had most everybody fooled. The board was just about to do a vote to adopt the document as the main agenda for the next year, when realized that the document was a reshuffling of what Kaye Steinmetz had be trying to get passed. I stopped the vote, and called the issue out on the floor. Everyone was shocked for a few minutes, but then realized I was right. She ran out of the room and I never saw her again.

I would like to know who is paying Glenn Sacks bills. Money does not fall out of trees. He spends a tremendous amount of time doing this. His story is that he is a stay-at-home dad. I don’t see him working closely with anyone or any major organization except himself. He was not involved in the DC 2007 Rally, and I heard no discussion that he was even invited. There is monkey business going on here.

Sacks is the only “fathers rights” advocate I am aware of that is pushing SSM. He plays the same hate cards that feminists do, and attacks anyone opposing SSM. Where SSM is intended to end fatherhood, husbandry, and heterosexual marriage, I find it quite difficult to consider him a father’s rights advocate at all. At minimum, this positions him on the outer fringe of this movement. His repetitive support for SSM indicates he has a very big stake in SSM. He has not revealed who else he is working for. I think we have a right to insist on full disclosure.

Glenn has not responded to this piece either publicly or via back-channels (he has never responded or been willing to discuss the issue in the past either). He knows he is wrong, and he is trying to lay low so as not to attract any more attention. Glenn has my full attention and I will not forget about it. There is a smoking gun here. The truth will out, all in good time.

Given the evils of family law measured against the evils of gay marriage, there is no comparison. Family law issues should be of far more importance to men interested in restoring some sanity to the institution of marriage.

Your obsession with gay marriage is evidence of the complete inability to focus that has crippled the parents’ rights and men’s rights movements. No plan, blanket issues that all seem important and a lack of strategy that fails to build alliances.

No wonder the movement is in the shape it is today. Glenn is throwing sops to pathetic feminist blogs, and you are railing against peripheral issues such as gay marriage.

Speaking for many single fathers like myself, we surrender to the gross incompetence and poor tactics of the “leaders” of the men’s movement.

…If we all can’t agree on a proper form of action…Maybee we can just agree to disagree….

But still focus on our common belief that there is some anti-male hysteria that is taking it’s greatest toll on society’s most vulnerable….

..this anti-male scourge is affecting our boys/young men the most!!

All Men (of faith or otherwise) need to fight against Same Sex Marriage.

Glenn Sack either doesn’t understand the long term feminist agenda or refuses to accept it as truth. This is a mistake. That said, he does bring some positive things to the table, but he still tries to appease feminists. That needs to stop.

It does not take many people to change the world. What it takes is a few people who know what they are doing, and the connections to make it happen. We have the few people. The connections are developing and I would be extremely disappointed, as would most of us, were these connections to evaporate. Necessarily, I will be making it very clear to those I am working with that I do not consider Mr. Sacks a part of the core movement — perhaps a fringe operator at best.

You make a good point about not alienating the religious cons who should be our natural allies in this fight. Advocating homosexual marriage may do just that, as it seems to be something tangible that religious cons can look at and say “no more”.

I imagine that they won’t cotton too well to a very vocal and visible MRA voiciferously advocating something that is abhorrent to the vast majority of religious conservatives, and a very large minority of the American people. So, on that point, you are right to rebuke Sacks. However, looking at the influence and megaphone that Sacks has, he has the potential to do lots of good for the F/MRA community, as opposed to the as yet unrealized harm he may do.

I say this because I see this fight as one of having many fronts, of which the marriage piece it is only one. There is another side of it that has little to do directly with marriage, in which Sacks if fully engaged, and that is the legal and cultural aspect which is so slanted against men. This is especially in regards to cultural artifacts (i.e. the bumbling male, the abusive-controlling husband, the pedophile, etc), gene burglary, C4M, and child support. Despite the importance of these issues to our cause, it is tough to get the social cons really motivated to care about any of these issues that Sacks engages upon because they’re seen as niche issues.

The marriage issue is a separate fight from all of this (while still a part of our overall effort). Also, I can’t imagine that many religious cons listen to his left-coast show. Thus I don’t think that there’ll be much adverse effect from his advocacy of homosexuals gaining the ‘right’ to obtain a state-sanctioned marriage, and as far as I’m concerned, if homosexuals want a fraudulent piece of paper, let them have it. I’m with Stephanie Coontz (strangely enough) and agree with her call to get government out of the marriage business completely, and to stop passing bennies out on the basis of marital status.

You make a really good point with this quote:

“Teach the rest of America how feminism hurt the majority of women, children, and men, and you will get much farther than whining all day about your lot in life.”

This is exactly how to get traction with the religious cons. As many of us have likely personally expereinced, you don’t get much traction with the masses when you itemize how bad men and fathers have it. No one’s listening, because it doesn’t affect them. Non-custodial fathers are still a minority, and we don’t garner much sympathy, thanks to Blankenhorn and company.

However, when you make it relevant to socially conservative men, women, and children; when you personalize the adverse effects of feminism on the family, on men, on women, and on children, and now suddenly people will listen to what you have to say.

Sir, I respect you for your seniority in this movement. I am a relative neophyte, and a dilettante at that. However, I don’t think that evicting him from the F/MRA ranks for his lack of adherence to a strict political platform would serve us well.

“As an example, propose getting the government out of the marriage business altogethe…make marriage a church sacrament”

I agree completely.

Agreed, it’s high time

Instead of questioning, perhap you would benefit from studying (just a little bit) and come up with an educated opinion instead of a gut instinct that was been manipulated by the feminazis throught the indoctrination centers (public/college schools) that you seem to have not understood.

Here’s an idea:

Study the facts, the history and statements made by David Usher (especially the brain washing parts) as you divorce your innner/personal thoughts and accept the truth. It will become refreshingly apparent. I promise…

Eric

Should we take this to mean that you find men giving women equal rights in the workplace to be “political stupidity?”

David, is this really you or are you a pod person?

I’ve said many times that the problem with the Gay Agenda is not the “Gay” but the “Agenda.”

As an example, propose getting the government out of the marriage business altogether – turn secular marriage into just another contract – open it to anyone; hell, me and my 70 year old father could get a civil union for inheritance, insurance, etc….

Make Marriage a church sacrament.

The gays won’t go for that. It will give them everything their talking points profess to want – BUT IT WILL NOT BE GOOD ENOUGH. They have already said so.

Now – ask yourself “Why?”

Glenn, et al, are making the mistake of treating the propaganda as good faith (When it has been amply shown that it is not offered in good faith over and over again) and not asking, “Why?”