Page 3 of 3


PostPosted: Wed Oct 14, 2009 1:45 pm
by Akil Todd Harvey
PBS's Breaking the Silence:
An Assault on Fatherhood

The film portrays fathers as batterers and child molesters who steal children from their mothers.

In addition, newly revealed court findings, records and testimony show that Sadia Loeliger--portrayed as a heroic mom in the film—abused children under her care. In fact, a Tulare County Juvenile Court concluded in August of 1998 that Sadia Loeliger had committed multiple acts of abuse, and adjudged both her daughters as dependents of the Juvenile Court.


Have you forgotten about how PBS (the PUBLIC BROADCASTING SERVICE) was prepared to air a one sided biased documentary that highlighted the story of a PROVEN batterer (who was not a man), but portrayed her as the victim, not as the batterer she was and that PBS tried to make it seem like the only batterers in the world were men (and that the only victims of DV in the world are women)?

Partner Abuse Laws Roll-Back Civil Rights Protections

PostPosted: Wed Oct 14, 2009 1:54 pm
by Akil Todd Harvey ... 10-09.html

October is Domestic Violence Awareness Month, and a national civil rights organization is charging our domestic violence system undermines due process and respect for Constitutional protections, reversing decades of civil rights progress for Black and other minority communities.

These charges are made by African Americans for Reform of the Violence Against Women Act, a national non-partisan group. These concerns are affirmed by constitutional law experts such as University of Vermont professor Cheryl Hanna who once wrote, “Evidentiary standards for proving abuse have been so relaxed that any man who stands accused is considered guilty.”

According to African Americans for Reform of the Violence Against Women Act, many civil rights violations can be traced to the federal Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). VAWA, the federal response to domestic violence, was first passed into law in 1994.

Under VAWA, the definition of domestic violence is so broad that almost any partner dispute or argument can be construed as abuse. VAWA also funds states to institute so-called “mandatory arrest” laws that violate probable-cause protections. Despite a lack of evidence, the accused is arrested and the presumption of innocence removed.

Sure, this piece is racist (they don't express for concern for how white men are treated, only for how men of color are treated).......But, I find it of interest to see how men have been divided so we can be conquered. Black men and men of color have been taught that the white man put you down, not that you and the white man have both been vilified and had their civil rights curtailed.

White men AND men of color have had their civil rights curtailed by the VAWA legislation, but the ideological frame of reference of racism everywhere (but within the minority community) allows men to not see their common interests and common denigration, contempt and mistreatment....

why did the feminist chicken cross the road

PostPosted: Wed Oct 14, 2009 1:55 pm
by Akil Todd Harvey
X: hey, why did the feminist chicken cross the road?

Y: um... to get to the other s-


The louder and more shrill you are in interupting the better.

Indian Men and Families to Protest Domestic Violence Act

PostPosted: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:02 pm
by Akil Todd Harvey ... 079028.cms

It seems, strangely, that in India, the DV laws also ignore DV against men (most have been developed by feminists, not that they are allowed to be criticized). Indian DV laws have been written with the false assumption that women can only be victims and men can only be perpetrators (too bad for gay men and lesbians), so much for equality of treatment that the feminists claimed they were for.

Harassed men, kin to hit streets

Fed-up of being victims of domestic violence, harassed men and their family members across the country will take to the streets in
prominent cities to protest against Domestic Violence Act. Representatives of Save India Family Foundation while talking to TOI informed that following an increase in the number of such complaints, they had decided to mark October 25 - day the Act was implemented - as ‘Domestic Violence against Men Day’ and have chalked a list of activities, including protest marches by thousands of men in Delhi, Mumbai, Chandigarh and Hyderabad.

We can go back to ignoring DV against men....

We can now go back to ignoring that DV laws have eroded significantly men's civil rights (ALL men, not just the ones with brown or darker shaded skin).....

West Virginia Court Voids DV Rules as Gender-Biased

PostPosted: Wed Oct 14, 2009 10:13 pm
by Akil Todd Harvey
Not that Gender bias is of any real concern when it is aimed at men, but from time to time it makes its way to the light of day is is addressed by the courts.

A West Virginia Circuit court struck down three administrative rules governing the licensing and operation of domestic violence shelters in that state

The legislature passed a law that established an administrative agency, the Family Protection Services Board (FPSB), whose mission it is to license and oversee DV shelters, and programs to assist DV perpetrators in changing their behavior. The FPSB was empowered to set standards for these programs and shelters, and did. But the intent of the legislature was clear - all West Virginians, irrespective of sex, were to have access to services.

members of the general public who wanted to be trained in domestic violence response or advocacy, were barred from doing so. Only those with the "correct" ideology were permitted licensure.

it should come as no surprise that the court found that this rule "excludes any person who does not adhere to the gender-biased fundamental beliefs of the Coalition." Those "gender-biased fundamental beliefs" meant that men and adolescent boys were excluded from all DV shelters in the state based solely on their sex (and age). That, of course is standard Duluth Model practice, but it is not gender-neutral as required by West Virginia state law.

Again, in strict compliance with the political doctrine that holds that only men commit DV and only women are victims of it, the Board, through its hand-picked agent, the Coalition, directly contradicted the clear terms of the law. In doing so, it deprived female abusers of the benefits of intervention programs, while simultaneously depriving their adult male and child victims of the benefits of intervening in the perpetrator's behavior. The court struck down that rule too.

Through the lens of a court opinion, it looks like the Board was taken over by the usual radical DV advocates, who then appointed the Coalition to do the daily work of creating and maintaining a DV shelter and intervention system that blatantly discriminated against men, women and boys.[/b]

PostPosted: Wed Oct 28, 2009 4:04 am
by IJ
"I was just thinking last night, what about the battered gay man? And how does Ian feel that battered gay men have nowhere to go in most cases?"

Dude, I'm revisiting this forum after many months absence, to find that you're basically talking to yourself. Have you convinced you? Meanwhile, the issue of male male DV hasn't crossed my mind since the last time you brought it up. I have blinders on and cannot see the male DV holocaust, remember. But since you ask,

1) They can go to the police
2) They can go to family
3) They can go to friends
4) They can go to a hotel

I'm not saying it wouldn't ****** to be a male victim of DV. Especially one being beaten by a man, who's likely to do more damage. And I know that since men hand out most DV, gay men aren't spared. But really, in day to day life, gay DV consists of telling your boyfriend he needs to go to the gym more or his shoes aren't cute. I'm sure that somewhere out there, there are truly abused gay men who could use a shelter, but I'm not sure we should build a shelter unless there's going to be enough gay male DV victims using them and I don't know that there are (I do know winter beds in San Diego's homeless shelters are darned hard to come by--hope it's better in colder locales).

The bigger issue here is I haven't thought about this stuff in forever and apparently you're still busy feeling persecuted and abused. Where is your shelter, ATH, and what was done to you? :(

PostPosted: Thu Nov 19, 2009 1:25 pm
by Akil Todd Harvey
Thank you Ian for taking this issue so seriously (you are indicative of the bad attitude we have as a society towards violence directed at men -especially in the home). Here you are helping to prove my point.......

Reactions to female-on-male violence

1) And if your gay friend is ignored by the police? Oh wait, I forgot, the police never treat gay people unfairly.

2) Ooops, i forgot, gay people's family are ALWAYS supportive of their lifestyle and would, of course, open their doors like they opened their hearts to their family member's gay lover.

3) And if your gay friend has no money for a hotel (I forgot, all gay people are above financial struggles)?

4) If a woman is in need of shelter cuz she is physically abused, we should tax everyone to pay for it, and if a man is in need of shelter, he should go visit a friend (is this the kind of equality that you support?)

When it comes to high or medium paying physical jobs, women (and their male supporters) claim women can do anything a man can do and when it comes to women protecting themselves, the hypocritical response is that women aren't as strong as men and require special protections from the big bad dangerous men....

PostPosted: Thu Nov 19, 2009 1:43 pm
by Akil Todd Harvey
Ian, just cuz you seem eager to ridicule or ignore this issue (even aspects of it that MAY affect you or those you claim to care about), does not mean that I am eager to do so.

Big issues take time (gay marriage wasn't enacted in 50 states overnight, for example, so the struggle continues) to resolve. Don't be so impatient to throw this issue behind a curtain to be ignored.

Although I perceive this issue to be of import, especially in divorce cases where false allegations of abuse require no proof before a man can be deprived of his house, his kids and his assets, does not mean that I have conflated this issue to that of the holocaust (nice try though at the insult)......

Who cares about the lack of due process of law for men accused of the crime of DV? We don't need no stinking constitution protecting men who we all know to be abusers (who needs proof?)....

PostPosted: Thu Nov 19, 2009 1:56 pm
by Akil Todd Harvey
Instead of addressing the issue seriously, why don't you just throw out some insults to detract us from the fact that your arguments and persuasion is nonexistent.........

Where is my shelter asks Ian?

Well Ian, like I have pointed out, ad infinitum, even though I have paid taxes, I am excluded from the shelters that have been established for persons victimized in domestic situations due solely to my gender (this is gender discrimination and is starting to get notice from state supreme courts while you continue to make jokes........

VAWA (the violence against Women Act) is sexist in its name and its application.....Lawsuits had to be put in place to see that this law was implemented in an equal way (you likely are for equal rights for women, but it is the equal rights for men that you seem to have trouble with - you want equal rights for gays and lesbians i bet, but men need no special protections - is that your stance?

what was done to you?

This almost seems like you are empathetic to what happened to me at the hands of my ex wife.........

Not only was she emotionally abusive towards me, but she also called 911 on several occasions when no dv had occurred, falsely accused me of dv and had me arrested......She changed her mind and had me acquitted later on at trial........Who cares if people are arrested sans proof and who cares if the bill of rights is so readily ignored?

Emotional abuse? isn't that like dv where only a woman's feelings are of concern and men are required by law to take all the abuse a woman dishes out?

PostPosted: Thu Nov 19, 2009 2:12 pm
by Akil Todd Harvey
You need not respond any time soon, Ian or anyone else.....This issue is NOT going away until it becomes resolved in the courts AND in the policy statements of all police departments in the land (to protect gay men as well as lesbians as well as straights)........

Panther.......You claimed some time back (without any proof) that Glenn Sacks had supported a proven batterer.....feel free to provide proof of this any time you like.....I am waiting patiently.........

I aint in no hurry........this issue aint going anywhere fast as most are eager to pretend that just cuz many men are stronger than their spouses, that men who are weaker than their s/o or spouse deserves no protections provided to women............that the use of weapons doesn't level the playing field between partners of disparate sizes........

If we make light of female on male violence long enough, do you think it will just go away?

Maybe if we stick our heads in the sand and sing fa la la la la long enough, it will make us as a society go back to minimizing and ignoring female on male violence the way we like it.........

and we need to make fun of men who have been abused by their spouses (and s/o) more often so we can shame them into either manning up or shutting up.......

thanks for reminding me of how important this issue is .......a real man would just take the abuse and not respond when a woman hits him and verbally abuses him........

I used to be verbally abused much of the day at work from a woman coworker only to return home to frequent verbal abuse by the spouse.....but that must just be my sissy ass that can't take it........i should be more willing to pay for the mistakes of other men or those of men who lived centuries and decades before me

PostPosted: Fri Nov 20, 2009 11:43 pm
by IJ
It is long past time for you to take a chill pill. You've posted a bunch of replies, and you seem to be frustrated by my lack of response. Fact is I hadn't been back, so don't feel slighted. You seem to have missed my point when I listed alternatives to shelters (police, family, friends, hotel), which was that you were in a typical hyperbolic rage when you mistakenly claimed that abused men have nowhere to go. Of course they have other places to go besides a specific government established shelter for them; perhaps not every option will work for every person, but you do see that there are options right? To respond to one of your retorts, the police may not be totally loving of all gay men, or anyone--but if they can't get it right, is the answer to fix that or to build a shelter?

Have you presented ANY evidence on the number of men, gay or straight, who require a shelter to escape risks to their health, and shown that the numbers and gravity justify some more borrowing from China in our Great Recession to build male shelters across the land? If so, I haven't seen it. You want men admitted to shelters intended for women? I think that's fine, provided they have the need and we have some information that this won't be disruptive to the usual inhabitants (I could see your conversations over the water cooler about the male holocaust not quite working into the vibe at most shelters) or that we could separate them adequately.

As for your previous situations, you suffered some verbal abuse at work? Exactly what was said that was so harmful? What pleas of yours were ignored? You couldn't just ignore this person? I'd really be curious how damaging this experience was. Oh, and this is coming from someone who's worked with vigorously homophobic people, been assaulted by them, received their hate mail and hate speech, and so on for many a year with no lasting harms.

And at home? You were falsely accused of DV. That's wrong; it's a crime. Hopefully when there's zero evidence of DV, no conviction is made, and hopefully, the offender is charged or can be sued for their false statements. We're all sane and would support these points. What else do you want? You were in a crummy relationship with a manipulative nut--why do so many people just walk away, and you have been acting like you were severely traumatized for years? What am I missing? Let's have the whole story.