The links below are to articles on POPULAR MAINSTREAM websites that invite comments. Your intelligent comments on those websites will surely be much appreciated by the public.
Perhaps we're devoting too much of our energies to the Guardian's CiF? There are other websites, including TimesOnline, that publish comments. Besides, CiF threads seem only to degenerate into spitting matches.
Also, because someone posted a link to UntoTheBreach, our ruse has been discovered.
Perhaps we're devoting too much of our energies to the Guardian's CiF?
It's my guess -- although it's only a guess -- that Cif has the best traffic: it's biggest newsblog I know.
I've tried to post once on the Times. But guess what? Same story as the Mail.
Also, because someone posted a link to UntoTheBreach, our ruse has been discovered.
By the law of averages this was bound to happen anyway. Indeed if you google your name, you'll see it comes up here. (Mine does.)
Cath Elliot found me on Heretic's site (before I joined this blog) and posted it on Cif. She must have googled my name, and probably still thinks she surprised me.
I couldn't get in to post a comment, despite being registered. The blasted system just keeps re-routing me on an endless loop of repeating my login details. So here is what I wanted to post:
"Cath, can I take you up on an offer you made above at comment 1319715?
"easyandy - "So, Cath, how's about joining us in a fundraiser to build shelters for men from their abusive womenfolk"
I'd be delighted. Seriously. If you can show that there's a shortage of places for men fleeing domestic violence I'd be more than happy to join you in campaigning for better services. What I wouldn't do is get in your face every time you raised the issue and try and dismiss your cause as sexist 'cos it doesn't include women."
"However, male victims of domestic violence may find it more difficult to be taken seriously by agencies they approach for assistance. This should not be the case, and you should contact an agency that advises male victims of domestic violence for assistance (such as Men's Advice Line). Unfortunately there are few refuge facilities for men who have experienced domestic violence..."
http://www.mankind.org.uk/domesticabuse.html
Extract: "There are over 470 refuges available to women but there are only a couple of dedicated refuges for heterosexual men and only one for homosexual men. There are only approximately twelve rooms available for heterosexual men nationwide and some of these are in refuges with a priority for females. These places are dependent on the goodwill of those who run the refuges." This refers specifically to the UK and is up to date.
So Cath, please tell us exactly how you intend to join the campaign for more and better shelters for abused men. Then, when you have compiled a strong record of helping men in this situation, please come back here and tell us of your "delight" in having done so.
I can hardly wait. Or are you not "serious" about the problem at all?"
By the way, using UntoTheBreach is hardly a "ruse". It is a perfectly legitimate means of highlighting one of the most virulent male-hating feminists in the mass media. And if Cath Elliott doesn't like it, perhaps she had better stop writing articles that spew out such hatred. Otherwise she must expect to have some of us on her back for as long as it takes to knock some sense into that thick skull. She certainly strikes me as one lazy, ignorant journalist who substitutes prejudice for research. I suspect she only holds her exalted position because she is female (therefore flavour of the month); a feminist (high time that stopped being flavour of the month) and controversial (flavour of every month).
I couldn't get in to post a comment, despite being registered. The blasted system just keeps re-routing me on an endless loop of repeating my login details.
Paul, that sounds like a one-off.
Or had you only just joined? If so, it takes a few days to process your membership.
By the way, using UntoTheBreach is hardly a "ruse".
Exactly! But moreover, it's exposure we want, not a hiding place!
What gets me is that you NEVER see any men's rights issues in the media. (I live abroad, but I keep a regular eye out on the British media.)
It is a perfectly legitimate means of highlighting one of the most virulent male-hating feminists in the mass media. And if Cath Elliott doesn't like it, perhaps she had better stop writing articles that spew out such hatred.
She insists she's a "moderate", but never seems to condemn the extremists like Andrea Dworkin or Germaine Greer.
I praised her once for stating that men with mental problems should be treated through the mental healthcare system and not be thrown into prison. But I'm wondering whether she only did that because she was cornered into it by the MRA's who were posting at the time.
Cath wants to think of herself as "nice", but I think she's coming to realise that she can't have this one both ways. I think she has a problem. She's ADDICTED to hating men.
But I'm wondering whether she only did that because she was cornered into it by the MRA's who were posting at the time.
She claimed in one of her comments under this article that she agrees with the idea of 50/50 custody. I couldn't help thinking that she was doing this to throw MRAs off the scent. Why does she never write about men's rights issues?
Come on then,where's the debate on the Woman in Germany who put the kids in the fridge and has confessed to it. Didn't see a mention in the main BBC news.Bet we don't get a blog on that.I can't seem to get a comment published on the Guardian or the Times.
7 comments:
Perhaps we're devoting too much of our energies to the Guardian's CiF? There are other websites, including TimesOnline, that publish comments. Besides, CiF threads seem only to degenerate into spitting matches.
Also, because someone posted a link to UntoTheBreach, our ruse has been discovered.
Perhaps we're devoting too much of our energies to the Guardian's CiF?
It's my guess -- although it's only a guess -- that Cif has the best traffic: it's biggest newsblog I know.
I've tried to post once on the Times. But guess what? Same story as the Mail.
Also, because someone posted a link to UntoTheBreach, our ruse has been discovered.
By the law of averages this was bound to happen anyway. Indeed if you google your name, you'll see it comes up here. (Mine does.)
Cath Elliot found me on Heretic's site (before I joined this blog) and posted it on Cif. She must have googled my name, and probably still thinks she surprised me.
I couldn't get in to post a comment, despite being registered. The blasted system just keeps re-routing me on an endless loop of repeating my login details. So here is what I wanted to post:
"Cath, can I take you up on an offer you made above at comment 1319715?
"easyandy - "So, Cath, how's about joining us in a fundraiser to build shelters for men from their abusive womenfolk"
I'd be delighted. Seriously. If you can show that there's a shortage of places for men fleeing domestic violence I'd be more than happy to join you in campaigning for better services. What I wouldn't do is get in your face every time you raised the issue and try and dismiss your cause as sexist 'cos it doesn't include women."
The scale of the problem:
http://www.fathersforlife.org/fv/family_violence_main_page.htm
Go on, have a good trawl through the site. It is a real eye-opener for the wilfully blind.
Then the evidence of the shortage of available shelters:
http://england.shelter.org.uk/advice/advice-7583.cfm
Extract from above:
"However, male victims of domestic violence may find it more difficult to be taken seriously by agencies they approach for assistance. This should not be the case, and you should contact an agency that advises male victims of domestic violence for assistance (such as Men's Advice Line). Unfortunately there are few refuge facilities for men who have experienced domestic violence..."
http://www.mankind.org.uk/domesticabuse.html
Extract: "There are over 470 refuges available to women but there are only a couple of dedicated refuges for heterosexual men and only one for homosexual men. There are only approximately twelve rooms available for heterosexual men nationwide and some of these are in refuges with a priority for females. These places are dependent on the goodwill of those who run the refuges." This refers specifically to the UK and is up to date.
So Cath, please tell us exactly how you intend to join the campaign for more and better shelters for abused men. Then, when you have compiled a strong record of helping men in this situation, please come back here and tell us of your "delight" in having done so.
I can hardly wait. Or are you not "serious" about the problem at all?"
By the way, using UntoTheBreach is hardly a "ruse". It is a perfectly legitimate means of highlighting one of the most virulent male-hating feminists in the mass media. And if Cath Elliott doesn't like it, perhaps she had better stop writing articles that spew out such hatred. Otherwise she must expect to have some of us on her back for as long as it takes to knock some sense into that thick skull. She certainly strikes me as one lazy, ignorant journalist who substitutes prejudice for research. I suspect she only holds her exalted position because she is female (therefore flavour of the month); a feminist (high time that stopped being flavour of the month) and controversial (flavour of every month).
Paul Parmenter
I couldn't get in to post a comment, despite being registered. The blasted system just keeps re-routing me on an endless loop of repeating my login details.
Paul, that sounds like a one-off.
Or had you only just joined? If so, it takes a few days to process your membership.
By the way, using UntoTheBreach is hardly a "ruse".
Exactly! But moreover, it's exposure we want, not a hiding place!
What gets me is that you NEVER see any men's rights issues in the media. (I live abroad, but I keep a regular eye out on the British media.)
It is a perfectly legitimate means of highlighting one of the most virulent male-hating feminists in the mass media. And if Cath Elliott doesn't like it, perhaps she had better stop writing articles that spew out such hatred.
She insists she's a "moderate", but never seems to condemn the extremists like Andrea Dworkin or Germaine Greer.
I praised her once for stating that men with mental problems should be treated through the mental healthcare system and not be thrown into prison. But I'm wondering whether she only did that because she was cornered into it by the MRA's who were posting at the time.
Cath wants to think of herself as "nice", but I think she's coming to realise that she can't have this one both ways. I think she has a problem. She's ADDICTED to hating men.
But I'm wondering whether she only did that because she was cornered into it by the MRA's who were posting at the time.
She claimed in one of her comments under this article that she agrees with the idea of 50/50 custody. I couldn't help thinking that she was doing this to throw MRAs off the scent. Why does she never write about men's rights issues?
Come on then,where's the debate on the Woman in Germany who put the kids in the fridge and has confessed to it.
Didn't see a mention in the main BBC news.Bet we don't get a blog on that.I can't seem to get a comment published on the Guardian or the Times.
Post a Comment