December 6, 2008

More on Glenn's rules

Glenn also condones attacks as show in these two comments:

ManCan Says:

December 4th, 2008 at 12:12 am
Notice that she says "accused batterers?" The number probably is 2/3, if you just assume that women never make it all up. But they do in ever increasing numbers because lying about abuse is a successful tactic.

You could just as easily say that 2/3 of women accused of being liars, nuts or sluts get custody!

sonja Says:

December 4th, 2008 at 12:23 am
ManCan Says: "You could just as easily say that 2/3 of women accused of being liars, nuts or sluts get custody!"

Only then you'd be more accurate

Zammo Says:

December 3rd, 2008 at 12:33 pm

Sorry Cheryl, your words simply don't hold enough logic and reason (tools of the patriarchy!).

Chris Marshall Says:

December 3rd, 2008 at 3:00 pm

Glenn is not the one who is self-absorbed. You are.

Stephen M Weiss Says:

December 3rd, 2008 at 3:04 pm
Yes, the Cheryls of nations are a big problem. They are loud, selfish, immature, violent, greedy, lazy, and attack men by habit, unfairly backed by the corrupt family law industry.

TAC Says:

December 3rd, 2008 at 5:15 pm
Cheryl, thirsty? How about some hateraid?

Captain Chunk Says:

December 3rd, 2008 at 5:41 pm
This is a waste of time for anything else but entertainment. No useful debate can happen here. Cheryl came to preach and she did. I'll say the same thing to her I say to all the people I know who spew this kind of bile.

Saucer of milk, table 2! mreeooww!!

Nelson Says:

December 3rd, 2008 at 6:02 pm
The only piece of good news here is that she hasn’t had kids- the evil in her D.N.A has stayed locked in her ovaries.

Danny Says:

December 4th, 2008 at 4:26 pm

Restore men to their rightful status and you will see more responsible behavior and fewer social problems.
And before some nutcase reads this one line and then runs off to display it as proof that all MRAs are bad news I'm pretty sure the status ManCan is talking about equal partnership in parenting. That means sharing the joys AND the burdens.

This quote above will be covered in more detail in an upcoming post.

These are just a few "minor" examples of how these commenters on Sacks' blog break his rules on a daily basis and Glenn does not change their comments, nor does he ban them. So we again have two sets of rules - one for those who support MRAs and one for those who do not support the MRAs.

This is suspiciously like my marriage and life with my abuser (and post divorce life as well). There are two sets of rules for us as well. One for him which he makes and he can change at any time and again another for me which again, he can make new ones and change old ones at any time. Oh and I am supposed to know in advance what those rules are and when they apply and when they do not.

One minor example of the "his rules, my rules": We are allowed telephone contact with our child when said child is not with us. His rules: he is allowed to call as many times as he wants and when he wants. My rules: I am allowed one call per day if I have not seen the child at all that day (from midnight to the time of the call) and that call is to be made during the hours of 8 and 8:15 PM. If it is placed before that time or after that time, I forfeit that daily call. There is also a new order which states at what time his calls can occur (due to the frequency of calls - 100 or more in one hour) and he continually ignores this order, again because that is not his rule.

This is just more of the MRA protecting each other, having their rules and our rules and if we break the rules they have created for us, then there will be trouble.


mary said...

This is suspiciously like my marriage and life with my abuser (and post divorce life as well). There are two sets of rules for us as well.

If i was a shrink i would say you are suffering from some kind of projection. You look at Sacks and see your ex.

Anonymous said...

The woman being refred to in these comments made a personal attack on our group, and we responded in kind. If you think it's unfair of glenn to let us retaliate, then theres something wriong with your sense of fairness.

Glenn's Cult? said...

Actually I never said I look at Sacks and see my ex. What I am saying is that when I read his posts and his followers comments I am reminded of my ex, because he spews the same garbage.

Glenn's Cult? said...

Also mary, when I read a man (or in this case multiple men) who say that women lie about abuse, when I do not lie, and I post as such, and then I am still called a liar and worse, then I have an issue with that.

Glenn's Cult? said...

@ anonymous

Debating someone who is against your beliefs is one thing but attacking someone in the manner this woman was attacked is something completely different. Even on feminist blogs, the women (and men) do not retaliate unless boldly attacked. This woman as I read her letter was not attacking your group - she was attacking deadbeat fathers. If you are not part of the deadbeat dads group, then you should have nothing to worry about.

M.E said...

Actually I never said I look at Sacks and see my ex

a lot of sack's commenters dont admit that they look at women as a group and see one of the women who abused them in the past, but thats what they are doing it. Denial is an equal oportunity delusion.

Glenn's Cult? said...


Again, I read what Glenn and some of his followers (notice I use the word "some") write on his blog and I am taken back in time and I could literally picture my abuser ex-husband and hear him saying exactly these same words.

I am not delusional, when someone is subjected to torture for almost 5 years and then is thrown away and the abuse is negated, then that someone has a right to be angry and to want justice. I am getting justice for some of the moms here and across the world because I am standing up to the blatant MRA/possibly mysogynistic males (and yes even females) who post on Sacks' site. I am stating my "OPINION" abbout the posts made.