Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Men's Group

In reply to the discussion: for non-custodial fathers [View all]
 

naaman fletcher

(7,362 posts)
3. here you go..
Tue Dec 11, 2012, 07:58 PM
Dec 2012

FYI, I voted to leave it:


for non-custodial fathers
http://www.democraticunderground.com/11145878

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus#communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>.)

ALERTER'S COMMENTS:

The organization referred to is a right wing, reactionary organization headed by Glenn Sacks. He has been praised by Michelle Malkin for his work in fighting against domestic violence shelters. Links for references below

Here, they trash NOW for actually knowing what they're talking about.
http://www.fathersandfamilies.org/2012/07/02/nows-opposition-to-pas-inclusion-in-dsm-v-anti-science-anti-dad-anti-mom-anti-child/

Here they express their shock that scientists didn't cave to right-wing pressure.
http://www.fathersandfamilies.org/2012/09/26/apa-rejects-pas-for-dsm/


A revealing look at the founder, Glenn Sacks
http://www.glennsacks.com/enewsletters/enews_12_29_04.htm
http://www.amptoons.com/blog/2008/12/04/domestic-violence-shelter-targeted-by-anti-feminists-some-of-the-vile-language-and-verbal-abuse-we-took-on-the-phone-was-horrific/


And the "fathers rights" movement in general.
http://www.bostonmagazine.com/articles/2012/08/angry-men-feminist-agenda/



You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Tue Dec 11, 2012, 03:00 PM, and the Jury voted 3-3 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: I said leave it alone because despite their being right wing hacks, it is not clear to me that linking to right wing hacks like this is a violation of standards. Why not just point out that they are right wing hacks as part of the debate?

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»Men's Group»for non-custodial fathers»Reply #3