Domestic-Violence Crusader Mary J. Blige Slugs Husband

Have you seen anything specifically about the report further below in the MSM or generally with respect to any of the recent female attacks on men. The attack dogs seem quiet when a female celebrity abuses but clearly not when its the reverse.  Ditto Tiger Woods and the vicious attack by his ex.MJM

Thursday, December 31, 2009

RADAR ALERT:  Mainstream Media Suppresses Stories Of Violence By Women

When Rhianna hit Chris Brown in the head with her stiletto heels while he was behind the wheel trying not to lose control of the car and Brown overreacted¹, what did mainstream media report? They showed us Rhianna's injuries, but were totally silent about what part Rhianna's temper played in the altercation. 

When Tiger Woods' wife attacked him with a golf club², the mainstream media ignored his wife's violence. Hardly any of the mainstream media reported that the Florida Highway Patrol described Woods' injuries as "serious".³ Instead they waited for more stories about Woods' affairs to come out so they could spin it as a tale of Woods' infidelities rather than about female-perpetrated domestic violence. 

Now we have the case of Mary J. Blige, a woman who purports to be concerned about domestic violence, so much so that she has provided part of the funding for a domestic violence shelter named in her honor⁴. But her comment, "Women from all walks of life, not just women from poverty-stricken areas," makes it clear that only female victims will be helped by her shelter. And her actions make it clear that she believes that as a female she enjoys the privilege of using violence whenever any male displeases her. On Christmas Eve, the New York Post reported that she punched her husband in the face, drawing blood, because she thought he was flirting with a waitress.⁵ How has the rest of the mainstream media covered her hypocrisy? The silence has been deafening! 

Matt over at Mensactivism.org has assembled a list of mainstream media contact information and composed a sample letter. We urge you to visit http://news.mensactivism.org/node/14488 and respond as the spirit moves you. 

Happy New Year everyone! Here's looking forward to creating a more enlightened world in the coming year. 

 info@mediaradar.org 

   

1 http://poponthepop.com/2009/03/09/tmz-confirms-what-we-already-told-you-rihanna-hit-chris-brown-first

2 http://furmanbisher.wordpress.com/2009/12/26/updated-inside-story-on-tiger-woods

3 http://www.vancouverite.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/woods.jpg

4 http://hiphop.popcrunch.com/mary-j-blige-domestic-violence-shelter-mary-j-blige-center-for-women

5 http://www.nypost.com/p/pagesix/blige_hauls_off_on_husband_o32W7IKFja08UXzRipJiHI

---

Date of RADAR Release: December 31, 2009
R.A.D.A.R. – Respecting Accuracy in Domestic Abuse Reporting – is a non-profit, non-partisan organization of men and women working to improve the effectiveness of our nation's approach to solving domestic violence. http://www.mediaradar.org  

---

By Holly Won't 38 Comments

Categories: Activists, Bad Boys & Girls, Legal Messes and Musicians

Mary J. Blige has cranked out another hit, but this time it seems like a slight overreaction:

Mary J. Blige punched husband Kendu Isaacs in the face at her record release party at club M2 Tuesday night. The singer slugged Isaacs, drawing blood, after she thought he was flirting with a waitress. “She turned to him and was screaming, ‘You’re not going to ruin my night,’ ” our witness says. “They got up in each other’s faces before someone tried to separate them, at which point she shoved the guy aside, pulled back and popped [Isaacs] in the face.” The source said Blige, Isaacs and their entourage were whisked through a door to the attached club Pink, which was closed. Our witness relates, “She was yelling at him, ‘What are you gonna do, Chris Brown me?’ Four of her bodyguards and two of the club’s kept them apart.” Isaacs was kicked out. Blige went to the bathroom to fix her hair and makeup, but soon fled, creating an uncomfortable scene for partygoers Jay-Z, Beyoncé and Busta Rhymes.

That must have been especially awkward for Jay-Z, considering the way he handled Chris Brown after he attacked Rihanna last winter. No word yet whether MJB will receive the same treatment.
But didn’t Mary J. Blige just open a domestic-violence shelter in New York last month? Why yes, yes she did:

MJB’s organization recently teamed up with Gucci creative director Frida Giannini and several New York-based organizations to fund the opening of the Mary J. Blige Center for Women, based in Yonkers.
The singer was on hand to open the facility on Thursday.
She tells CNN: “All age ranges will be able to come to this center. Women from all walks of life, not just women from poverty-stricken areas. Whatever it is, they’ll be able to come here. There are gonna be psychologists here, doctors here, day care centers here. Anything that you need or they need to be able to better themselves is here for them.”
The Grammy Award winner says she is delighted to use her fame for a good cause: “That’s why I think as celebrities we’re given this job. We’re not given this job to just hold onto this stuff and die with it. We’re given this job to be able to touch someone and say, ‘me, too,’ because they look up to us and look to us for help and guidance and want to be able to relate to us.”

I don’t think “we’re given this job to be able to touch someone” means punching them in the face during a jealous rage. Keep your fists in your pockets, woman.

http://deceiver.com/2009/12/24/domestic-violence-crusader-mary-j-blige-slugs-husband/#comments

CSM Op-Ed Falls Flat with Claim that Family Courts Routinely Give Custody to Abusive Dads

My letter to the editor of the Christian Science Monitor:

Re: Christian Science Monitor, 10/14/09. Author Kathleen Russell

You allowed this author to publish unsubstantiated claims with respect to cases in Marin County Ca, and offering unsupported and erroneous information relating to a theory of abuse of children called Parental Alienation Syndrome.

I am guessing this was offered to the author as an opinion piece and was published without authentication by your editor. You will escape liability for slander on it because she didn't name names but one of the cases she obliquely refers to is well known involving the kidnapping by a so called protective parent of a child. This parent was subsequently arrested, jailed and tried but found to have personality related issues, which is not uncommon. She got a gender discount.

For future reference moms are the largest cohort of abusers and killers of children in the USA. They are also given sole custody of children in 84% of all cases in the USA. Ms. Russell's opinion which states otherwise is no more than that and is factually incorrect. Allegations of abuse are not proven facts of abuse. If allegations were the only criteria of proof most of the country would be in jail. I can easily cite you any number of allegations that are untrue and ought never be used to obfuscate the truth.

I am disappointed in your publication and frankly will have trouble believing anything that appears in it again.MJM

Contact the Christian Science Monitor here: http://www.csmonitor.com/cgi-bin/contactus.pl

Wednesday, October 21, 2009

By Robert Franklin, Esq.

They're baaaack. As if they'd ever left.

I refer to the anti-dad crowd whose latest shtick is to oppose children's rights to paternal access by claiming, against all the evidence, that fathers pose a unique danger to children. What actual social science shows is that mothers do far more (about twice as much) child injury than do fathers. That comes from the Department of Health and Human Services

Adminstration for Children and Families statistics on child injury and maltreatment, among others.

Still, that's the main thrust of the recent counter-attack on fathers' rights in Australia. This article is a special riff on the theme, though (Christian Science Monitor, 10/14/09). Author Kathleen Russell co-founded an anti-PAS organization in Marin County. Hers is another claim that family courts routinely ignore a parent's claims that the other parent is abusing a child in order to give custody to the abusive parent. But take even a passing whiff of that claim and it doesn't pass the smell test.

Why would a family court judge ignore well-founded evidence of child injury or sexual abuse and grant custody to the abuser? Uh, gee, I can't think of any reason.

The strong impression these people give is that it's pervasive bias against mothers by family courts. They seldom come right out and say it, but with books entitled "Divorced from Justice: The Abuse of Women and Children by Family Lawyers and Judges," not much is left to the imagination. To suggest that a system that gives custody to mothers 84% of the time and makes little effort to enforce the visitation orders of fathers is biased in favor of fathers, just doesn't cut the butter.

So where do those people get such a bizarre notion?

Well, they usually cite a single source - a study published in the May, 2000 issue of the Journal of Child Sexual Abuse by Ann Goetting and Amy Neustein. According to the website Stop Family Violence.com, the authors conclude that,

"In a study of more than 300 custody cases involving allegations of sexual abuse, 70 percent resulted in unsupervised visitation or shared custody with the alleged sexual abuser. And in 20 percent of cases, the nonviolent parent lost custody completely."

Oh. Those would be allegations of sexual abuse. Stated another way, in 70% of cases in which sexual abuse was alleged, family courts found that there was either no evidence thereof or insufficient evidence to deprive the child of its access to the target of the allegations.

But to the anti-dad crowd, all allegations of sexual abuse are true, at least when made against a father. And if they were, the study's findings would indeed be alarming. But neither the Goetting/Neustein study nor its advocates like Kathleen Russell make any effort to sort out whether the allegations were true or not.

The patently false notion that family courts routinely turn over children to sexual abusers, absurd on its face as it is, is rendered all the more so by the fact that its proponents have a hard time coming up with a single case which, on close examination, supports their claim. The Sadie Loeliger case, the Genia Schockome case, the Holly Collins case and others, are all examples, not of abusers getting custody, but of courts taking reams of testimony and concluding that in fact it was the mother claiming paternal abuse who was the dangerous parent. Indeed, study co-author Amy Neustein's is yet another case of exactly that phenomenon. I'll expound on that further in a future post.

If, as the Russell op-ed claims, there are 58,000 examples each and every year of sexual abusers getting custody, shouldn't the anti-father forces be able to come up with one that bears them out?

You'd think so, and to that end, Russell offers for our consideration the case of Jonea Rogers, a Petaluma, California woman who, so her story goes, sought the help of various law enforcement agencies in dealing with her allegedly abusive ex-husband (or maybe his father), only to be rebuffed at every turn. Rogers then fled with their daughter to various foreign countries. Once caught, the child was returned to the father, Ian Stone, and Rogers was jailed for violating the court order setting out the father's rights.

A Marin County jury acquitted Rogers of violating the court's order apparently convinced that she acted without the requisite state of mind necessary for conviction. Astonishingly enough, Russell would have her readers believe that the failure to convict Rogers of the criminal charge means that Stone in fact sexually abused his daughter. Needless to say, the jury found no such thing and their acquittal means no such thing.

And by the way, Stone still has custody.

So far, the nitty-gritty on the Rogers case comes strictly from a few newspaper articles like this one (Marin Independent Journal, 8/10/06) and this one (Marin Independent Journal, 8/8/06). But it's enough to strongly suggest that we can add it to the list of cases in which, contrary to the bleats of the anti-dad crowd, the mother who cries "abuse" and kidnaps the child is in fact just trying to deprive a hated ex of his child.

Consider the ease with which temporary restraining orders are obtained on little or no evidence in custody cases. Did she get one? Did she try? The articles don't say so.

Consider the fact that a variety of law enforcement officials investigated her claims over several months, but found no evidence of abuse.

Consider the fact that Child Protective Services likewise investigated Rogers' claims but found no evidence of abuse.

Consider that what Rogers was doing was so obvious to one of Marin County's sheriff's deputies that he told Ian Stone that Rogers was "setting him up" and that he should hire a lawyer.

Consider that no article makes any mention of medical evidence that the child had been injured or abused.

Consider that Rogers planned the abduction and getaway over the course of many months, secretly selling her house and small business in the process. Are those the actions of a mother who is so panicked about the sexual abuse of her child that she needs to flee immediately?

And finally consider that the child has been living with Ian Stone ever since Rogers was jailed in 2004 and is now at least 12 years old. If he sexually abused her before, he's surely done so since. Where are the charges by enraged law enforcement and prosecutors? Why doesn't Rogers renew her efforts to have him charged and get custody of the girl? And of course, what does the girl herself say?

If Russell and the others who are determined to keep children from their fathers at any cost, even that of the truth, are so sure that Stone is a child sexual abuser, what are there answers to these many questions?

And why was Russell so careful in writing her op-ed as to avoid even naming Ian Stone or making any statement that could be construed as libelous or defamatory?

I think I know. Based on their performance in other cases, their claims in the Rogers case are as threadbare as they've been in countless others. And that pretty much sums up their whole cause against fathers and their children - threadbare.

http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=4308

West Virginia Court Voids DV Rules as Gender-Biased

The Pamela Cross' of the world need to pay attention to their mistaken ideological premise in Canada as well. The walls of radical feminist ideology are falling around the world. Its only a matter of time for Canada to wake up to its blatant discrimination courtesy of Cross and her ideologue "Sisters." Those politicians too frightened to speak above the cacophony of Feminist doublespeak, baffle-gab and misinformation should take notice. People like Rob Nicholson, Minister of Justice at the Federal Level, and Bentley AG at the Ontario Provincial level should examine themselves periodically to see if they are still eunuchs. If not they need to take stock of the discriminatory practices they lead and start levelling the playing field. Changing the Divorce Act to a presumption of equal shared parenting would be a start through PMB C-422 and then help men battered down by the injustice of a gendered approach to family violence.MJM

October 7th, 2009 by Robert Franklin, Esq.

Last Friday, a West Virginia Circuit court struck down three administrative rules governing the licensing and operation of domestic violence shelters in that state. It did so in part because the rules and their application were explicitly gender-biased, contrary to the "crystal clear" gender-neutral language and intent of the statute.

The full opinion is here and is well worth reading. It draws a clear and detailed picture of a state agency utterly in thrall to a concept of domestic violence that is well established as false. To men's rights advocates, it strongly suggests effective litigation tactics for attacking the blatantly discriminatory statutes and administrative rules that so distort our response to the problem of domestic violence.

Here, as I understand it from the court's opinion, is what happened in West Virginia. 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.

But when the FPSB swung into action, it directly contradicted the "crystal clear" intent of the legislature. First, it relied exclusively on the feminist DV group, the West Virginia Coalition Against Domestic Violence. It promulgated a rule that required at least one-third of the staff of a DV shelter to have been trained by the Coalition. Into the bargain, the Coalition refused to train anyone who was not a member of the Coalition. In short, 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.

And, given the political slant of the Coalition, 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.

The same held true for perpetrator intervention programs. 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.

Not only is it clearly discriminatory, it doesn't work. It doesn't work to address the problem of DV because its approach to the problem is ideological. By pretending that DV is a political, as opposed to a psychological, matter, the approach taken by DV shelters and programs across the country cannot work. The simple fact is that they misperceive the problem. Plenty of psychologists know this and have said so. If we truly want to deal effectively with DV, we'll listen to them.

The West Virginia case carries the seeds of future attacks on the blatantly discriminatory DV industry. As such it is a valuable tool as well as a landmark decision of sorts.

I do have one criticism, though. Without being overly technical, the plaintiff in the case was an organization called Men and Women Against Discrimination. It sought to advocate against DV in a gender-neutral way and was prevented by the gender- biased requirements promulgated by the Board and implemented by the Coalition. Among other things, the legal wrong done to the organization was the limitation on free speech the Board's rules placed on its members.

That's fine as far as it goes, but attorneys in future court actions will be well advised to include an individual man or men who sought DV services but were refused. Conspicuously absent from the court's opinion is any notion that the Board's rules violated anyone's due process or equal protection rights. Clearly, if the suit had included an individual plaintiff, instead of just a corporate one, those vital legal concepts would have come into play and the judge would have had an opportunity to rule on them.

But beyond that, this is a great day for men's rights.

Thanks to our good friends at the American Coalition of Fathers and Children for sending along the court's decision.

http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=4285