From: matus [matus@snet.net]
Sent: Monday, July 29, 2002 12:39 AM
To: matus@snet.net
Subject: MFD List - IFeminist making progress, NOW backpedals

(All, a frequent columnist I send articles by is Wendy McElroy, she is an
Individualst Feminist and hosts Ifeminists.com.  Her column is now regularly
featured in fox news, she fights for equal rights for men and women,
routinely argues against the politically correct nature of man bashing, and
fights propoganda by PC feminist authors.

Recently NOW (The National Organization For Women) released a 'paper'
accusing the California family courts of systematic bias against women. The
report also accuses the fathers' movement of being filled with child
molesters and pedophiles, among other things.  McElroy scrutinized the
report and found numerous and methodolical failings with it.  The most
obvious was that fact that NOW received ALL of its information from members
who had already complained of abuse, who filled out a 20 page online survey.
This is scientifically methodoloical equivalent to survey of fans leaving a
baseball about whether baseball or balet is better.  Wendy challenged the
NOW Author of the paper to actually present the evidence of the allegations,
and she recieved a letter offering to meet with her and debate publicly with
many of the women who submitted complaints.  McElroy quickly agreed, and
soon after the NOW representative emailed her again saying that 'we do not
disagree with her objections' are taking her objections into consideration
and reviewing the paper.  Soon a flood of emails poured in McElroy's Inbox
from various feminist activists, who apparently did disagree.  Cindy Ross
wrote to her as California director for the National Alliance for Family
Court Justice, alleging that "FR [father's rights] groups are affiliated
with pedophiles and others who advocate incest and deviant sex ... FR groups
are connected to a court kickback/financial corruption scheme ...FR groups
are comprised of misogynists, batterers, child molesters, sociopaths and
criminals ...FR groups and their allied court 'professionals' are connected
to hundreds of cases across the country ... where 'custody' has gone to
child molesters ..." The NAFCJ e-mail accused specific individuals by name
but offered no evidence. McElroy responded by requesting documentation
before commenting on criminal charges that could result in prison time for
those accused.  In her e-mail, Ms. Ross stated her concern "with protecting
women and children from [those] who view women and children as chattel
and/or are talking about resorting to 'bloodshed' to eliminate women
altogether." Elimate women altogether?? The accusations leveled at father's
rights activists by PC feminists such as Ross are damning and at least one
of the leaders of the father's movement named by NAFJC is currently seeking
legal advice on libel. Ross will either have to present the evidence for her
accusations or publicly retract them.  Indeed, as McElroy pointed out in her
response to Ross, she has a moral obligation to submit the evidence to the
authorities, if bribes are taking place and children are being given back to
abusive parents, then Ross's holding back this evidence only perpetuates the
problem.  The simplest explanation is, of course, that the evidence doesnt
exist.

Father's rights activist Trudy Schuett received an unpleasant e-mail from
Vicki Pierce, the president of Cobb County NOW and McElroy was copied in, an
email which ended by blaming Schuett for the fact that: "children will
continue to be abused only to grow up [and] wreak havoc as Hitler did in
Europe. Thanks for contributing to the misery of women and children."  So
father's rights activists are raising Hitlers?  Following are the Articles I
recieved relating to this and the full text of the McElroys articles.  Also
present in a section to contribute to IFeminists.com. - Michael)


 IFEMINISTS.COM
 ------------------------------------------------------------
 Making waves, making NOW backpedal
 ------------------------------------------------------------
 http://www.ifeminists.com/

Yes!!!

Score one for the good guys.

Our individualist (non-socialist and not anti-man) feminist channel
host, Wendy McElroy, is one of the bravest people I know. She has the
intellectual integrity to admit it when she's wrong and follow her
premises and facts to their logical conclusions. Better yet, she has
the guts to take on some of the most powerful and hostile forces of
"political correctness."

For example, in her July 2nd ifeminists.com editorial, she took the
California chapter of the National Organization for Women to task for
issuing a report accusing the CA family courts of systematic bias
against women. The report also accuses the fathers' movement of being
filled with child molesters and pedophiles -- all without bothering to
present any data.

Wendy actually presented a list of seven serious methodological
problems with the CA NOW report, any one of which invalidates it as a
basis for proposing systemic reform. Of course, this didn't stop the
press from touting the report far and wide.

You can see Wendy's column at:

     http://www.ifeminists.com/introduction/editorials/2002/0702.html
	(first article below)

Rachel Allen, PR Director of CA NOW, responded to Wendy through FOX
News. She challenged Wendy to a debate in a room full of women picked
by NOW, women who have been mistreated by the system. Wendy accepted
the challenge and circulated both Ms. Allen's email and her (Wendy's)
acceptance. Both were widely posted on various sites.

Ms. Allen then sent an acknowledgment that the CA NOW Report is being
reworked and that NOW accepts some of Wendy's suggestions. Wendy
followed up with a "Put Up or Shut Up" column on July 9. See:

     http://www.ifeminists.com/introduction/editorials/2002/0709.html

The net result is that NOW has done the closest thing it ever does to
issuing a retraction, and some previously supportive organizations,
like Judicial Watch, are backing away from the CA NOW report.

Of course, no good deed goes unpunished: Wendy is receiving
threatening letters. But threatening legal action is a standard
intimidation ploy among political correctness extremists and Wendy
is neither surprised nor deterred.

She'll keep on exposing bad policy ideas wherever she sees them --
and she'll debate the NOW folks in front of their stacked audience,
if they can muster the courage to follow through on it. And The
Henry Hazlitt Foundation will stand behind her.

And I hope you will all stand behind us -- not just in case we get
sued, but to help us support Wendy's ongoing efforts. She's not
content to simply be proved right; she wants to help others who dare
to question the politically correct orthodoxy and are subjected to
legal and other intimidation tactics.

We think of it as an Ifeminist Defense Fund, and we hope you'll pitch
in.

You know we're making a difference when the other side cries foul; we
want to press our advantage. Strike while the iron is hot, as they
say. To help with the effort, you can join ifeminists.com as a member
at:

     http://www.ifeminists.com/cgi/join.cgi

If you choose to, you can make a donation and become a supporting
member while you're at it, but that's optional. If you just want to
lend us your financial support, you can do so directly at:

     https://ssl3.imagiware.com/hazlitt/ccard.html

And don't forget to use the "Would you like to earmark your donation
for a specific project?" field to specify ifeminists.com.

Thanks!

     -----------------------------------------------------------

NOW Court Report Lacks Facts
July 2, 2002
by Wendy McElroy, mac@ifeminists.com


A "report" just released by the California chapter of NOW on the alleged
abuse of women in family courts is fluff without substance. Nevertheless, a
submissive media is eating up the report and rushing to sound tired alarm
bells.

"Family Court Report 2002" has the ostentatious trappings of respectable
research: 134 pages; four authors, including the President of CANOW; and a
self-declared "three years" of research.

What it doesn't have is evidence.

What is the FCR? It is the supporting document behind a call to revamp the
family court system to eliminate purported bias against women.

The report is heavily based upon CANOW's call "for individually prepared
case histories from constituents" and a "detailed questionnaire" posted on
the Internet. ("Constituents" appears to be a synonym for women who
approached CANOW with complaints about the family court system.) CANOW's
subsequent "historical research" and "review of the often bizarre practices
of judges" are based on responses from the questionnaires (p.4).

Moreover, it is the "constituent" and questionnaire data that makes the FCR
news - complete with a press conference - rather than a university project.
It is on this data that the FCR lives or dies.

It dies. The FCR has gross methodological errors that render it utterly
invalid. The errors include:

A blatant political agenda. FCR opens with the statement, "the present
family court system in California" is "crippled, incompetent, and corrupt"
and "pathologizing, punishing and discriminating against women."

CANOW's Family Law Task Force has suggested several strategies to reform the
courts to "protect" women (p.3). Although CANOW's self-description as a
"political action organization" does not invalidate the report, it should
raise red flags emblazoned "extra scrutiny required."

The data is self-selecting. FRC's much-touted "nearly 300" questionnaires
appear to be all from women who contacted NOW over a three year period to
complain about the family court system. This approach virtually ensures that
all respondents will be both unhappy with the courts and sympathetic to NOW.


Ask yourself: How many women who thought the family court system was fair or
who disagreed with NOW's slant would fill out a 20-page, tedious,
time-consuming questionnaire? How many would even find the questionnaire
that seems to have been distributed only to CANOW "constituents," or those
who visit its site? The FCR is not empirical research: it is advocacy
propaganda.

FCR omits crucial information as to how the questionnaire data was
processed. For example, was there any means of verifying the information
rendered, such as the actual circumstances of the described cases in family
court? Without verification, the questionnaires become hearsay or mere
testimonials. Moreover, did CANOW control for multiple submissions from the
same individual? And where is an explanation of the report's sampling
methods, its margin of error...? The data is worthless without such a
context.

There is no presentation of data - e.g., no real break down of questionnaire
responses such as demographics. The "Findings" section (pp. 5-9) presents a
set of conclusions about the abuse of women by the family court system but
no numbers are attached.

For example, how many of the respondents answered "yes" to whether their
ex-husbands or boyfriends had better legal representation? Was it two of the
almost 300, or all? The significance of the "yes" answer depends upon such
numbers. There is no quantitative analysis.

No information is offered on how many family court cases occurred in the
alleged three-year period covered by the report. Do the approximately 300
cases constitute .02 percent, 1 percent or 10 percent of the three-year
total? Anything less than three percent is statistically irrelevant and such
testimonials - if verified - would establish only that sometimes injustice
occurs.

According to the Judicial Council of California (p.44), in recent years
there were over 150,000 filings and over 100,000 dispositions per annum -
some years were considerably higher. Three hundred selected cases spread
over three years is statistically meaningless.

Footnotes are often absent or "weak." For example, in the capsule history of
family law in California, the FCR states that, before a bill changed the law
in 1998, "Apparently the existing policy of the state had been to allow a
batterer to obtain custody of his children by arguing the [sic] for the
court's bias toward [the] 'voluntary' joint physical custody/frequent and
continuing contact rule. Frighteningly, research has shown that abusers are
highly successful in gaining custody of their children.[note 56]." (p. 25)

This is an extremely serious charge. But the evidence backing it up (note
56) merely cites "AB [Assembly Bill] 200" - that is, the "facts" allegedly
"found" by the partisan legislators or staffers who wrote the bill itself.

No data was collected from men. However bad the situation is for women in
family court, the treatment of men may be much worse. Without a comparative
study, there is no way to tell.

An extensive critique of the FCR's sloppiness and/or dishonesty could easily
absorb 134 pages itself. But even a cursory examination should be enough to
discredit the report. The media has no excuse for passing along propaganda
as fact. And the fact is: after three years of research, CANOW offers no
data to support its conclusions or demands.

    --------------------------------------------------------

Put Up or Shut Up
July 9, 2002
by Wendy McElroy, mac@ifeminists.com


The stranglehold on the media that political correctness enjoys by virtue of
intimidation must end. The New Thought Police: Inside the Left's Assault on
Free Speech and Free Minds by Tammy Bruce - former president of the Los
Angeles chapter of NOW - documents the strong-arm tactics PC organizations
use in lieu of reason, arguments and evidence.

My last column, "NOW's Court Report Lacks Facts" criticized California NOW's
recent report on anti-woman bias in the family court system for
methodological flaws and for including no quantitative data.

E-mails filled with potentially libelous accusations and talk of lawyers
have buzzed ever since.

The PC onslaught on the critique began reasonably enough. Rachel Allen,
director of public relations for CA NOW and a co-author of the report, wrote
to challenge me to participate in a discussion with women who had been
mistreated by the family court system. I accepted. In a subsequent e-mail,
also sent to press@now.org, Ms. Allen stated that the report was being
modified, adding, "We ... do not disagree with all your suggestions."

Other PC feminist voices, including a chapter of CA NOW, apparently do
disagree.

Cindy Ross wrote to me in her capacity as a California director for the
National Alliance for Family Court Justice. According to Ms. Ross, NAFCJ is
an international organization that has "worked closely with CA NOW,
providing them [and others] with documented evidence."

The alleged evidence purportedly documents:

- "FR [father's rights] groups are affiliated with pedophiles and others who
advocate incest and deviant sex ...

- "FR groups are connected to a court kickback/financial corruption scheme
...

- "FR groups are comprised of misogynists, batterers, child molesters,
sociopaths and criminals ...

- "FR groups and their allied court 'professionals' are connected to
hundreds of cases across the country ... where 'custody' has gone to child
molesters ..."

The NAFCJ e-mail accused specific individuals by name but offered no
evidence. Ms. Ross demanded a reply from me "A.S.A.P.," which she could
circulate "to all of the journalists" and others interested in the family
court issue.

In reply, I requested documentation before commenting on criminal charges
that could result in prison time for those accused. No documentation was
provided. (Since NAFJC has circulated an e-mail to at least one leader in
the Men's Movement that describes me as a "propaganda ho," I must assume my
request was declined because I am not viewed as a legitimate journalist.)

Meanwhile, an e-mail from radical feminist Liz Kates was jointly addressed
to me and to father's rights advocate Trudy Schuett.

"I am a feminist lawyer," Ms. Kates wrote. She took both of us to task for
perceived errors in an e-mail written by Schuett and posted online at Men's
News Daily. When I asked Kates "why me?" given I had never mentioned her in
print, the feminist lawyer advised me, "See that you don't [mention her in
print]."

Meanwhile, Schuett received an unpleasant e-mail from Vicki Pierce, writing
in her capacity as the president of Cobb County NOW. (I was copied on the
e-mail, perhaps for intimidation value, as a warning.) Schuett was told to
consult a lawyer for allegedly misstating someone else's name. The NOW
e-mail ended by blaming Schuett for the fact that: "children will continue
to be abused only to grow up [and] wreak havoc as Hitler did in Europe.
Thanks for contributing to the misery of women and children."

But what of NOW's culpability in the misery of women and children? If NAFJC
has passed on solid evidence of convicted child molesters who receive child
custody, of father's rights leaders who are child molesters, of kickback
collusion between judges and fathers, then NAFJC and NOW must provide it to
the authorities, to the press, to the public. If not, both organizations are
willfully protecting child molesters at the expense of women and children.
Speaking truth to protect the innocent is also a moral responsibility and
children are the innocents in family court.

The accusations leveled at father's rights activists by PC feminists are
damning - so damning that at least one of the leaders of the father's
movement named by NAFJC is currently seeking legal advice on libel.

Ms. Ross chose to share accusations that "named names" with me, and
therefore, with a major news organization - Fox News. If she cannot document
those charges, she has a moral responsibility to retract them in an equally
public manner. Indeed, she may have a legal obligation to do so as well.

In her e-mail, Ms. Ross stated her concern "with protecting women and
children from [those] who view women and children as chattel and/or are
talking about resorting to 'bloodshed' to eliminate women altogether."

In another e-mail - Ms. Pierce also makes serious accusations against an
individual by name. It is time for PC feminists to prove their concern by
going public with solid proof of criminal activity against children and
women - not merely allegations.

If NAFJC and NOW care about abused women and children, they will publicize
whatever hard evidence they hold in their hands. Let the "facts" be aired
and not just alleged in what appears to be a cowardly attempt to destroy the
reputations and lives of people who disagree.

    ----------------------------------------


www.matus1976.com - Article archives