Glenn Sacks - Pizza box shaming deliquent dads on C$A

[Marx]

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSlNFCRYyNI[/media]

Personally, I don't think he held up against the opposition very well at all - he didn't seem to get his point across very effectively.

[Rebadow]

You know how a lot of us said that if they'll be doing the pizza boxes for parents who interfere with visiting rights of non-custodial parents next?

I think that wouldn't work very well anyway. Because this approach is basically based on shaming (people say: oh look at this scum, he's not taking care of his kids, what a lowlife, I'm reporting him). But under current conditions this is only (very) effective with men. Only men can be shamed. You can't shame a woman with exposing her interference with dad's visitation rights. There's nothing shameful about it and people don't judge these women. They say: "Oh yes, he doesn't get to see his kids, but he must have done something really terrible, and she's just protecting the kids from him." Or they at least try with humor: "Boy, did she really take him to the cleaners, the poor bastard, hehehe". When was it the last time you heard someone not from the MRM (or whatever) that spoke about such mothers with contempt? People don't do this, they start to come up with excuses, speculations, etc. - all in mother's favor. But when it comes to fathers, it's the mirror image. No speculations, excuses, no valid reasons. No, he is just scum. After all - all men are, right, so why should he be any different?

Personally, I don't think he held up against the opposition very well at all - he didn't seem to get his point across very effectively.

I strongly disagree! I think Glenn did a wonderful job. I have no doubt however, that 90%, hell 95% of the people didn't get his point, but I think that's more to do with their ignorance (and knee-jerk reaction to anything trying to explain the men's point of view also, not just the mothers'), than with Glenn's presentation of the FACTS. I mean, let's face it - You could feed these people with hardcore facts for 48 hours non-stop and they wouldn't change their minds. Remember, man=bad, that's the basic premise of their way of thinking, so no Glenn Sacks in less than 10 min show could make them consider anything else. But I do no doubt that he planted that seed - at least a few people will start to look into these things and not just take them for granted anymore.

The only person that really got on my nerves was the blond host, who constantly interrupted Glenn, wouldn't let him finish one sentence, etc. At least try to appear to be neutral, bitch. Oh yes, I know - why should she, she doesn't have to.

But Glenn was great. He seemed very casual to me, not nervous or "afraid" or anything. Very good. But he was fighting the battle that -overall- could not be won - he was defending adult men against "the poor children™". That's how the debate was framed (isn't it always). And who would side with the men? Except of course (unfortunately) just a few of those, who are fed up with the "best interest of the child" smokescreen.

[chevalier]

Even though child support is just a tool for women to control their ex Glenn wasn't even defending the rich ones he made the point that the dads on the boxes in were men who could in no way afford the unconstitutional obligation placed on them someone who makes 10 dollars an hour is going to have a hard time paying $4oo- $600-$800 per month it's common sense but femmes don't care and the government just wants to appear to be caring of childrens needs. That woman who started the whole pizza box thing said if you can boy a pizza you can pay child support. So either pizza is going for $600 a pie or they need to lower my child support to $20 buck a month.