In the comment thread referred to, nobody called Lion Goodman a mangina, so there is no reason for him to be so defensive, he’s lyin.
It begs the question, is he providing a comprehensive look at men’s issues?
Why didn’t they invite NCFM, the oldest men’s rights organization in America, to the summit?
He’s Lyin again!
Is the Ultimate Men’s Summit really inclusive? What about people who don’t agree…they get censored and banned:
How does Lion Goodman respond after the censorship and ban?
3 Lies in 24 hours and it’s just the tip of the iceberg about Lyin Goodman’s Lyin to men.
by Paul Elam
[Special note: I urge and implore all bloggers, anywhere on the internet, to reprint this article in its entirety with a link back to this page. Please help me get this event in front of as many eyes as possible. Thank you – PE]
Mangina: Pussy whipped male. Named due to the taking on of feminine tendencies rather than masculine ones. Caused by extreme need to seek approval from females to the point of eradicating his own self and becoming a servant eunuch. Is a man, but may as well have a vagina.
My eyes were opened to how little GMPM cares about men and how little they are actually doing to honestly address the issues and help men.
It’s complete intellectual dishonesty. They should make it clear that they are a feminist website, there is no denying it.
Honesty is good and GMPM is not honest nor good.
By Paul Elam
As is typical with The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, on the subject of domestic violence CBC maintains the feminist mandate described by Straus:
Method 1. Suppress Evidence
- CBC censors opposing views and research
Method 2 Avoid Obtaining Data inconsistent with the Patriarchal Dominance Theory
- CBC selects news stories that only portray female victimhood
Method 3 Cite only studies that show male perpetration
- CBC Ignores male victims: “the largest number of women killed are under the age of 25 years, so we really would like to be able to reach out to that younger demographic.”
Single fathers lose more than the stereotypical house, car and bank account.
They lose their families, their confidence, and in some cases, even their means of making a living. What’s more, any success they have is garnished without prejudice.
The stigma of the deadbeat dad, the father that is never there for his kids, still remains as strong as ever, though a large part of what perpetuates it is a social justice system that assumes fathers as providers, breadwinners and supporters, without needing support themselves
But what happens when, in order to meet those obligations, the father’s standard of living suffers greatly? What happens when failing to meet those obligations results in not only punitive family law measures, but the degradation of the individual who is suffering to make ends meet?
In all the cases of fathers interviewed, not one said they regretted contributing to their children’s wellbeing. Not one wanted to be free of their familial obligations. All they wanted, they said, was a little fairness, be it the chance to see their children or the ability to have some say in how their money is being spent.