From Glenn Sacks

[DecentDad]

>I don't think I said you were "against men's rights". Are you
>sure you're not putting words in my mouth? :)

True.  You implied I found it "stupid" to speak out for the same rights as women have been doing for 30 years.  I stand corrected on that, sorry I misrepresented your words.

>Being accepting of
>these kinds of sentiments (throw rocks at boys) is no
>different than "throw rocks at Jews" or "throw rocks at
>blacks". Would either of those shirts/sentiments be acceptable
>in our society? Nope, they wouldn't. Why should it be
>different for "throw rocks at boys"?

Excellent point, and the answer is that of course it's not different.  My argument has been on where to concentrate efforts.

>>It's up to school administrators and teachers to help
>students
>>develop sensitivity to each other.
>
>Maybe, maybe not.

It is.  Whether or not they're successful is another thing.

>So, I ask you again- what have you done? What successes can
>you relate to us from your approach? Because from where I'm
>sitting, you look like just another armchair quarterback. What
>kinds of things have you accomplished with your approach?

You've asked twice, so here is as specific as I'd like to get so that I can remain anonymous...

* Engaging in a 16-month PR war with a major bottling corporation to change their policies in a foreign country so that they were not supporting culturally accepted activities (i.e., in the foreign country) that are felonies in the U.S.  This involved coordination of grassroots efforts and high-level tactics as well.  They conceded to halt their involvement in the activities, removing 8 digits of annual funding toward it (i.e., removing the largest funder made it less profitable for the activities to continue).  Along the way, two other American corporations removed their support shortly after our contact to them (i.e., likely to avoid being targeted next).

* Turning a particularly sympathetic crime victim into a poster child in a mid-western state in order to influence legislation to change the applicable penal code from a misdemeanor offense to a felony offense.

* Turning a particularly sympathetic crime victim into a poster child in a western state, and working with the prosecutor to push for an unprecedented component of sentencing that aimed to keep the perpetrator away from future victims.

* Being a party in a federal civil suit that many legal analysts called the first test of the first amendment in the new information age.

* Being a party in a civil suit that established a new ruling on first amendment issues at quasi-public locations.

* Working with a political action committee in a southern state in attempt to influence a candidate on commiting to sponsor legislation.  The candidate balked, so the PAC canvassed neighborhoods for his opponent.  The candidate won but lost in many districts the PAC targeted.  Shortly after winning, the newly elected assembly person contacted the PAC to open discussion on the issue (i.e., via the district reporting, he was aware that the PAC could damage his re-election).

* Donating to SPARC, one of the internet's most valuable resources for separated/divorced parents.  Not huge amounts, but certainly making the effort to support this resource.

Those are some of the biggies that first come to mind.  I imagine I'm a bit more experienced in social and political campaigns than the average person.  Unfortunately, it doesn't do much to prepare oneself for the remarkable world of family law.

Perhaps you wouldn't mind sharing back?

DD

[Brent]

>My argument has been on where to concentrate
>efforts.

I'm a big believer in making a change wherever I can. Small changes can have far-reaching effects, and are often easier to accomplish. Would I like to change the laws? Sure, but it's not a task that I'm suited for, it's not where I want to expend my energy. I'd prefer to do what I can on a practical level, helping the people that need help right now, who can't wait 5 years for a legislative cure. By then it's too late for them. That's the goal of this site in general- getting practical assistance to people who need it now.




>>>It's up to school administrators and teachers to help
>>students develop sensitivity to each other.
>>
>>Maybe, maybe not.
>
>It is.  Whether or not they're successful is another thing.

I don't think it's necessarily the teacher's job to teach manners or to socialize children. If they do that, great, but it's not a job teachers should be tasked with. That's something that should come from parents and family.



> I
>imagine I'm a bit more experienced in social and political
>campaigns than the average person.  Unfortunately, it doesn't
>do much to prepare oneself for the remarkable world of family
>law.

No it doesn't.


>
>Perhaps you wouldn't mind sharing back?

I would, but I've never done anything. Ask anyone. :)

[FatherTime]

San Francisco Chronicle feminist columnist Jane Ganahl doesn't get it.  She is harping on her own chord and can't learn any new ones.  This isn't about the feminist movement.  It's about what we are teaching our children...both boys and girls.  They are the future.   What we teach them today, they teach tomorrow.

She said:
It also might help if these protectors of boys recognized that, like all minorities who have waited a long time to get their share, today's high school girls have come into their "power" by going down a tough road.

Today's girls didn't go down the road that the girls of past have travelled.  In fact...the road has changed in many ways.  High school can be a tough road for both boys and girls.  Her main statement in the paragraph is the "power" word.  Some kind of power trip for her.  She also tries to make it a male/female issue about adults and hooters.
(*the old bait and switch)

The "David and Goliath" t-shirt, hat, and other materials promote violence against children.  Plain and simple.  But because it is male children it is harmless?  One more time to be clear...

[h3]It promotes violence against children.[/h3]

Somehow...she must think that the t-shirt empowers girls.  I don't have a son.  I only have a daughter and I don't want her to think that this is appropriate or even condoned.  I'm trying to teach equality, not racism, sexism, or other prejudicial ways of thinking, like boys are stupid.  

They are not just harmless words.  I know that just a few choice words could do harm to anyone.  The words "Boys are stupid" can be just as hurtful and damaging than a rock that stings for a moment.  

[em]Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can TRULY hurt me. [/em]

There is an old notion that boys are tough, boys don't cry.  Girls are the soft and sensitive beings.  ANTIQUATED THINKING, ONLY JUDGES SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO THINK THIS WAY.  

Feminism must not have been about equality.  It must have been about power and getting more and more of it.  Because the feminists sure don't think of the issues with equality on their minds.

Life is defined by the little things.

[StPaulieGirl]

Jane Ganahl and her ilk are idiots.

That tough road for girls was created by creatures like them.  To me "girl power" means being able to tell feminists to go to hell.

I'm pretty traditional about marriage and raising children, however I think that boys and girls should strive to get the best education possible.  Lol, the schools are going to hell, and the colleges are full of crackpot professors!  Should they get through that experience, they can homeschool their children.  If the husband should become ill, or have his job outsourced, then she can pick up the slack and provide for the family.  To me, this is "girl power": keeping the family together if disaster strikes, instead of letting the government in with all their kind help.  That was sarcasm.  

I'm really worried about what is happening to our kids and this country.  Feminism=socialism.

[DecentDad]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/biztshirts_dc


For anyone interested in how to better approach such a campaign, the strategy is NOT to attract media attention on a controversial product.

The strategy is to examine how to remove the profit of such a product in a stealth mission that won't enhance sales.

Whenever there is an offensive message that shows promising sales, adding additional controversy is simply adding fuel to a fire.

One must carefully figure out how to "hit 'em where it hurts" before engaging on a campaign.

Best,
DD

[Kitty C.]

That same article, including the picture, was first published more than a month ago, tho the dateline on this one is 2/29.  This is propaganda from the company, no doubt about it.  They WANT you to believe that business is booming.  With the attitude and morals of this company, I'm not surprised they've taken this tactic.

As tough a stand as the company has taken, you honestly think they're gonna come out and say they're hurting now??  Nope, they're gonna go down in flames, kicking and screaming the whole way.  Sounds like a bunch of addicts running that company, because all I hear from them is DENIAL............

[Indigo Mom]

I brought in $250K last weeK, too!  And the week before?  I brought in $179K.  

Do you believe it?  Or would you prefer me to open my books and show you facts?

I have to say...this todd goldman guy is a true idiot.  He expects everyone to believe him just because he "says" he made that much?

I don't know a thing about those stocks and quotes, or nasdaq...or any other things of that nature.  But one thing I "did" notice?  Those stock thingiemajigs?  None of them were for the company David & Goliath.

Another thing...when I worked at the BX over in England?  I watched my superviser order all types of things.  Every once in a while, ya order something that just does NOT sell...what did we do?  Boxed 'em up and shipped them back to the manufacturer.  Does the manufacturer get the merchandise back free of charge?  Nah...that's why it's called a refund.  BX wasn't "out" the money...and the manufacturer didn't quite make the money they claimed.  If ya catch me drift.

Now, about that comment up above to bizy...um...BITE ME!

[Kitty C.]

It was all said in LOVE, ya know!!!  You know this place wouldn't be the same without cha!

[Davy]

.

[StPaulieGirl]

DD you have some great points about controversy fueling sales, but until we see the figures for this quarter, we have to keep in mind that Mr. Goldman could be lying.  Controversy only lasts so long, it won't make up the lost sales.


That is an awful lot of merchandise the retailers returned to David and Goliath.  3500 retailers returning how many items, retailing for how much?  I don't know how a company can absorb that kind of loss and come out in the black.

We'll know when it gets really bad, because Mr. Goldman will accuse everyone of anti-semitism.