The Magic Washing Machine – men behind the curtain

Last updated 2018 10 19

Today I ran across a short video that no one should miss watching, a video about the magic washing machine.

Hans Rosling and the magic washing machine
By Gapminder, featuring Prof. Hans Rosling

“What was the greatest invention of the industrial revolution? Hans Rosling makes the case for the washing machine. With newly designed graphics from Gapminder, Rosling shows us the magic that pops up when economic growth and electricity turn a boring wash day into an intellectual day of reading.” — Gapminder

Watch the video (nine minutes).  It is a fascinating and spell-binding presentation, as all of Hans Rosling’s presentations are, but this one is one of his best.

Prof. Hans Rosling concludes his presentation with:

Thank you, Industrialization!

Thank you, Steel Mills!

Thank you, Power Stations, and thank you, Chemical-Processing Industry, that they [his mother, his grandmother and all other women of the world] got time to read books.

Thank you very much.  (Which was followed by a very large round of well-deserved applause)

It is an impressive presentation about the wealthy in the world, the plight of poor women and their respective levels of energy consumption.

1890 photo of woman doing laundry by hand

…picture was taken in 1900, and shows a woman doing the wash in a wash tub with a scrub board. This would have to be a hard job. I would think that it would be very hard on your hands.

It stresses the power of democracy and that the poor suffering women in Brazil, for example, were able to elect a woman, the former energy minister of Brazil, as their prime minister, but it does not mention that, in doing so, they established an increasingly oppressive, corrupt, communist, totalitarian regime.

It stresses, with very likable humour, that the wealthy of the world need to reduce their energy consumption and replace half of their remaining energy use with energy from green sources.  However, it does not stress that in doing so right now, food prices escalated in the poor nations so much that hundreds of thousands of people now no longer can afford to eat and therefore starve to death (an increase of 250,000 deaths a year, by some estimates).

It praises the advances brought about by industrialization, steel mills, power stations, the chemical-processing industry (which would include many other technological inventions and processes — including the washing machine that gave Hans Rosling’s mother the time to begin to read books)  and that they were inventions that made women’s lives easier, but it does not praise the innovators, men, whose innovations primarily made women’s lives easier and safer.

In all of the presentations by Hans Rosling that I watched over the years, I noticed that he seems to speak about his mother far more often than Liberace used to speak about his, but he never once mentioned his wife and perhaps only once mentioned his dad, and I wonder why that is.  Does his wife not deserve his concern as much as his mother does?  Is she not a mother, too?  Hans Rosling does have a son.

And what about his dad?  Was it not his dad who brought home the money that his family saved to buy the washing machine that gave his mother time to read?

Washing machine make time available

Time for other things (photo is from an ad for a “jeans washing machine” in Brazil)

What about all of the men who worked so hard to improve the living standards for all, who made it possible for all to increase their life expectancies by many years throughout the world, but primarily and far more so for women than for men?

To come back to washing machines.  I had a mother, too, as we all had or have, but I also had a father, just as Hans Rosling and everyone else had or has.  My mother used to wash by hand.  I know, I helped her, and so did all of my siblings.  Our family was very poor.  There was not the chance of a snow ball in Hell that we could ever have saved enough to buy a washing machine, as much as we all would have wanted to, not for as long as we were mired in poverty.

My mother was a very smart woman, she read a lot and studied, but she never once thought of building her own washing machine.  My Dad did.  The agitator for that washing machine he built was driven by water pressure from the water tap, using a two-cycle cylinder and reciprocating piston with two power strokes, with a rack and pinion gear.

And yes, my mother read and studied even more, thanks to my Dad, and she thanked him for that.  That is something that apparently never once entered Hans Rosling’s mind and that so many of us forget to do, because we take what men do for granted.  For that reason neither Hans Rosling nor most others ever bother to thank men for making the things and the sacrifices of their lives that make women’s lives so much safer, easier, more enjoyable, and much longer.


#IndustrialRevolution

See also:

Posted in Economy, History, Men and Women Work, Men's Issues | 1 Comment

US freedom : 5% of world population, 25% of world prison inmates

Update 20 18 10 13: Fixed broken link, added graphic and links to related articles

US freedom : 5% of world population, 25% of world prison inmates

The blog entry identified by the following posits that in the US:

With our days as a manufacturing power a wistful memory and the marketing of fraudulent Wall Street “financial products” an infinitely self-replenishing source of national outrage, incarceration may soon become — by default — our leading national industry.

Pro-Libertate Blog

Tuesday, March 24, 2009

Liberty and Law, not “Law and Order”

….To an extent unrivaled in the Western World, and perhaps comparable only to the People’s Republic of China, America’s prison system is populated by non-violent offenders. This is due primarily to that inexhaustible well of policy foolishness known as the “war on drugs,” of course.

Consequences of U.S. Debtors Prison Policies

Consequences of U.S. Debtors Prison Policies

Another significant element in this equation is the use of jails and penitentiaries as “debtor’s prisons” for “deadbeat dads” — divorced fathers driven into intractable financial misery by the federal child support racket.

“A parent [generally a father] whose children are taken away by a family court is only at the beginning of his troubles. The next step comes as he is summoned to court and ordered to pay as much as two-thirds or even more of his income as `child support’ to whomever has been given custody. His wages will immediately be garnished and his name will be entered on a federal register of `delinquents.’ This is even before he has had a chance to become one, though it is also likely that the order will be backdated, so he will already be delinquent as he steps out of the courtroom. If the ordered amount is high enough, and the backdating far enough, he will be an instant felon and subject to immediate arrest.”

Jails and prisons across our land bulge at the seams with men who have been sucked into this vortex. Countless others are on probation, parole, or shackled at the ankle with electronic monitoring devices….(Full Story)


#USDebtorsPrisonPolicies

See also:

Posted in Feminist Jurisprudence, Men's Issues, Social-Destruction Enterprise, The New World Order | Comments Off on US freedom : 5% of world population, 25% of world prison inmates

Oprah is Harpo on Violent Women

Last updated 2018 10 13

Oprah Is Harpo on Violent Women. Oprah Winfrey helps to increase domestic violence in America. By remaining silent, on the truth about violent women, she perpetuates the problem, unwittingly?

She’ll Hit Again

Oprah Winfrey is increasing domestic violence in America. By being Harpo – remaining silent – on the truth about violent women, she unwittingly perpetuates the problem.? Repeatedly excusing women’s culpability and unfairly blaming men only serves to foment this pernicious societal scourge.

On March 19, 2009, Oprah aired an anti-male show about domestic violence (DV), to capitalize on the biggest news story: Rihanna. Oprah holds men totally responsible for both causing and ending DV. Outrageous! Nowhere on her show was mention of all-too-common incidents of female violence such as those involving actress Kelly Bensimon and NFL player Geno Hayes.

Instead, Oprah stridently cautioned her female audience: If he hits, he’ll hit again. Fair enough. Missing from her mantra, though, was: Never hit a man – out of anger, revenge, jealousy, hormone imbalance, or any reason whatsoever! Also absent from Oprah’s show was a reciprocal warning to men: If she hits, she’ll hit again.…(Full Story)


#OprahOnViolentWomen

See also:

Posted in Men's Issues, Propaganda Exposed, Women's Violence | Comments Off on Oprah is Harpo on Violent Women

Barack Obama misandry targets boys

Last updated 2018 10 13

WorldNetDaily

March 13, 2009

By Ilana Mercer

Barack Obama against the boys — Unless there’s been a monstrous misunderstanding, the man is muddled, malevolent, or both.

Barack Obama has just signed “an Executive Order creating the White House Council on Women and Girls. The mission of the Council will be to provide a coordinated federal response to the challenges confronted by women and girls and to ensure that all Cabinet and Cabinet-level agencies consider how their policies and programs impact women and families.”

Under the rubric of this Council, feral, (mostly) female bureaucrats will “ensure that agencies across the federal government, not just a few offices, take into account the particular needs and concerns of women and girls. The Council will begin its work by asking each agency to analyze their current status and ensure that they are focused internally and externally on women.”

Barack, however, has it backward: It is boys, not girls, who lag behind – and have for decades….(Full Story)


#BarackObamaMisandryTargetsBoys

See also:

Posted in Education, Family, Feminism, Health, Men's Issues, Propaganda Exposed, Social-Destruction Enterprise, The New World Order, Women's Violence | Comments Off on Barack Obama misandry targets boys

US Government censors own gender wage gap report

Last updated 2018 10 13

US gov censors own report that debunks the gender wage gap myth.

Not only is the gender wage gap missing, a myth, the report on a study – that the US government commissioned to examine the wage gap and that found it to be missing – went missing as well.

The following two excerpts from a couple of articles illustrate an instance of government censorship of information that has had a major impact on the promotion of pro-female and anti-male labour legislation.

Rather than using the truth to debunk the need for that intended legislation, the US Government pushed through the passage of that anti-male and discriminatory legislation, while at the same time removing all pointers to the report that had already been published prior to any attempts to have the legislation pass. The truth is now hidden, and the legislation that ostensibly but falsely and unjustifiably addresses non-existent inequities in wages and salaries paid to women now has the force of the law.

  1. US Chamber of Commerce

January 28, 2009

Reasons for Wage Disparity – The Missing Report

by Mike Eastman

Earlier this month (before the end of President Bush’s term), the Labor Department released a report called An Analysis of the Reasons for the Disparity in Wages Between Men and Women – it was prepared by a contractor, the CONSAD Research Corporation and included a forward written by the Labor Department.

When the report was released, it was posted on the “highlights” section of the OFCCP’s web site (the OFCCP is part of the Labor Department’s Employment Standards Administration).The link to the file was www.dol.gov/esa/ofccp/Gender_Wage_Gap_Final_Report.pdf but don’t click just yet.

After the change in administration, we noticed that the report has been removed from the Labor Department’s web site. The previous link does not function and other searches on the DOL site have not been successful at finding any reference to the report.This report is very timely – the House has already passed two bills [sorry, but that link, too, no longer functions, and the Internet Archive did not save a copy of the article — WHS], the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act and the Paycheck Fairness Act, dealing with pay equity issues – one of those bills could be signed into law by the end of this week. We are disturbed that the DOL would take this step while Congress is considering these important issues – especially in light of the President’s call for a “new era of openness” in government.

Today, we filed this Freedom of Information Act request to receive an “official” copy of the report in addition to all records related to the Department’s decision to remove the report from its web site. You don’t have to wait for a response though, we fortunately have a saved copy of the analysis, take a look….(Full Story)

  1. Renew America

March 12, 2009

Obama’s first cover-up: the gender wage gap myth

By Carey Roberts

Liberals never tire of convincing persons to believe they are victims in dire need of a government hand-out. But this time it’s a case of outright mendacity aided by the concealment of a high-level government official.

During the Democratic primaries, Hillary Clinton repeatedly made the claim that women suffer from pay discrimination. Barack Obama’s website likewise asserted, “Despite decades of progress, women still make only 77 cents for every dollar a man makes. Throughout his career, Barack Obama and Joe Biden have championed the right of women to receive equal pay for equal work.”

It was House Speaker Nancy Pelosi who engineered the recent passage of the Lilly Ledbetter Act. And just a few weeks ago Rep. George Miller of California made the red-meat assertion that women earn “78 cents for every dollar that is earned by a man doing the same job with the same responsibilities.”

Democrats call it as the “gender wage gap,” but I prefer to think of it as the “scare-the-female-electorate-into-submission” ploy. Claims about sex-based wage discrimination have been repeated so often that many Americans simply accept them as fact. But a recently published – and quickly suppressed – study reveals a different picture.

Titled “An Analysis of Reasons for the Disparity in Wages Between Men and Women,” the report tallies the results of over 50 studies. No one questions the fact that on average, men are paid more than women. But turns out this is an apples-to-oranges comparison.

The paper concludes the 20-cent odd wage difference is not caused by discrimination. Rather it’s women exercising their right to make lifestyle choices. What choices are we talking about?

1. A greater percentage of women chose to work part-time.

2. Women may opt to leave the work force for childbirth, child care, or elder care.

3. Women are often willing to accept a lower paying job in return for family-friendly policies that allow them to have fewer hours, flexible schedules, and a shorter commute.

In addition, women work fewer hours than men. According to an article posted on the Department of Labor website, “Among full-time workers, 24% of the men, compared to 10% of the women, usually worked more than 40 hours per week:” http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/1984/06/art4full.pdf [Aha! Finally a working link to a report —WHS]

And then the fact that men tend to work in occupations that are far more likely to injure, maim, or kill….(Full Story)

The US Government is not the first to engage in such a cover-up. There was a similar cover-up of a government-published study report that debunked the wage gap myth. That was during the early 1990’s, in Canada. The report that was covered up then, after it had originally been published at the website of Statistics Canada, was a study report by Ted Wannell and Nathalie Caron, commissioned by Statistics Canada, “THE GENDER EARNINGS GAP AMONG RECENT POSTSECONDARY GRADUATES, 1984-92” (11F0019MPE No. 68, ISBN: 0-662-22499-X).

Abstract:

This study attempts to compare the earnings of men and women on an equal footing by concentrating on recent postsecondary graduates and using survey data on a number of earnings-related characteristics. The data cover three graduating classes of university and community college students: 1982, 1986 and 1990. These data indicate that the gender earnings gap among graduates has narrowed in recent years. In fact among the most recent class, we found that female university graduates are rewarded slightly better than their male counterparts after controlling for experience, job tenure, education and hours of work. A small gender gap persists among community college graduates: about three-and-a-half percent on an hourly wage basis. For all graduates, the earnings gap tended to increase with age, even after controlling for previous work experience….(Full Story)

Carey Roberts, in his article on the wage-gap myth and on the US Government’s efforts to promote that myth and to keep it alive, marvels that,

Claims about sex-based wage discrimination have been repeated so often that many Americans simply accept them as fact. But a recently published – and quickly suppressed – study reveals a different picture.

Nevertheless, even if such revelations of the truth about such persistent myths (there are many comparable myths, such as the age-old canard about male violence) would not be so extremely and purposely short-lived, there is one aspect of such propaganda that must never be forgotten:

The receptivity of the great masses is very limited, their intelligence is small, but their power of forgetting is enormous. In consequence of these facts, all effective propaganda must be limited to a very few points and must harp on these in slogans until the last member of the public understands what you want him to understand by your slogan….

The function of propaganda is, for example, not to weigh and ponder the rights of different people, but exclusively to emphasize the one right which it has set out to argue for. Its task is not to make an objective study of the truth, in so far as it favors the enemy, and then set it before the masses with academic fairness; its task is to serve our own right, always and unflinchingly.

Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Chapter VI

There it is. The task of successful propaganda “is to serve our own right, always and unflinchingly,” and therefore includes deliberate censorship of the truth.

–Walter


#WageGapMyth

See also:

Posted in Censorship, Men and Women Work, Men's Issues, Propaganda Exposed, The New World Order | Comments Off on US Government censors own gender wage gap report

Intimate Partner Violence a Mutual Dance

Update 2018 10 14: Appended addendum and links to related articles

Intimate Partner Violence a Mutual Dance

news.bbc.co.uk

2009 02 10

‘She’d put cigarettes out on me’

By Jim Reed
Newsbeat reporter

Men in England and Wales aged between 20 and 24 are just as likely to be abused by their partners as women in the same age group. Campaigners claim not enough is being done by the police, social services and the government to tackle the problem. Read one victim’s story….


Addendum 2018 10 11

I was the youngest of seven – three brothers, three sisters.  No one in our family was cruel.  Our mom and my sisters perhaps gave me the wrong idea of what women, in general, are like, but not all women are cruel or abusive.

We had lived in a neighbourhood in which many families had a lot of kids.  I learned at a young age already that girls and women, mothers, wives, daughters and sisters could be cruel and abusive.  Many of them were.

The consequences of female wrath often, even generally, were out of proportion with respect to the perceived (real or not) offences of transgressors (real or not) who were at the receiving end of women’s wrath.  It mattered little whether the perceived transgressor was elderly and feeble (a father or grandfather) or younger and in full possession of his capabilities and faculties (a brother, son or husband).

My closest buddy (people thought we were twins, and we later went to school together) experienced having his considerably older sister, who got angry at him, throw a pot of boiling water at him.  He still has a scarred foot from that, 79 years later.

Every family in the neighbourhood had one or two grandparents living with them.  My impression was that a good third of them, especially the men, were being abused by their daughters, daughter-in-laws, and or wives.  Perhaps that was a contributing factor why almost invariably the older men died before their wives did.  I was too young then to think much about why men died as a rule before their wives.

The motivation for women’s violence was always a mystery to me and appears to be a mystery even for those who made attempts to formally study it.  Still, I came fairly early in my life to the conclusion that the motivation for women’s violence is a mysterious force of nature, as difficult to fathom as the motivation of hens for pecking other hens.

Hens don’t peck just any other hen, but when one of them targets another hen,  many of the other hens in the coup join in to peck the same victim.  When you raise chickens, you get to know that, and you also know that the outcome of henpecking is quite likely fatal.  For that reason it is generally a good idea to take that henpecked hen and make soup from it.

In A Tale of Two Cities, Charles Dickens wrote about the violence of mobs, specifically about the role of women in it, but he was not all that open about that aspect of mob violence.  Friedrich von Schiller, too, wrote about the circumstances of the French Revolution and summarized the violent role that women played in it.  He, too, did not dwell on women’s violence (covered it in four short lines), let alone explain what motivates it:

Beware, when in the cities’ womb
The fire-tinder has accumulated,
The citizenry, breaking its chains,
Frightfully seizes arms to help itself!
Then tears at the ropes of the bell
The uprising, that she clamors howlingly ,
And, only meant to sound in times of peace,
The password gives to violence.

Freedom and Equality! one hears proclaimed,
The peaceful citizen is driven to arms,
The streets are filling, the halls,
The vigilante-bands are moving,
Then women change into hyenas
And make a plaything out of terror,
Though it twitches still, with panthers teeth,
They tear apart the enemy’s heart.
Nothing is holy any longer, loosened
Are all ties of righteousness,
The good gives room to bad,
And all vices freely rule.
Dangerous it is to wake the lion,
Ruinous is the tiger’s tooth,
But the most terrible of all the terrors,
That is the mensch [1] when crazed.
Woe to those, who lend to the eternally-blind
Enlightenment’s heavenly torch!
It does not shine for him, it only can ignite
And puts to ashes towns and lands.

—Friedrich von Schiller
in ‘Song of the Bell‘ (1799)

The motivation for women’s violence, the inhumane aspect of it, remains a mystery, largely unexplored, unexplained, lately even denied (which denial is a necessary expedience related to feminism’s assertion that women are the victims of oppression by the “patriarchy”, notwithstanding all evidence to the contrary).


#WomensViolence

See also:

Posted in Men's Issues, Propaganda Exposed, Women's Violence | 1 Comment

Couple jailed for toddler killing

Last updated 2018 10 18

BBC News, U.K.
2009 02 11

Couple jailed for toddler killing

A mother and her partner have been jailed after being found guilty of killing her two-year-old daughter who had suffered more than 100 injuries.

Zahbeena Navsarka, 21, of Riddings Road, Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, was jailed for nine years for the manslaughter of Sanam Navsarka.

Her partner Subhan Anwar, 21, was jailed for life for murder, with a minimum sentence of 23 years.

Bradford Crown Court heard a metal pole was used to shatter the child’s leg.

The youngster died with fractures to all her limbs….(Full Story)


#ChildMurder

See also:

Posted in Child Murder, Women's Violence | Comments Off on Couple jailed for toddler killing

Corrupt judges sentence kids for cash

Last updated 2018 10 18

Corrupt judges sentence kids for cash! The explanation, prosecutors say, was corruption on the bench.  $2.6 million in payoffs.

Pa. youths jailed for cash?

2 judges accused of scam to profit from sentencing

By Michael Rubinkam and Maryclaire Dale

Associated Press / February 12, 2009

WILKES-BARRE, Pa. – For years, the juvenile court system in Wilkes-Barre operated like a conveyor belt: Youngsters were brought before judges without a lawyer, given hearings that lasted only a minute or two, and then sent off to juvenile prison for months for minor offenses.

The explanation, prosecutors say, was corruption on the bench.

In one of the most shocking cases of courtroom graft on record, two Pennsylvania judges have been charged with taking millions of dollars in kickbacks to send teenagers to two privately run youth detention centers….

Prosecutors say Luzerne County Judges Mark Ciavarella and Michael Conahan took $2.6 million in payoffs to put juvenile offenders in lockups run by PA Child Care LLC and a sister company, Western PA Child Care LLC….(Full Story)

More: Kids for cash scandal (Wikipedia)


#MarkACiavarella #KidsForCash

See also:

Posted in Judiciary | Comments Off on Corrupt judges sentence kids for cash

UNFPA : Family breakdown human rights triumph

Last update 2018 10 13

UNFPA declares family breakdown to be a human rights triumph.

LifeSiteNews
3 February 2009

United Nations Population Fund Leader Says Family Breakdown is a Triumph for Human Rights

By Matthew Cullinan Hoffman

Mexico City – A leader in the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) has declared that the breakdown of traditional families, far from being a “crisis,” is actually a triumph for human rights.

Speaking at a colloquium held last month at Colegio Mexico in Mexico City, UNFPA representative Arie Hoekman denounced the idea that high rates of divorce and out-of-wedlock births represent a social crisis, claiming that they represent instead the triumph of “human rights” against “patriarchy.”….(Full Story)


F4L:  The statement by the UNFPA‘s Arie Hoekman should not come as a surprise to anyone.  It merely illustrates that all along the UNFPA’s goal has been to implement the agenda for the planned destruction of the family.  Even that should not come as a surprise.  Check this:

US Committee on Ways and Means
FC-8 Hearing on Waste, Fraud, and Abuse July 17, 2003

Statement of Bill Wood, Charlotte, North Carolina

A personal submission not on behalf of anyone else and these are my own views.

ROOTS OF THE AMERICAN CULTURE AND COMMUNITY IN DISARRAY

Political leaders, religious leaders, conservatives, families (especially fathers), judges,  and interested lawyers, along with the vast majority of Americans who believe in ideals of family and country must understand that open WAR HAS BEEN DECLARED ON THEM AND THIS COUNTRY.  And it’s coming from many of the institutions that our taxes are funding and supporting!  In terms of financial and human costs this war on America has been the most destructive war in America’s history….(Full Story Sorry, but that link at waysandmean.house.gov no longer functions.  Bill Wood’s testimony is no longer accessible at that website, but the original text of the testimony can be accessed here or at the Internet Archive.)

That has been known in Canada ever since Pierre Elliot Trudeau proved that socialism, communism and feminism are one and the same, when in the 1960s he began the program for imposing the evolution of socialism on the Canadian population.

However, it would not be fair to single out Trudeau for doing his part in bringing about the “slow march through the culture” that Antonio Gramsci had called for, so as to revive and conclude the communist conquest of the world in which the brand of Marxism promoted by the Comintern had failed so miserably.

The consequences of the cultural revolution promoted by those who pursued and still pursue Gramsci’s prescription for social revolution are now endemic in all developed nations.  The statement by the head of the UNFPA, rejoicing that family breakdown is a triumph for human rights, shows that things have progressed so far to that end that it is perfectly alright for non-elected bureaucrats to publicly revel and wallow in the consequences of the world-wide social destruction and chaos they set out, and helped, to create.


#FamilyBreakdown #HumanRightsTriumph

See also:

Posted in Family, Feminism, Propaganda Exposed, The New World Order | Comments Off on UNFPA : Family breakdown human rights triumph

Consequences of Divorce : Longlasting effects on children

As to Consequences of Divorce : Longlasting effects on children, it is an unsubstantiated myth that children are resilient, that their parents’ separation and divorce will not affect them, even be good for them.  Yet, as Stephen Baskerville wrote, the common ‘wisdom’ is that,

…”No good can come from forcing people to remain in loveless marriages, even in the misguided belief that somehow it is better for the children,” runs an editorial in the Daily Herald of Provo, Utah, opposing a mild reform bill recently introduced. “Is it really good for children to be raised in a home by two parents who don’t love each other and who fight all the time but who are forced to stay because of the law?”

These questions are red herrings. Divorce today does not necessarily indicate marital conflict and is less likely to be the last resort for a troubled marriage than a sudden power grab. Most divorces are initiated with little warning and often involve child snatchings. In 25 percent of marriage breakdowns, writes Margaret Brinig of Iowa State University, the man has “no clue” there is a problem until the woman says she wants out. A University of Exeter study found that in over half the cases there was no recollection of major conflict before the separation. “The assumption that parental conflict will cease at divorce is not only invalid,” writes Patricia Morgan; “divorce itself instigates conflict which continues into the post-divorce period.”

Further, as Judith Wallerstein and Sandra Blakeslee found, few children are pleased with divorce, even when severe conflict exists. “Children can be quite content even when their parents’ marriage is profoundly unhappy for one or both partners,” they write. “Only one in ten children in our study experienced relief when their parents divorced. These were mostly older children in families where there had been open violence.” Divorce and separation almost always have a more detrimental effect on children than even high-conflict marriages. “The misery their parents may feel in an unhappy marriage is usually less significant than the changes [the children] have to go through after a divorce,” says Neil Kalter, a University of Michigan psychologist. Surveys of children by Ann Mitchell and J.T. Landis found that most recalled a happy family life before the breakup….«

—Stephen Baskerville, in
THE NO-BLAME GAME: WHY NO-FAULT DIVORCE IS OUR MOST DANGEROUS SOCIAL EXPERIMENT
Crisis, vol. 23, no. 3 (March 2005), pp. 14-20

Comments pertaining to, and excerpts from, the research done by Judith Wallerstein and Sandra Blakeslee:

WHAT ARE THE CONSEQUENCES OF DIVORCE?

A Summary of Some of the Findings in the Book: ‘Second Chances: Men, Women, & Children a Decade After Divorce’ by Judith S. Wallerstein & Sandra Blakeslee (New York: Ticknor & Fields [Houghton Mifflin], 1989)

Quoted from that:

E. One-year Results Contrary to Expectations:

Wallerstein explains that when they began the study they expected that divorce would be a short-term crisis that people soon recovered from:
The study was supposed to last one year, for we believed that normal healthy people would be able to work out their problems following divorce in about one year’s time….Indeed we did not question the commonly held assumption that divorce was a short-lived crisis.

But when we conducted follow-up interviews one year to 18 months later, we found most families still in crisis. Their wounds were wide open. Turmoil and distress had not noticeably subsided. Many adults still felt angry, humiliated, and rejected, and most had not gotten their lives back together. An unexpectedly large number of children were on a downward course. Their symptoms were worse than before. Their behavior at school was worse. Their peer relationships were worse. Our findings were absolutely contradictory
to our expectations (p. xv).

[The five-year results were still troubling.  So were the ten-year and the fifteen-year results, but take a look at what Wayne Grudem quoted and wrote about that. —Walter]

By Wayne Grudem, Ph.D.
Professor of Biblical and Systematic Theology
Trinity Evangelical Divinity School
Deerfield, Illinois
July 31, 1996


#ChildrenOfDivorce

See also:

Posted in Divorce | Leave a comment

‘Science 2.0’ weighs in — Alessandro Strumia’s reputation

Last updated 2018 10 11

‘Science 2.0’ weighs in on the destruction of Alessandro Strumia’s character, motivations, reputation and career prospects.

»Strumia’s slides contain a collection of half-baked claims, coming from his analysis of InSpire data from citations and authorship of articles in theoretical physics. I consider his talk offensive on many levels. It starts by casting the woman discrimination issue in scientific academia as a test of hypothesis of whether the “man-woman” symmetry is explicitly broken (i.e. there is no symmetry) or spontaneously broken (by a difference of treatment) – something that could even raise a smile in a geeky physicist; but the fun ends there.

He uses all sorts of ways, from methodologically questionable to ridiculous, to try and make his point….«

—Tommaso Dorigo,
in “Alessandro Strumia, The Mansplainer
(This is a link to “Strumia’s slides“.)

In paragraph 8 of his commentary, Tommaso Dorigo promises that he “will not comment further Strumia’s discussion, other than noting that [Prof. Alessandro Strumia] heavily relies for his “inference” on the IQ:…” and nevertheless rambles on for another four full paragraphs, for another 370 words.

Still, Tommaso Dorigo presented in his long commentary not a single fact that disproves any of Alessandro Strumia’s claims that there is anti-male discrimination in hiring at CERN or in the science of physics.

Tommaso Dorigo concludes his commentary with “We cannot silence minoritarian views – that would be horribly bad. But we can certainly disallow them from mudding waters and prevent us from taking rational actions.”  There you are, “rational actions” indicates without a doubt that we must pursue political correctness, affirmative action hiring and equality of outcomes.

Could we possibly get into troubled waters by pursuing science with mediocre resources instead of developing them with what had made them great: excellence?  Jonathan Swift, one of the original mansplainers, described long ago what is wrong with the consequences of the diktats of ideology in science, when he had Gulliver recount his observations on ‘scientific’ inquiry in Laputa (Gulliver’s Travels, A Voyage to Laputa, Chapter 5).


#ScientificExcellence #AffirmativeActionHiringInParticleResearch

See also:

Posted in Civil Rights, Education, Men and Women Work | 1 Comment

Facebook censorship ruled unconstitutional — Germany

Update 201 81 09 14: Made addendum , to identify that FB blocked Claudia Kirn

Translation of Zeit Online Article

Re: Facebook Community Standards — Facebook censorship ruled unconstitutional — A landmark decision by the Higher Regional Court in Munich, Germany — Alas, it is as of now a temporary injunction against Facebook.

–Start of translation–

Higher Regional Court Munich [Germany]

Facebook may not remove comments at will

The social network must respect the freedom of expression when deleting contributions. The Higher Regional Court of Munich decision to that end thereby supported the opinion of a female AfD [AfD: Alternative for Germany] politician.

6. September 2018, 19:56 / Source: ZEIT ONLINE, dpa, vk / 85 Comments [in German]

Caption: For Facebook, the same rules apply as for government agencies, decides the OLG Munich [Higher Regional Court Munich].

For Facebook, the same rules apply as for government agencies, decides the OLG Munich [Higher Regional Court Munich].

In its handling of comments, Facebook is bound to the same degree of freedom of expression as state agencies. Thus decided the Higher Regional Court of Munich (OLG) already about a week ago (file number 18 W 1294/18) and issued a temporary injunction. It is therefore not permissible for the network to set a narrower framework for the admissibility of expressions than the state.

The occasion for the hearing was a comment by female AfD politician Heike Themel, which Facebook had deleted with reference to its own community standards. Because of a report on border controls in Austria, Themel had a heated debate with some users of the platform. During that she had been insulted. She had then written to a user who had supported this statement with a “Like”, writing to her, inter alia, “I can no longer argue with you and do you justice. You are unarmed and that would not be particularly fair of me.”

With the deletion of this contribution, Facebook had done injury to its contractual obligation, decided the OLG. The social network is obliged to take into account the rights of all users, in particular the constitutional right to freedom of expression. If Facebook were to be permitted, “based on a ‘virtual house right’ (…) to delete the contribution of a user (…) even if the contribution does not exceed the limits of permissible freedom of expression”, then such an approach would not be compatible with the German constitutional Law.

Inadmissible discrimination

In its terms and conditions, Facebook reserves the right to delete comments “if we believe they violate the statement or our guidelines.” In the opinion of the judges, this provision discriminates against users in an inadmissible manner. After all, the deletion of comments would thereby ultimately be placed at the discretion of the company.

The lawyer Joachim Steinhöfel, who represented the AfD politician in the lawsuit, was satisfied with the decision of the court. He called the temporary injunction “a milestone in the fight for freedom of expression in the social media.”

A spokeswoman for Facebook said that the injunction is currently not yet available to the enterprise: “As soon as we receive it, we will examine it.” Facebook were a platform where people across the world, across borders, can exchange and share content that matters to them. However, this should not be done at the expense of the safety and well-being of others.

–End of Translation–

German-language source of translated article


Translated by W. Schneider (with the help of Google Translate and using https://dict.leo.org/german-english/ for final edits)


Addendum 2018 09 14

2018 09 13, the founder of the German FB discussion forum >Diskussionsgruppe<, Claudia Kirn, was barred from using Facebook. Here is the announcement of that incident of FB censorship:

FB blocked Claudia Kirn, founder of >Dskussionsgruppe<

FB blocked Claudia Kirn, founder of >Diskussionsgruppe<

More…

Translation: “Claudia was obviously blocked by Facebook. The suspicion is close that she was reported. Does the snitch have at least enough ass in his pants? Who reported a group founder?”

Apparently, there is some (non-identified) evidence that Claudia Kirn blocked someone from her discussion forum, because the individual had insulted her in an exchange of opinions.

The subsequent discussion involves much speculation, but no evidence at all, on who the culprit was.

The interesting aspect of that discussion is that much of it revolves around what and what not to do to avoid violations of Facebook’s nebulous community standards. Still, even though the recent ruling by the Higher Regional Court of Munich, prohibiting Facebook from blocking any of its subscriber due to its community standards that do not comply with what applies in respect to standards of conduct for government agencies, Facebook apparently ignored the ruling of the Court.

That was pointed out in the referenced discussion thread, but not one of the participants appeared to pay any attention to the likelihood that the blocking by FB of Claudia Kirn was possibly a breach of the law, in violation of the recent court order by the Higher Regional Court of Munich.


#InternetCensorship

See also:

Posted in Censorship | 1 Comment

Equality of Outcomes destroys Freedom

Update 2018 09 20

Efforts to bring about equality of outcomes destroy freedom, as explained in this:

“A society that puts equality—in the sense of equality of outcome—ahead of freedom will end up with neither equality nor freedom. The use of force to achieve equality will destroy freedom, and the force, introduced for good purposes, will end up in the hands of people who use it to promote their own interests.”

—Milton and Rose Friedman, in Free to Choose: A Personal Statement

Take the example of article 15 of The Constitution of India.  It addresses the “Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth.”  Article 15 of The Constitution of India states:

(1) The State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them.
(2) No citizen shall, on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them, be subject to any disability, liability, restriction or condition with regard to—

(a) access to shops, public restaurants, hotels and places of public entertainment; or
(b) the use of wells, tanks, bathing ghats, roads and places of public resort maintained wholly or partly out of State funds or dedicated to the use of the general public.

That is wonderful, but clause 3 of article 15 appears to contradict clause 1 and 2 of article 15.  Is that contradiction not the legal foundation for the anti-male discrimination that concerns Indian men and mens rights activists? Read and weep:

(3) Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any special provision for women and children.

So very few words explain so much! Furthermore, consider what The Constitution of India does not say about discrimination against men. It does not identify that there must be any limits to the extent of discrimination against Indian men authorized by clause 3 of article 15.

By making it a principle of the law to allow special provisions for women and children, The Constitution of India created a new caste for men that is lower than that of the Dalits. What kind of men were those that helped to bring that upon Indian men?

Clause 3 of article 15 of The Constitution of India set a precedent for subsequently adding clause 4 and 5, which intensified the constitutional promotion of the equality of outcomes.

1[(4) Nothing in this article or in clause (2) of article 29 shall prevent the State from making any special provision for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes.]
2[(5) Nothing in this article or in sub-clause (g) of clause (1) of article 19 shall prevent the State from making any special provision, by law, for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or for the Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes in so far as such special provisions relate to their admission to educational institutions including private educational institutions, whether aided or unaided by the State, other than the minority educational institutions referred to in clause (1) of article 30.]
___________
1Added by the Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951, s. 2.
2Ins. by the Constitution (Ninety-third Amendment) Act, 2005, s. 2 (w.e.f. 20-1-2006).


In his ode Song of the Bell (1799), Friedrich von Schiller stated this about freedom and equality:

Beware, when in the cities’ womb
The fire-tinder has accumulated,
The citizenry, breaking its chains,
Frightfully seizes arms to help itself!
Then tears at the ropes of the bell
The uprising, that she clamors howlingly,
And, only meant to sound in times of peace,
The password gives to violence.

Freedom and Equality! one hears proclaimed,
The peaceful citizen is driven to arms,
The streets are filling, the halls,
The vigilante-bands are moving,
Then women change into hyenas
And make a plaything out of terror,
Though it twitches still, with panthers teeth,
They tear apart the enemy’s heart.
Nothing is holy any longer, loosened
Are all ties of righteousness,
The good gives room to bad,
And all vices freely rule.
Dangerous it is to wake the lion,
Ruinous is the tiger’s tooth,
But the most terrible of all the terrors,
That is the mensch [1] when crazed.
Woe to those, who lend to the eternally-blind
Enlightenment’s heavenly torch!
It does not shine for him, it only can ignite
And puts to ashes towns and lands.

More….


#ConstitutionOfIndiaArticle15

See also:

Posted in Civil Rights, Feminism, Feminist Jurisprudence, Men's Issues | 1 Comment

Male circumcision — multibillion dollar business

Male circumcision is being done a lot. It is a good source of income for the medical industry and will continue to be done for profit as long as profits doing the procedure can be made. Male circumcision is a multi-billion-dollar enterprise.

Circumcision makes for happy baby boys?

Circumcision makes for happy baby boys?

Although circumcision is expensive, and even though that is good for the medical industry, one thing is certain, the ads that promote the procedure often show photos of smiling baby boys. The impression one is being left with by those photos is that circumcision makes baby boys happy.

Circumcision make baby boys happy

Circumcision makes baby boys happy?

  • United States

Whether it is covered by health insurance or not,

“…circumcision for an older child or adult male typically costs $800-$3,000 or more. For example, Gentle Circumcision[8] charges $850 for children 1 to 17 years, $1,500 for adults if local anesthesia is used and $3,000 for adults if general anesthesia is used. Harold Reed, M.D.[9] charges $250 for an initial consultation and $1,750 for the surgery, including doctor fee, anesthesia and facility fee, for a total of $2,000. And The Circumcision Center[10] in Georgia charges $2,500 if the foreskin is retractable and $3,000 if the foreskin is not retractable.” More….

That is what doctors and co-beneficiaries in the U.S. receive for a single procedure. It is not clear whether those costs include hospital charges. If there are any complications from the procedure, the costs can escalate far higher than $3,000.

The costs in Canada are, for example, in

  • Toronto

Pricing for Infant Circumcision: The cost for circumcising a baby under 4 weeks of age is $299 plus applicable taxes.

The price increases with age, and we offer procedures for boys up to 1 year old, as well as for adult men.

Pricing for Adult Circumcision: The cost for adult circumcision at our Toronto clinic is $1697.
More….

  • Alberta

According to various statements at this discussion thread, costs to parents for single circumcisions of baby boys range from $200 to $600. That is apparently what parents pay. The contribution by a health insurance plan would be over and above that. More….

  • Canada

Good luck with getting accurate information on the cost of circumcision. Look at this information provided by a professional:

“….The procedure is covered when it is medically indicated. Otherwise it is considered an elective procedure. It can be performed by a qualified pediatrician or urologist. It can be done in hospital or a clinic. It also can be done by a trained non-physician for ritualistic circumcisions.

The cost of the procedure varies based on who does it and where it is performed (typically more expensive in a hospital than a clinic). You are right that the typical cost is approximately $400 [quite likely not including hospital costs — Walter] or more [when including hospital costs —Walter]. Speak with your family doctor or pediatrician about who is qualified in your area and whether there might be a sliding scale for payment based on your personal circumstances.

CIRCUMCISION RATES DECREASING:
Number of infants circumcised in Canadian hospitals in 1995-1996: 35,731
Number of infants circumcised in Canadian hospitals in 2008-2009: 13,157

– Canadian Institute for Health Information
Published in May, 2011.”
More….

Circumcision surgical procedure not without risk

This Wikipedia article on the circumcision surgical procedure (there is a fairly large variety of them) goes into some detail on the risk of circumcision.

Circumcision

Circumcision

“Complications may include bleedinginfection, and too little or too much tissue removal.[3] Deaths are rare.[4][3] After the newborn period, circumcision has a higher risk of complications, especially bleeding and anesthetic complications.[5]” Wikipedia article, second paragraph in Introduction

“The American Academy of Pediatrics reviewed one study of 1,000 newborn Gomco circumcisions in a hospital setting in Saudi Arabia and rated it “fair evidence.” The study found an overall complication rate of 1.9%. Bleeding occurred in 0.6% of cases, infection in 0.4%, and insufficient foreskin removed in 0.3%.[5]” Wikipedia article, Gomco Clamp

The Wikipedia article on circumcision describes seven more surgical instruments and “in situ” devices, whose risks range from that “the glans can be pulled into the slit and crushed or partially severed.[2]” (resulting in damage awards of more than ten million dollars) to a variety of consequences and severity in up to 5% of procedures.

A consolation offered by the article is, as quoted above, that “Deaths are rare.” That means that deaths due to circumcisions are not unheard of.

All of that of course helps to drive up the costs of health care services and health insurance.  It is extremely doubtful that the controversial health benefits of circumcision are of primary concern in the promotion of and demand for the procedure.

General context of the history and social traditions of circumcision

Wikipedia does of course have an article on that.  That article does not delve much into the discriminatory circumstances of circumcision (re: male vs. female circumcision), other than to state in its first line: “This article is about male circumcision. For female circumcision, see Female genital mutilation.”

A much more informative and far more exhaustive exploration of that subject is contained in this:

The practice of female circumcision or infibulation – otherwise known by such emotive and value-laden neologisms as ‘female genital mutilation’ and ‘female genital cutting[1] – is unlawful throughout the West and indeed most of the world.

“Surveying patterns of genital mutilation cross-culturally, two findings become very clear. First, male genital mutilation is far more commonly practised cross-culturally than is female genital mutilation; and, second, the forms male genital mutilation has taken, and continues to take, among some pre-modern and ‘primitive’ peoples are at least as brutal as any form of genital mutilation to which females have been subjected.”

Throughout the West, the practice is opposed across the entirety of the mainstream political spectrum, from the nationalist and anti-Islamic ‘far-rightwho associate the practice with African and Islamic third-world barbarism, to the feminist-infested far-left, who associate the practice with the alleged ‘patriarchal oppression of women’ in traditional societies.

In contrast, however, male circumcision is widely tolerated, entirely lawful and indeed widely practiced even within the borders of liberal democratic Western polities.

Indeed, in the USA, as of 2013, a majority of new-born boys are still circumcised.

In contrast to the high profile and widely supported campaigns to eradicate female circumcision worldwide, opposition to male circumcision is decidedly marginal and muted.

Indeed, such opposition as does exist seems to be largely confined a marginal fringe, composed largely of (1) anti-religious secularists, who associate the practice with outdated superstition and religious barbarism; (2) anti-Semites, who associate the practice with the allegedly unique barbarism and cruelty of the Jews; and finally, (3) Men’s Rights Activists, who see the practice as an example of how society tolerates and sanctions violence against the male body…. (much more)

—”The Many Manifestations of Male Genital Mutilation: From Circumcision to Sub-Incision and Castration
by “VEL – The Contemporary Heretic”


#MaleCircumcision

See also:

Posted in Health | Leave a comment

Men are worthless — pity mothers

Men are worthless — pity mothers is not an odd statement, regarding the discovery of the body of a dead soldier, just a boy, after it had been covered by ice for almost 100 years. It is a common reaction, when observers express their sadness caused by the loss of lives, not in relation to the fallen boy soldiers but to the pain that the mothers of the boys who died must have felt.

“Dr Nicolis, who watched the autopsy of the most recent bodies, told MailOnline: ‘It was very emotional. The first moment I looked at the boy I thought about his mother, who would have seen him for the last time and never heard from her young son again.'”

It is speculation that their mothers may have mourned on account of the uncertainty over having lost their sons.  The pain felt by the fathers of the fallen doesn’t matter, I guess, although that is speculation, too, although with far greater conviction.  After all, it’s not just that men don’t matter, people don’t want them to matter.  To deny that fathers may feel pain over the loss of their sons makes it certain.

What are such speculations based on? Do the pains of the boys who died not matter? Boys will be boys, and as they are predestined to die painful deaths, no need to mention that they had been the primary victims, that they had suffered? Fathers will be fathers, and they don’t matter, as they feel no pain when they die and, anyway, they are incapable of mourning the losses of their sons?

Angry Harry had a pretty good take on that.

Warriors of the White War emerge from their frozen tomb

Almost 100 years after losing their lives in ferocious First World War battle, melting ice reveals the bodies of the fallen.

Frozen in time: Mummified remains of two teenage Austrian soldiers were found in the Presena Glacier in 2012. Dr Franco Nicolis, Director of the Office of Archaeological Heritage in Trentino, blamed global warming
My note: Glacier ice flows downhill. How fast it flows depends on a number of things, one of which is that a warm climate may cause more snow to fall on a given glacier. —WHS

“Ah yes. Those were the days when the women had it worse.

… so much so, apparently, that while tens of thousands of British men were being killed on the battlefields every month, the Suffragettes were disrupting the British war effort by smashing windows, firebombing homes and engaging in acts of civil disobedience because, apparently, women were being hard done by compared to men.

And they were also handing out white feathers, signifying cowardice, to men who were not wearing military uniforms.” —Angry Harry

(Also see AH’s Men Are Worthless.)

This is what Hillary Clinton expressed about that men are worthless:

“Women have always been the primary victims of war. Women lose their husbands, their fathers, their sons in combat. Women often have to flee from the only homes they have ever known. Women are often the refugees from conflict and sometimes, more frequently in today’s warfare, victims. Women are often left with the responsibility, alone, of raising the children.” — Hillary Clinton, in a speech at the First Ladies’ Conference on Domestic Violence, San Salvador, El Salvador, November 17, 1998

The point made by Hillary Clinton, namely that men are worthless (or not worth enough), was made even more forcefully by Louise Arbour, former Canadian Supreme Court Justice.  She was then involved in the persecution of Bosnian war criminals at the International War Crimes Tribunal in The Hague.  She commented on the mass murder of Croatian men:

“My mental image of a mass grave was that it would be more of a trench, where the bodies would be lined up almost in file,” she recalled last week. “But these bodies were thrown together indiscriminately in a hole. Then I noticed their clothes. They were young men, and the first thing I thought about was their mothers.” Arbour is a mother of three herself, although “it would be too corny, too sentimental, to suggest that you go back to work suddenly fired up. But it made the tragedy very human, and that’s not something you get here in the office every day. I watched the bodies come out of the ground and it was like they were coming alive again. They were demanding to be identified. They were demanding,” she said, and there was not even a hint of sentimentality in her voice, “that their mothers be told.” (Full Story —2018 08 13: The link is now broken.)

There you have it, from an ‘impartial’ source, Louise Arbour, former Canadian Supreme Court Justice, involved in the persecution of Bosnian war criminals at the International War Crimes Tribunal in The Hague: men are worthless.


#MenAreWorthless

See also:

Posted in Men's Issues | Comments Off on Men are worthless — pity mothers

Misattributed paternity in non-contested paternity cases ubiquitous

Misattributed paternity in non-contested paternity cases is ubiquitous, not as rare as often claimed (about one in a 100) but more likely about one in ten.

Evidence for the scale of surprising paternity

What is the evidence that it exists, and what does the evidence say about its scale?

A good indication that it exists is the disquiet about paternity tests! Those who criticise the availability of these tests do so because they have no doubt that a proportion of tests will bear bad tidings. Here are items from various sources, in various years, and in various countries. This material suggests that about 1 in 10 children have surprising paternity….
__________
Source: “Knowledge is bliss” : Towards a society without paternity surprises, by
Barry Pearson, 11th September 2002

“1 in 10 children have surprising paternity”? Surprising for the falsely alleged dads, but not so likely surprising for the baby mamas. After all, it is not very conceivable that the baby mamas did not notice how, when, where and by whom they became pregnant.

We frequently have men contacting us about issues relating to problems they encounter with child visitation rights, child support payments, separation and divorce.  We routinely tell such men that, before they invest a good portion of the rest of their lives and life earnings into fighting for their rights, they must ensure that they are the biological fathers of the child(ren) involved.

The usual reaction is that there is no problem with the issue of their paternity, upon which we explain to them that they need to make certain through a DNA test for paternity, so that they will know, instead of merely believing that they are the natural fathers of the children involved. There are very practical and compelling reasons that they must make sure. Consider:

Interestingly, maternal care for offspring is universal throughout mammalian order. Indeed, the very word “mammal” is derived from the name of the mammary glands, which represent the key vehicle of this care in most mammals. In contrast,paternal care is the rare exception rather than the rule even in mammals. Moreover, even in those few cases where it does occur, it is invariably of a lesser magnitude than the care provided by mothers. One reason is probably the inevitable uncertainty regarding the true paternity of any putative offspring.[*] A father can never be sure that he is indeed ensuring the passage of his “selfish genes” into the next generation, or those of another man instead.
_________
* Men are more likely than women to perceive that a child resembles them.
“Parental Investment and Resemblance: Replications, Refinements, and
Revisions” by Anthony A. Volk, Department of Child And Youth Studies, Brock University, St. Catharines, Ontario, Canada, L2S 3A1 Email: tvolk@brocku.ca
Vernon L. Quinsey, Department of Psychology, Queen’s University, Ontario, Canada
_______
Source of quoted text: “Unpaid Labour or Overpaid Laziness: Why Housework in Your Own House Isn’t Really Work” at Men’s Rights Review, October 30, 2015

Consequences of misattributed paternity

Misattributed paternity is virtually always outright paternity fraud, “theft on a grand scale”.

Is Caring for Your own Children ‘Unpaid’ or ‘Overpaid’?

While wives and ex-wives typically receive recompense for the housework they perform from their husbands, ex-husbands and partners, mothers also receive payments for the childcare they perform even if they are single and were never married to the child’s father. These payments come in two forms:

1) Child maintenance payments;
2) Welfare payments.

The obligation on the biological father to pay maintenance for his offspring is imposed despite the fact that, as we have seen, the biological father is denied any say over whether he wished to be a father in the first place.

Similarly the obligation on the taxpayer to support single mothers and their offspring is imposed despite the fact that taxpayers and the state are similarly denied any say over the decision whether to abort the child or carry it to term.

In both cases, it is, in practice, overwhelmingly men who end up footing the bill and women who end up benefiting.

In the case of maintenance, the men in question are usual fathers, who are obliged to pay maintenance despite being denied both the decision whether to have children in the first place and, in many cases, access to and custody of their children due to discrimination by the family courts.[49] (In some cases though non-biological fathers – victims of so-called ‘paternity fraud’ [*]– are also obliged to pay maintenance for the rearing of children who are, in truth, no biological relation to them, and are then, in many jurisdictions, denied any legal remedy despite being the victims of theft on a grand scale.)

In the case of welfare payments to single women, it is still mostly men who end up footing the bill. The reason for this is that it is men who pay most of the taxes. The reason men pay most of the taxes is because they earn most of the money and the reason they earn most of the money is because they work longer hours, for a greater proportion of their lives and in more dangerous and arduous occupations than do women.[50]

This latter arrangement (welfare payments to single mothers) is an example of what Warren Farrell describes in The Myth of Male Power (which I have reviewed here) as “Government as a Substitute Husband”.[51] Instead of being financially supported by a husband, single mothers instead look to the government to play the role of husband.

________
* “Ned Holstein and Glenn Sacks: Bill would give ‘duped dads’ some fairness under the law” Los Angeles Daily News, June 1, 2011 at 12:00 am | UPDATED: August 28, 2017 at 9:34 am

_______
Source of quoted text: “Unpaid Labour or Overpaid Laziness: Why Housework in Your Own House Isn’t Really Work” at Men’s Rights Review, October 30, 2015

Ensuring paternity certainty

…Pierre van den Berghe reports:

Male slaves were frequently castrated in Muslim societies, sometimes under such brutal conditions that 80 to 90% died of the operation.[44]

In a sense, those who survived were the lucky ones.

Originally, it seems, eunuchs were favoured for the purpose of guarding the harems of rulers and other powerful individuals and hence ensure the paternity certainty of such individuals.[45] [*]
__________
* “Whom Are Newborn Babies Said to Resemble?”
Article in Ethology and Sociobiology 3(2):69-78 · December 1982
_________
Source of quoted text: “The Many Manifestations of Male Genital Mutilation: From Circumcision to Sub-Incision and Castration”

There you have it. The crime of misattributed paternity (a.k.a. paternity fraud) is not to be taken lightly, neither by society nor by the specific targets of the fraud.


#PaternityFraud

See also:

Posted in Paternity Fraud | 2 Comments

Facebook locked me out

I guess, it had to happen, sooner or later.  Facebook locked me out.  Here is what they told me about why.  They told me nothing other than what is in the following:

Facebook's community standards are wrong.

Facebook’s ‘Community Standards’: The truth violates FB’s standards on hate speech

That is downright Orwellian.  At any rate, without Facebook giving me any warning, Facebook locked me out.  I can no longer log in.  All that happens is that I get the notification shown above.  It took only seconds after I had posted my response to Lorne Winsor, and I was locked out.

I supposedly have a way of telling Facebook that I am not happy about what they did to me, mainly because their “community standards” do not comply with Canadian laws.  I told them that. I’ll see what happens.

»»»
Update, eleven hours later:
I noticed that FB had relented and permits me to log in to FB again, but FB had removed my response to Lorne Winsor from my timeline. FB censorship is still alive and well.  It’s just that FB reduced the penalty they had imposed for transgressing their Orwellian community standards.

According to FB, I have been judged guilty of promoting hate speech.
«««

I have had enough of FB.  If they restore my access, fine (provided they apologize to me).  If they don’t, they can go and drown themselves.  I was happy before FB.  I will be happy again without FB.  I will not let FB decide whether anyone may or may not abide by Canadian laws. There is no way I will let FB constrain my lawful freedom of speech.

As to Facebook’s presumptuous assertion that  “Only you can see this post because it goes against our standards on hate speech.”, they are obviously wrong about that, too.

I’ll now be able to devote more time to sprucing up my blog, dads&things.  It needs a lot more work that I will now have more time doing.

—Walter, a legal immigrant (1962) and legally a Canadian citizen since 1967 (when people wanting to become Canadian still had to comply with Canadian laws; and they still must today, Facebook or not)

It is not a good thing that a large corporation without a legislated mandate and with little control by democratically elected legislators through any regulatory agencies has the enormous extent of power to influence, control and steer what billions of people in the world will think and talk about in their everyday activities. Such power vastly exceeds that of Big Brother described by George Orwell in ‘1984’.


#FacebookLockedMeOut #FacebookCensorship

See also:

Posted in Censorship | 3 Comments

dads&things – search results relating to keywords

dads&things – Search results differ, depending on the source of the data. Take the example of dads&things and what Alexa tells about search results in relation to respective frequencies of searches on specific keywords.

@ Alexa tells me this:

ALexa Keyword list for searches 2018

Alexa Keyword list for searches 2018

FreeFind, the search engine installed and accessible on each page of dads&things tells me:

Keyword list for searches 2018 06 21 to 2018 06 28
Keyword Frequency
incest 5
Silverstein reports that sexual fantasies about or desires for their fathers are common childhood 5
Down syndrome 4
Eco-feminism 2
“down syndrome” 1
“Let me review some of the collateral damage from a promiscuous lifestyle of so-called ‘free’ love.” 1
#childrenshortage 1
( “Let me review some of the collateral damage from a promiscuous lifestyle of so-called ‘free’ love.”) AND (“Let me review some of the collateral damage from a promiscuous lifestyle of so-called ‘free’ love.”) 1
Bair 1
canty 1
deadly children shortage 1
Erin Pizzey Canada “grass roots” 1
feminis? You want feminism? 1
Janice Shaw Crouse, Ph.D. BIO Introduction It is accepted fact that “the truth will set us free.” “It is accepted fact that “the truth will set us free.”” 1
Judicial bias 1
leesport 1
Link Byfield 1
Many Elderly 1
partial birth abortion 1
quotes bork 1
rape 1
raped men 1
socialism thatcher 1
too many elderly 1
transgender 1
women not to be jailed 1

Take a guess which table of keywords is more useful.

Posted in Web Statistics | Comments Off on dads&things – search results relating to keywords

Internet censorship affects all, censors and censored

Internet censorship concerns all Internet users, those who engage in it and impose it, and those who suffer its consequences.  Take the example of PragerU:

Internet censorship forces contortions: Marisssa Streit is not the messenger. James Damore is.

Obfuscating the identity of the messenger

The link behind that image leads to a vigorous Facebook discussion of Internet censorship. PragerU used the image to lead to a link to a YouTube video, via this:

Internet censorsip motivates efforts to circumvent censorship

A consequence of Google censorship and political correctness

You may wonder why that video on the consequences of Google censorship contains nothing that has anything to do with Marissa Streit. The reason, I speculate, is fairly simple. The announcement of the video could declare who is delivering its message.  That would have caused a problem. You would most likely not be able to watch the video on YouTube.  That is what the video is about.  It has James Damore relate some of the experiences he made when he bucked Google’s censorship agenda.  He had advised that the sort of censorship Google promotes is counter-productive, that it hurts the advancement of women and women’s rights, within the Google corporation.  It is heresy for a Google employee to express such thoughts.  That is even though James Damore’s advice was merely for corporate consideration and discussion.

James Damore lost his job with Google on account of expressing those opinions. His peers and superiors deemed them to be politically incorrect.

My experiences with Internet censorship

Much of my time, when writing anything that requires promoting on FB, Twitter and on my website and blog, is spent in determining ways by which to circumvent or avoid censorship.  That is, algorithms that the providers of search engines and social media design and apply in exercising their ever tightening censorship of free thought.

I have no way to determine how successful I am with my efforts, except that others are no more successful than I am. YouTube censored dozens of PragerU’s videos. At least as of now, Google has not blocked any of my articles or blog postings. Perhaps I should be happy about that, but I wonder.

Shadow banning

Facebook tried to shadow ban some of my comments.  Does Google shadow ban me and my web pages?

Shadow banning (also called stealth banningghost banning or comment ghosting[1]) is the act of blocking a user or their content from an online community such that the user does not realize that they have been banned.

By making a user’s contributions invisible or less prominent to other members of the service, the hope is that in the absence of reactions to their comments, the problematic user will become bored or frustrated and leave the site.[1][2]

 — Wikipedia

Shadow banning is used by providers of social media.  Facebook used it a number of times. That is, I detected it in a few instances I found, with comments I had posted to Facebook and that vanished from discussion forums. Members of those discussion forums never saw them.

The low website rankings assigned by Google to politically incorrect websites is essentially a form of shadow banning as well.  Low website rankings condemn politically incorrect web pages to the nether regions of search-return listings. Low rankings are being assigned by web crawler services, such as Alexa.com, and there is a rub.  Alexa.com is being controlled by Google. All search engine providers who subscribe to Alexa.com for the rankings of entries on search returns listings are being affected by what Google determines makes popular web pages.  Add to that another handicap, namely the censorship algorithms that Google employs when anyone uses their search engine.

Identical searches produce different results with different search engines

There are substantial differences in the outcomes of identical searches when using different search engines searching for politically incorrect topics.. The problem for search engine users is that they have no way of knowing what the rules are for measuring degrees of political incorrectness.  They do not know what sort of standards are being used for measuring that.  A search engine user knows only one ting in that regard. When searching for specific topics or subjects, identical searches cause different results from search engine to search engine.  Here is an example:

Consider the search results for site-specific searches (at fathersforlife.org) for the term fatherlessness, using various search engines:

Websites that mention the search term often and on many web pages should obviously rank high on a given search-return list. With respect to the term fatherlessness, the website of Fathers for Life should always be listed as one of the first few entries on such a list.  If there are many websites that use the term fatherlessness, then the list of entries on the search return list should be long.

  • Freefind: #2 of 690 entries on the list of results. More…
  • Duck Duck Go: #2 of 178 entries on the list of results. More…
  • Bing: #3 of 813 entries on the list of results. More…
  • Ask: #111 of 129 entries on the list of results; More…
  • Google: #202 out of 297 entries on the list of results. More…

Those results are discussed here.

SEO (Search Engine Optimization)

Close to a 1000 of my blog postings needed improvements to meet requirements for search engine optimization (SEO). For the past few months I put much effort into doing that. About 80 percent of that is complete. Still, I don’t have the slightest reason to believe that the effort is doing much at all to improve the search engine ranking for my blog.

That does not mean that I am giving up on making the effort. I like that it gives a more professional quality to my existing blog postings and the ones I am adding as time goes by.

My website and blog receive a fair amount of traffic. That is primarily on account of a large number of websites linking in.  It is not because of a large amount of traffic directed by search engines to my Internet domains. Mind you, that is not necessarily all bad.

Typically, for search-engine directed traffic, the bounce rate is high (75.20%), the daily page views per visitor are low (1.5), and the average time per visit is low (2:58).  The vast majority of traffic coming to my two domains of concern (http://fathersforlife.org and http://blog.fathersforlife.org) is the result of visitors coming through direct links. The average quality of those visits is much better: the bounce rate is low (12.10%), the daily page views per visitor high (20.0), and the average time per visit is high as well (82:11). That is what counts when trying to get information and ideas to people. An hour and 22 minutes of reading per average visit leaves a lot of impressions.

In the absence of search engine censorship of my website and blog, about 60% of the traffic coming to it would be directed by search engines to my Internet domains. Instead, no more than 4.4% of traffic to my website and blog is being directed there through search engines. A few months ago only 3.2% of traffic to the website and blog came through search engines. Still, “the improvement” in search-engine-directed traffic to my domain is imperceptible. (Update 2018 07 15: Alexa tells me today that the percentage of traffic that comes from a search engine dropped 56% during the past three months and is now at 1.9%.  It seems that Google and Alexa are punishing me for doing search engine optimization.)

Relative traffic rank for fathersforlife.org

Relative traffic rank for fathersforlife.org
Source: Alexa.com

The figure of 4.4% of all website traffic directed through search engines is a relatively large improvement. (Update 2018 07 15: That was a month ago.  Today the figure is down to 1.9 percent.) In absolute terms it isn’t. When a large percentage of visitors is directed through a search engine to a given website, many bounces (visits that last only a few seconds) happen. Still, it also causes a larger number of visitors to return (time and again, one hopes). Thereby, a high percentage helps to add to a steadily growing volume of traffic.

It is doubtful that Google will ever permit that portion of the traffic to climb back to where it once was, around 60%.  At that time (in 2007), the website had 1.5 million annual visits.  Now it has considerably fewer annual visitors.  Its rank has fallen from 270,000th (in 2007) to 650,000th place (in 2018) in the world.  That is in spite of the quality of articles having steadily improved since then. It happened even though I spent a very large amount of time and effort during the last 12 months to improve the site for search engine optimization (SEO).

So, I will muddle on with my SEO efforts, for my own satisfaction, and just to see what Google will do next.

Aspects of the impact of Internet censorship

The tale of my experiences of Internet censorship over the years can use a bit of rounding out.  Here is a link to a list of more than eighty commentaries I wrote and published about various instances of censorship (the first or second item happens to be in German, but I think that is the only German-language item on the list): More…

If nothing else, those commentaries provide insight into the enormous scope of the impact of censorship, just from the perspective of a single individual.

Many people feel that Google or Facebook have the right to censor. I wonder about that. The services of search engine providers and providers of the social media depend on the good faith of their clients.  Their clients should have the right to exercise their right to freedom of expression, but not only that. Others are a bit more passive in the universal exchange of information.  They primarily search for information, to read or study it.  They have the right to freedom of access to information. Unfortunately, censorship affects the providers and the users of information, the censored as well as the censors.

Those consideration should take into account. There is the good faith of the clients who trust that a search engine provider will find what they look for, when it can be found. They permit providers of search engines and social media to derive vast fortunes from their mutual presence on the Internet. The absence of censorship will stil permit thoose fortunes to be made.

Internet censorship requires other considerations. Not the least is that, going by my experiences, censorship consumes vast amounts of time, effort and money. For example, a large division of Google (employing about 2,000, I understand) designs and applies search algorithms. Many of those algorithms cater to censorship. Search engine clients provide and use information. Providers of search engines and social media derive their incomes from that.  Censorship causes those clients to suffer not only loss of opportunity but often harm. That is at least due to trying to overcome the consequences of censorship. Merely the effort to understand that a specific instant of censorship is taking place takes time. To assess its significance takes more time and effort.  To try to overcome the obstacle of censorship takes more time yet.

Conclusion – Internet censorship happens and is not good.

Internet censorship forced me to spend thousands of hours of work over the years. I am only one of billions of people who are – some more, some less – similarly affected by Internet censorship.

It is not a good thing that a large corporation without a legislated mandate and with little control by democratically elected legislators through any regulatory agencies has the enormous extent of power to influence, control and steer what billions of people in the world must think and talk about in their everyday activities. Such power vastly exceeds that of Big Brother described by George Orwell in ‘1984’.


#InternetCensorship

See also:

Posted in Censorship | Tagged , , | 1 Comment