June 30, 2007 by Walter Schneider.

Language is applied mathematics. The ability to use a language properly is a prerequisite to correct logical reasoning. Logic is a branch of mathematics. The word logic is rooted in Greek and means: speech, the word, reason. Logic cannot be used correctly by anyone who does not have a full command of the English or his own language, not so much with respect to correct spelling, but most definitely with respect to using correct grammar and correct sentence structure.

It seems to me that habitual sloppiness in writing and speaking reflects sloppy thinking. Sloppy thinking leads to faulty logic and to wrong decisions, whether that is in computers, in the human mind or in societies in general.

Unfortunately, the importance of logic in everyday life is no longer being taught. The feminists (don’t forget that feminists come in both sexes) usurped the design, control and administration of the education system. Their control of the education system is absolute. Their logic is flawed. The feminists have nothing but disdain for logic. They replaced logic with feelings and with “women’s way of knowing.” They justified doing so by judging logic to be bad, by claiming that logic is patriarchal linear thinking and therefore needs to be eradicated. The ability to think logically is being deliberately deconstructed through teaching students bad and insufficient language skills, by letting students who have less or none of the necessary language skills pass to the next grade and by letting even illiterate students graduate.

The feminists are doing that primarily by dumbing-down the curriculum, first and foremost by deliberately creating the lack of the ability to think logically, through teaching students inferior language skills. The feminists cannot entirely be blamed for engaging on that course of action. The foundations for that were laid in the 1930s by liberals who launched the concept of child-centered learning. The feminists did nothing more than to gain absolute control of the education system and to expand on and to accelerate the damage caused by the concept of child-centered learning. Thereby the education system has become a feminist tool used in the systematic deconstruction of society.

It is a sad state of affairs that boys have become the primary target of the dumbed-down education system, but the reality of our brave-new feminist world order is that, without the acquisition of proper language skills, mathematical know-how and the skill of logical thinking can for the majority of students at best only be inferior products of the curriculum.

If we wish to have influence in the process of changing the world for the better, then we must think logically and make correct decisions. We also need to be able to convince people, so as to get them to help us.

We will not convince anyone by using faulty logic or by using poor and sub-standard language skills that will at best convince people that we, if we don’t care enough to use proper language, will not likely have the ability to be right. At worst, men’s-rights activists who fail to lead by example and use good and correct language will be considered to possess sub-normal intelligence and be quite possibly relegated to the status of being sub-human. Thus we would play into the hands of the redfems, whose claims about men are exactly that women are good and men are bad, that women can do everything that men can do and do it better, that therefore men are sub-human, not only that, but that men are beasts with a sub-normal level of intelligence.

Granted, not everyone can reach top quality of writing, and many people write far better than some of us who write well. However, all of us must at least try to write well and to write logically correct. If we don’t, then people will think that we have no right to complain about anything because we don’t demonstrate that we care enough to formulate our complaints and concerns in grammatically-correct language.

By using poor or bad language that is logically flawed we will with certainty fail to convince others to have confidence in us.

All the best,

Walter
http://fathersforlife.org

Posted in Men's Issues, The New World Order | Print | 1 Comment »

June 29, 2007 by Walter Schneider.

George wrote (not addressed to me):

Yes, I caught Rob & Hal recent pix, but my fave is Rob/Hal/Stoney/Chreastens(sp??) et al about two years ago in full regalia with chests at 150 psi…I suspect if will become an iconic pix when the history of the movement gets written up.

So clear something up for me. If u as Pres of F4J are seemingly distant from F4J judging by ur colour commentary, then who is the defacto operational head ( National Director??) and execitive of F4J who coordinates with Regional Directors(if I have position titles correct), assuming that any communication takes place.

I agree that national organizational requires “massive” funding, but it’s a chicken-and-egg situation in which funding also requires national organization.

Apparently, there was an effort several years ago to form national umbrella.How far did it get? Is there any documentation left that could be recycled in follow-on efforts? Who was involved and are they still active?Is anyone currently actively pursuing this concept (besides Brian Lee Johnson based on my understanding). And did anyone quantify what “massive” was in terms of actual amount?…

—snipped—

George,

I am receiving copies of some of the messages that are being mailed out in your discussion thread and read some of those at times.

Not counting spam, I receive about 5,000 e-mail messages a month in relation with Fathers for Life. I am not able to read all of the messages I receive.

You write that “national organizational”, whatever that may mean, requires “massive” funding. It would seem that no one can determine or even only somewhat realistically assume that, unless he has some idea on what he needs that funding for. You must therefore have some fairly firm ideas on what it is you wish to address with respect to some specific issues and on what it is you wish to do about those issues. It’s too bad you can’t be more specific.

My professional background is in the field of work-systems analysis and design; in short, problem solving.

I assume that you want to use the massive funding you wished you had to solve some problems and that those are problems that are in place and prevent Canada, or the world, from being put back on a secure and constructive path.

Successful problem solving requires the completion of three major steps:

1. Problem Recognition
   That requires an understanding by a critical mass of people that are affected by a malfunctioning or failed system to agree on a few things, such as,

• A problem exists;
• A state of dissatisfaction resulting from the existence of the problem exists;
• The scope and context of the problem;
• The consequences of the problem if nothing will be done to solve it;
• The history of the problem, with a focus on what brought the problem into existence, and
• The will exists to solve or eradicate the problem.

2. Solution Design
   There are various methods by which the correct solution for a problem can be found. Generally I found that an iterative process of analysis and synthesis in a continual series of blue-sky sessions works best to identify feasible solutions. The outcome of that stage in the development process is an action plan for implementation. The action plan addresses what needs to be done and how it will be done to bring the state of things from an unsatisfactory to a satisfactory existence. The design for the required and desired solution requires a discussion of the nature and the scope of the solution and of what its required output is to be. Depending on what the system under analysis and investigation may be, the output may be anything from better-looking and more durable bricks to a better state of existence of a nation.In that step, too, when there is no full agreement by all involved that the will and the funding are in place to make things happen as intended, nothing much will be done, or a lot of time and other resources will be wasted by creating the wrong solutions for the wrong problems or perhaps even for problems that need to be created to fit the solution that has been devised.
3. Solution Implementation and Maintenance
   During that stage of the system development process the action plan will be implemented, along with a system for monitoring, feedback and control, for continued satisfactory operation, monitoring and correction of the system within acceptable deviations from the desired norm.

The “movement” has not begun to understand the nature of the problem it wants to deal with. The main reason for that is that the majority of the people that are active to varying extents in the “movement” cannot see the forest for the trees that occupy their attention.

That is the primary cause of the lack of coordination of a critical mass of a sufficient number of people that are able to bring required changes about.

Some men in the “movement” (you are an example) feel that to get the “movement” coordinated is as difficult as herding cats. They also feel that the “women’s movement” is much better organized than the men’s “movement” is. They fail to understand that organizing the “women’s movement” is just as difficult as it is to herd cats.

The fact is that there is no such thing as the women’s movement. There once was such a thing at different times. The last time was in the 1960s to -70s. Now the women’s movement is splintered into many different factions. The originators of the last wave of feminism gained some measure of control through their usurpation and control of the education system and curriculum, but they all are reaching retirement age (e.g.: Hillary Clinton), and soon they will all have faded away. Today’s young women regard old-style radical feminists (a.k.a. Marxist- or socialist feminists, or, more correctly, redfems) to be dinosaurs. However, enough of those dinosaurs are still in position of power (some of them sit on the Supreme Court of Canada) to be able to hold a firm control of things.

Feminist websites are declining in popularity at an accelerating rate (look up that link and modify the identified URL with the domain name of the feminist website(s) of your choice), while men’s and men’s-rights websites are steadily increasing in popularity as well as in number. The education curriculum is still somewhat firmly controlled by redfems. However, the feminist control of the education curriculum is waning.

A number of things have happened in the last 20 years or so:

• Feminism is declining as a political force;
• Men’s rights activists have failed to come to grips with what needs to be done to raise men’s status to where men are once more being appreciated and respected;
• No or extremely little social research has been done by men, virtually all that was done in recent decades was done by looking through a gender lens that favored women’s issues;
• Women’s suffering is largely a problem that doesn’t exist but receives much of society’s sympathy.  Men’s suffering (e. g.: men live far shorter life spans than women do) is largely a problem that is very real but receives no sympathy at all because society and even men themselves not only deny that it exists but are not even aware of its existence.
• Now as before, virtually all so-called men’s-rights activists are preoccupied with the injustices that the legal system has heaped and is heaping on them.  That causes them to be unaware of social injustices and of serious, massive discrimination against men (e. g.: 19 out of every 20 victims of job fatalities are men);
• An increasingly prominent international pro-family movement emerged of whom virtually all so-called men’s-rights activists know absolutely nothing or at best wish to have nothing to do with.

To all of you in this thread, what have you done to fully understand the nature of the problem you wish to deal with? How many of you know the writings of Daniel Amneus? Most of you appear to be Canadian. Have any of you read and understood “The Charter Revolution & The Court Party“, by F.L. Morton and Rainer Knopff (Broadview Press, 2000, ISBN 1-55111-089-X, 227 pages, soft cover, $22.95 (Can))? Who of you have read Robert Bork’s “Slouching Towards Gomorrah: Modern Liberalism and American Decline” (Excerpt) ? What about,

• Hoff Sommers, Christina — Who Stole Feminism? How Women Have Betrayed Women (Simon and Schuster, New York, 1994, 320 pp., $23.00 US, $29.50 Canada; ISBN 0671-79424-8, hardbound.)

Review by Mary Lefkowitz http://www.carnell.com/feminism/christina_sommers/
For various essays and letters by Christina Hoff Sommers check this.

• Hoff Sommers, Christina, Ph.D. — The War Against Boys : How Misguided Feminism Is Harming Our Young Men (Hardcover - 251 pages (June 2000) Simon & Schuster; ISBN: 0684849569 ; US$20.00 at amazon.com) You’ll want to read an article by Christina Hoff Sommers in the Atlantic Monthly, based on her book.

If you have not read any of those books or any others like them, have you at least read most of what Angry Harry presents in Feminism For Male College Students: A Short Guide to the Truth ?

Many before you have taken me to task for stating that,

By insisting on the right to be divorced while demanding the right to shared parenting, shared-parenting advocates in essence resign themselves to being the losers in the war against the family. Their demands for shared parenting are nothing more than the negotiating, from the position of the conquered, of the terms of their surrender after the war against the family is almost over. (source)

and I am fairly sure that some of you have no problems with taking me to task over that as well.

However, before you do that, let me know your answers to the questions I posed just above.

George, you mentioned that,

Apparently, there was an effort several years ago to form national umbrella.How far did it get? Is there any documentation left that could be recycled in follow-on efforts? Who was involved and are they still active?Is anyone currently actively pursuing this concept (besides Brian Lee Johnson based on my understanding). And did anyone quantify what “massive” was in terms of actual amount?

There were dozens of such effort over the years. Which one do you have in mind?

What do you mean by “How far did is get?”? How far? Measured in what terms?

Yes, there is documentation left, but why would you want to “recycle” documentation of failed efforts? If you wish to find out what that documentation is, you have to become familiar with the history of the men’s movement. Without that you cannot find out whom to ask for the documentation you wish to see.

What “concept” are you talking about?

Before anyone can “quantify what “massive” was in terms of actual amount?” you will have to specify what “massive” relates to and what you mean by “amount”.

There is a cheap and effective way to get things changed for the better. That is by becoming involved in politics, in service organizations, in town councils, in Little League, soccer and other sports organizations, in the education system and all other sectors of the bureaucracy (including the police and the judiciary), and in church organizations. That is what the feminists did, and that is what gave them their strangle-hold on everything. Men can do the same thing and get society changed from within all of its institutions, including the institution of the traditional nuclear family. As long as men’s rights activists don’t see the need for that and act accordingly, nothing will change for the better.

That does not require massive funding. It requires commitment and that we get men to stop complaining and have them instead put their shoulders to the wheels of the cart of our society, to get it out of the ruts it got stuck in.

Without a doubt, legal actions need to be taken, but no one will change our jurisprudence by fighting in court on what is essentially feminist home turf. We get the legal system we deserve. Change people’s opinions about men, and you will change society; everything else will adjust to fit in.

Regards,

Walter
http://fathersforlife.org

By the way, a couple of days ago some young men (all grew up fatherless) who reside (with a couple or three women of similar age (all of those grew up fatherless as well) in one of the few crack (or crystal-meth) houses in our small community of Bruderheim (pop. about 1,280) stole our pick-up truck (they broke into the truck and pried out the ignition lock), took the truck for a wild ride through ditches, fences and fields two miles north of Bruderheim and buried it in a ditch, by hitting the approach to a farm driveway, head-on.

The truck is totaled, the canopy for the box got ripped off and lost somewhere along the way, the frame is visibly bent and the front-end pushed back right to the engine.

Well, some things from the truck can be salvaged. The battery is new and intact, and so are the tires. But at least they did not steal the good set of booster cables and the pair of work gloves I kept behind the driver’s seat. I’ll have to see whether the engine and transmission still work.

I estimate that the costs of theft, vandalism and damages created over the last ten years or so by those products of our novel child-raising experiment are now roughly in the order of about $150,000 for Bruderheim alone. That is a relatively small cost per capita, and I assume that on account of that the social engineers figure that our society can afford such a small tariff to pay for the consequences of the systematic deconstruction of our society.

However the real costs are far greater than that for targeted individuals, and they are much greater and much more serious for our nation. What was once one of the top-three-ranking nations of the developed nations ranks now in many respects at the bottom of the pile, while the average well-being of all developed nations is gradually sliding into total chaos.
Let me tell you the ways in which I love the brave-new world the feminist social engineers created for us. On second thought I better quit, so that you have enough time to read some of the books I mentioned.

Posted in Men's Issues, The New World Order | Print | No Comments »

June 14, 2007 by Walter Schneider.

Elise wrote:

Good evening,

I am not exactly sure if your organization is the correct one to contact, but I thought I would give it a shot. With father`s day quickly approaching and commercials and billboards advertizing and reminding everyone about the holiday, I began to think about the fathers who are alone - who perhaps lost their partner and/or kids. I come from a family who for some reason has a high pourcentage of females, and EACH father, grandfather or uncle has passed away leaving behind loving and longing families (mothers and children).

Many systems are set up around christmas for orphans and such, so I would be interested in creating something similar for both Mother`s Day and Father`s day - Where loving fathers who have lost their family could be sent either a message or gift etc. from a loving family who lost their own father. Fathers who may feel lost and who are looking for inspiration may be helped and encouraged by this small gesture coming from people who only wish they had a father to treat. Perhaps no direct communication would take place between the two- or perhaps an interraction space would be created in an (adops a father, adopt a family way) - but eitherway it is an idea that I wish to throw out there and hopefully get some feedback on!

Thank you

Elise

Hello Elise,

Thanks for writing. Your idea is good, although it is a little difficult to envision how it may be brought into practice. I have some ideas about that at the end of this message.

Obviously, if fathers were to be respected more, what you propose would not be necessary. It has not worked in the last two hundred years or more, and perhaps never was the intention, to create respect for fathers from the top down. Instead, the powers bought into an ideology that created the systematic vilification of fathers, not the creation of respect for them. Many government policies were created in many nations, especially in the developed nations, that aim at eradicating fathers from the lives of the families from whom they are being deliberately expunged.

That has without a doubt caused since the mid 1960’s a steadily escalating rise in suicide figures for expunged fathers, suicide figures that by now have reached epidemic proportions and that are higher than those experienced at the peak of the great depression. But that is not all.

The government policies I mentioned also aim at ignoring health issues affecting men, ignoring those issues in favor of addressing health issues affecting women, even though many of those health issues are not gender-specific. It should therefore surprise no one that the gap between the respective life expectancies of the sexes grew from being about non-existent prior to the 1920s to being now on average about six years in favor of women in the developed nations. The deliberate ignoring of men’s health issues will quite likely have caused some of the women and children in your family to have lost some of those men that you now mourn.

Those manifestations of serious and increasingly fatal discrimination against men exist in all sectors of life. For instance, ever since statistics were kept on that, even though women now ostensibly wish to equally share the dangers of working life with men, there is no discernible change in the proportions of men and women that succumb to the dangers posed by working outside the home domain. Now as before, roughly 19 out of every 20 serious or fatal job accidents involve men and boys. It would not surprise me if some of the missing men in your family lost their lives due to job accidents or due to other health effects of the jobs they once held. It is a dangerous world out there, outside of the safety of the home domain. Unfortunately, hardly ever is any credit given to those men who almost exclusively do the dangerous, dirty and sweaty jobs in our society to earn the bread for their families.

It would be wrong to blame simply only government policies for the so much greater risks to their lives that men must face. Those discriminatory government policies could not come into existence without at least some members of the general public clamoring for them, and not without a major portion of the general public actively and perhaps even only silently consenting. More than that, the organized government- and business-sponsored campaigns of creating disrespect and disdain for men systematically manufactured disdain for men in the general public, resulting to some extent in increasingly more self-destructive behaviour of younger men but also in manifestations of disrespect for men and of exploitation of men that take other forms.

For instance, specifically in relation to the two days of celebration of concern to you, Mothers Day and Fathers Day, the following is a good indicator of the extent of the effectiveness and pervasiveness of the deadly propaganda war against men and fathers:

The day of the year on which the most phone calls are made.
The correct response was “What is Mothers Day?”

The day of the year on which the most collect phone calls are made.
The correct response was “What is Fathers Day?”

–Jeopardy
From page 10 (third paragraph) of
Father and Child Reunion:
How to Bring the Dads We Need to the Children We Love
By Warren Farrell

We cannot and must not blame modern feminism for that symptom of the anti-family propaganda war. Having been involved with the telecommunication industry for all of my long working life, I can assure you that those disparate statistics have been around for as long as the telecommunication industry existed. Going by much evidence from the Victorian Age and before, evidence that the feminists never mention or talk about, the anti-father social bias was around even long before that. Modern feminism itself is a product of that propaganda war, except that now the feminists are the major influence steering and intensifying that war.

Perhaps a grass-roots effort like that proposed by you will help to turn things around for fathers. Social respect for men and fathers is now at an all-time low. Every little thing that will raise respect for men and fathers will help.

What specifically do you have in mind to help to make your idea work?

Sincerely,

Walter Schneider
http://fathersforlife.org

P.S.: I sent a copy of your message and of my response to the mailing list of Fathers for Life and also posted it to the blog at http://blog.fathersforlife.org. Perhaps some of the subscribers to that list will have a few thoughts on what could be done to make your idea work. Furthermore, the blog could be used to exchange comments on any of those thoughts that may emerge. Not only that, but the blog will get your message out to many without the need to establish contact with individual fathers. –WHS

Posted in Health, Men's Issues, Family, Propaganda Exposed | Print | No Comments »