September 23, 2007 by Walter Schneider.

Dear Klara,

Sorry, but the story you forwarded is false! Not only that, but even though you suggested that she should be deported to Canada to help us out here, we don’t really need “Grambo”.

False stories like that hurt not only all men but all of us; all the more so because such urban myths are so persistent.  Even though that false story originated in February 2000, more than seven years later it still circulates through the Internet.

According to feminist propaganda, even “consensual marital sex is rape,”and “all men are potential rapists” (true, but so are all women, and that fact is never, ever mentioned by feminists). That is not funny, but that sort of propaganda is what makes the false story you had forwarded so appealing to many.

From Snopes:

Origins: Sorry, but this February 2000 e-mail is a fanciful tale of imagined revenge and nothing more — searches of Australian news archives fail to turn up news stories featuring any of the people named in the account, reports about the shootings of the rapists, or the rape that supposedly sparked the retribution. Those living in the area also fail to recall seeing anything about this on the nightly news.

Moreover, in March 2000, an Australian newspaper referred to the already Internet-speeded story as “a good urban myth.”

Regrettably, Grambo exists only in our hearts and inboxes. We cherish her anyway….

As regrettable and as deplorable a crime as rape is, it is even far more regrettable that far too many people (even the people at Snopes) are sufficiently gullible and fall victim to rape-propaganda stories. Rape propaganda exaggerates the number of incidents of rapes by a factor of a hundred and more; while in truth rape is a relatively rare crime.

If you wish to read up on some of the facts on rape statistics (and especially facts on rape-propaganda), rather than on feminist-inspired urban myths, have a look at some of the stories and articles accessible through this
Internet search on rape statistics at Fathers for Life (a total of 46 pages, some of which will surely not only be interesting but surprising).

Although the indicated web pages contain that information or links to it, some of the links to pages accessible through that search do not lead directly to information on rape statistics. In those cases, use your browser’s “find in this page” command for the word “rape”.

Is it not much more important to debunk rape propaganda than it it is to promote it in whatever fashion?

Nevertheless, and on a lighter note, when women didn’t yet wear pants, there were far fewer rapes. After all, a woman with her skirts up can run a hell of a lot faster than a man can with his pants down.

However, false rape accusations are as old as the scriptures and probably much older than that. Did you read the story of Joseph and Potiphar’s wife (there once was a time when we all learned it in school)? Joseph spent a lot of time in the Pharaoh’s jail on account of that false rape accusation. Even though he was eventually released and rose to power in Egypt, he was never exonerated from his crime and eventually died, still being officially a “rapist”.

All the best,

Walter
http://fathersforlife.org

Posted in Men's Issues, Feminist Jurisprudence, Propaganda Exposed | Print | No Comments »

September 20, 2007 by Walter Schneider.

Whatever became of Christopher Robin Sr.?

Every once in a while, I receive inquiries about Christopher Robin, but lately those inquiries became more and more sparse.

Few people in the fathers’ rights movement know about Christopher Robin Sr. Fewer yet know that he is the originator of a logo reflected on a lapel button, once very popular and distributed by the tens of thousands, that many years ago many fathers’ rights activists proudly wore, a logo that is today still being used in many different variations on many fathers’ rights websites.

Christopher Robin Sr. had been a singer and vocal coach for most of his adult life. In that capacity he had given lessons and coaching to many singers that were or became quite prominent, singers like “Tony Bennett, Jack Jones, Andy Williams, Vic Damone — and those at Branson.” He was a stay-at-home dad for his son and only child, given that he did most of his work right at home, a home that eventually became for very good reasons known as “The Purple Heart House.”

As a consequence of separation and divorce — Christopher Robin Sr. lost all contact with his son and only child, Christopher Robin Jr. He then became a fathers rights activist.

A few years ago (in 2002) I sent out the last message from Christopher Robin that was intended for public consumption. In that message (accessible at Fathers for Life and well worth reading) Christopher Robin Sr. wishes a “Happy Birthday” to his son (who was to become 18 years of age), writes about some of what happened to his ideals that he pursued while being a fathers’ rights activist, and he also provides the reasons that motivated him to say farewell to fathers’ rights activism, but that is not all. Christopher Robin Sr. gave very important advice to men in situations like his as to what they should do with the rest of their lives.

Christopher Robin Jr. will turn 23 years of age in December of this year. That is the age at which, so the popular wisdom goes, children of separation and divorce begin to gravitate back to their biological fathers from whom they became alienated for many years (often as many as 20 years or more), but as of now that has not yet happened with Christopher Robin Sr. (and quite likely never will). Contrary to popular wisdom, those experiences of Christopher Robin Sr. are the norm for the majority of fathers whose children became alienated from them.

— Walter

Posted in Divorce, Men and Women Work, Men's Issues, Shared Parenting, Child-Custody Awards, Feminist Jurisprudence | Print | No Comments »

September 20, 2007 by Walter Schneider.

It seems to me that many men who are presently unhappy for a variety of reasons have only vague notions that some of their unhappiness at work, at home or in the courts is caused by discrimination and anti-male sexism fostered by feminism. However, rarely can a man put his finger on what exactly it is about feminism that causes anti-male discrimination or sexism. Primarily, such men can’t figure out what precisely feminism is. They are not alone in that. Even feminists have difficulties figuring out what feminism is.

I myself have never been able to find out precisely what feminism is: I only know that people call me a feminist whenever I express sentiments that differentiate me from a doormat, or a prostitute.

— Rebecca West, 1913

To paraphrase that last sentiment:

I myself have never been able to find out precisely what rational and reasonable justification the feminists have for the vilification of all men: I only know that feminists call me a woman-hater whenever I express sentiments that differentiate me from a feminist, such as when I speak out in support of traditional family values.

— Walter H. Schneider, 2000

[Let there be no mistake. It is most often men who call me a woman hater.]

When Rebecca West made her statement that became so popular with many feminists, a contemporary of her had this to say about feminists:

[Feminists say:]

That love without marriage is holy, and that marriage without love is illegitimate.

That only a narrow soul would object to an intimacy between its mate and an outsider when the giving of love to the hungry was a real charity.

That marriage shall not require the sanction of priests, magistrates or other functionaries.

[A feminist a]dvocates a free contract in marriage, and that separation may occur at the will of either “mate.”

That divorce shall be made easy.

That there may be a “novitiate of marriage,” in other words, a “trial marriage,” and that after a period, if either party is not pleased, the final “mating” need not be consummated.

[That] If children should result from such “trial,” the duty of the state is to care for them, and the parties may enter into other “novitiates.”

If a Feminist wife works at household duties, she demands wages from her husband for domestic service, but household duties would be better done by expert “household engineers”—the wife going to work outside, and the children being sent to a state nursery, kindergarten to school.

The whole Feminist cult is rankly atheistical, and they despise the teaching of St. Paul and of the church.

Like Herodias, they lay snares for John the Baptist and have their daughters perform “interpretative dances” and then demand the head of the Baptist on a charger [a serving platter].

They proclaim the “New Religion” and the “New Freedom of Women,” for by these they are “emancipated” from all moral and religious restraint.

As a tactic to advance their propaganda, they advocate Woman Suffrage, to gain the help of a sentimental class of women, who in reality desire to uplift and purify politics. Among other things they claim to Suffragets that by means of votes for women prohibition will be secured, child welfare will advance, when in fact the Feminists do not care a picayune for either. And it is certain that the plane of politics cannot be elevated when the heart and soul of the cause of suffrage is composed of Feminists-Socialist[s]—for no fountain can rise higher than its source, and if the fountain head is filthy the outlet will be impure.

Feminism advocates “votes for women,” and all Feminists are Suffragettes. Feminism declares for the economical freedom of woman, so that she may have a gainful occupation, independent of her husband and home, thus liberating herself from “sex slavery” to the end that she shall not be dependent on any man nor be “kept by any man.” This to the end that she may be free to leave her “mate” at any time she will, regardless of the “conventionalities.”

She declares that “motherhood” is a mere animal function, and that even a cat may have kittens; that motherhood has been made too much of in the past. [She] Advocates with the Socialists that the State has a superior right to the parents over the nurture, conduct and education of the children.

[She] Frowns on “compulsory” motherhood and advocates the “control of births” by artificial measures.

[She] Suggests that any woman may reject motherhood, and any woman with “mother love” may accept motherhood whether she is married or single.

They abolish the laws of Moses and in their places announce, “A new law give I unto you.” “Love yourselves and your sexes. Worship Eros and Venus as your goddesses.”

They make Cleopatra and Delilah their models, and if mere men do not bow down to their wills, they treat them as Delilah did Samson. [Holy Bible, Judges, 13 - 16]

The Feminist is a man hater, except as she may be able to use him for her purposes.

She claims that man has subjected her to “sex slavery” and “economical servitude,” from which she demands “liberation,” so she may be made a “free woman.”

In advocacy to this “New Freedom” she has many journals, among others being the “Bondwoman” and Harper’s Weekly. She tells all sorts of lies about the “inhumanity” of man to woman, men with their inborn chivalry have been maligned without protest, mistaking these female hyena iconoclasts for women.

—Benjamin V. Hubbard, in Socialism, Feminism, and Suffragism, 1915, pp. 142-144)

The more things change, the more they are the same. Almost a whole century later, men still have the same attitudes towards feminists. They are still being subjected to the same vilification, only more so and in ever new and inventive, scandalous ways - with a vengeance, along with the vast majority of women that still wish nothing more than to live in harmony with men, to raise their children with the help of their husbands and to live out their days in the far superior comforts and safety of marriage.

However, virtually all of the pathologies that Benjamin Hubbard foresaw are now stark reality.

Source: “Feminism? You want feminism? Which brand would you like?”
By Walter H. Schneider

The following is a comment that is not part of the web page on the definitions of feminist terms.

Feminism or “the women’s movement” is no more united than the men’s movement is. As the Index of Terms at the web page for definitions of feminist factions shows, there are at the very least about 40 different kinds or factions of feminism. One of those is lesbianism (in which there are at least 30 different sub-types or “sexual orientations”), while there appear to be far fewer categories of men’s rights factions.

I stated that there appear to be far fewer men’s rights factions. That is quite likely an illusion.

Although at best only about one-fifth of women consider themselves to be feminists, most women gladly avail themselves of the “women’s rights” and privileges that feminism brought about. However, very few women are lesbians (roughly two percent of women), and most feminist women have husbands or boyfriends.

The vast majority of those husbands or boyfriends connected to feminist women do a fairly good job of blending in with feminism as well as they can.

Mike S. Adams, in his series of articles on “Why I don’t take feminists seriously“, described how that works and what he thinks of it:

18. Feminists’ husbands are even more irritating than feminists.

In an earlier installment, I mentioned a free speech debate on my campus. A bunch of men debated a point for several days. When they were done, a campus feminist coalition issued a joint statement of their “collective” opinion.

But there is a part of the story I omitted. After the feminists issued their statement, the husband of the head feminist issued his individual opinion on the matter, which happened to reflect complete agreement with his wife. This spineless sissy was afraid to express his opinion until after he knew what his feminist wife thought – or, more accurately, felt.

Or maybe I’m wrong. Perhaps he just thought that a little more a** kissing would make him different than all the other men his feminist wife had previously divorced. What a pansy.

But he’s not the biggest pansy I’ve ever seen. That award goes to a guy whose feminist wife was rumored to be sleeping with one of my colleagues. After he got a few drinks under his belt one night, he told me that he didn’t mind if his wife was having an affair – that their friendship was strong enough to endure it. How liberating. He’s going to support her through thick and thin - even if another man is hiding his hoo-hoo dilly in her cha-cha.

I know I said it just a minute ago but it’s worth repeating. What a pansy.
(Full Story)

That is one of the hurdles the men’s movement must overcome before unification can happen. Only then will it become possible to begin the reconstruction of our society with the help of a unified men’s movement.

Fortunately, there are now many national and international and increasingly more powerful and influential pro-family organizations. Furthermore, feminism is slowly falling by the wayside, although its legacy lives on in business, the bureaucracy, our churches, in politics and in many more sectors of society. Feminism’s legacy even lives on in the rapidly growing pro-family movement.

Unfortunately, most men’s rights activists, being busy worrying about their lack of unification and being preoccupied with negotiating the terms of their surrender in the war against the family, are largely absent from the pro-family movement, thereby leaving feminism unopposed where opposition would count the most.

Walter Schneider

Posted in Men and Women Work, Men's Issues, Family, Feminism | Print | No Comments »

September 19, 2007 by Walter Schneider.

IVA wrote (in a forwarded message):

A writer for the Jackson Sun argues, correctly in my view, that men are staying away from evangelical churches in droves because the evangelical church has been so thoroughly feminized that males find little there to appeal to them.

He cites a book by David Murrow, “Why Men Hate Going to Church,” which argues that “manly men” have all but abandoned the church because churches primarily cater to women by over-emphasizing the softer, feminine virtues of Christianity such as gentleness, forgiveness, sensitivity, meekness and sweetness. (I’ve often observed that one of the myths the evangelical church has believed is that God has primarily called Christian men to be “nice” rather than “good.”)

There are masculine qualities that are just as much a part of the Spirit of Christ, such as courage, boldness, strength, standing for the truth against fierce opposition and calling for justice. However, when Christian men exhibit these qualities, rather than being praised for imitating these dimensions of Christ’s character, they are often castigated by a feminized church for being harsh and difficult.

Says the writer, “No wonder so many men have a faulty view of Christianity as ‘too feminine’ for them. If that’s what Christianity was about, I wouldn’t want to go to church either.”

(Jackson Sun - Men have abandoned our churches)

That is almost correct, but not just for Evangelical churches. It is generally true, to slightly varying extents, for all Christian churches.

The discussion omits the feminists’ role in the feminization of the churches.

Here is what Robert H. Bork had to say about where all of that is coming from and what ultimately the consequences will be:

Radical feminism is the most destructive and fanatical movement to come down to us from the Sixties. This is a revolutionary, not a reformist, movement, and it is meeting with considerable success. Totalitarian in spirit, it is deeply antagonistic to traditional Western culture and proposes the complete restructuring of society, morality, and human nature.

— Robert H. Bork
in Slouching Towards Gomorrah, p. 193

But not only that:

The strongest force seeking to destroy traditional religions is feminism. Radical feminists have little use for religion or churches as they are, but they do not leave the churches whose doctrines and liturgies they find objectionable. They work within to change the churches so that the final product will bear little resemblance to Christianity. The feminists call for “reimagining” the Christian religion, which means rejecting all traditional doctrine. One form of reimagining is to reject the gospels because they were written by men and replace them with a history that pleases feminists. Feminists see no problem with that, according to Catholic theologian Joyce Little, because they believe that written history is merely the record of the victors, and that includes the Bible. “Everything is a form of propaganda pushing somebody’s ideology. Nothing is to be trusted at face value. This is what the feminists mean by their ‘hermeneutics of suspicion’. And on this foundation of suspicion the feminists have constructed their ideological alternative to Christian faith.”^[1] The implications of this approach for honest investigation are obvious: anything goes. “The purpose of scholarship has become, not the discovery of truth, but the nurture of feminist consciousness,” wrote theologian William Oddie, then an Anglican, in the process of analyzing the views of a feminist theologian teaching at Notre Dame.^[2] Thus, biblical history is rewritten, without evidence to support the rewriting, so that it better fits the feminist view of what women must have done, what ought to have happened.

— Robert H. Bork
in Slouching Towards Gomorrah, p. 287

And:

…the mainline Protestant churches have conformed their standards to those of the secular culture, on the theory, which has proved mistaken again and again, that to remain “relevant” and keep its members, a church must change with the time. The Roman Catholic Church has made the same mistake, but to a somewhat lesser degree.
The obtrusive fact is that the churches that make the highest demands on their members, that focus on salvation, community, and morality, that stand against the direction of the secular culture, are the churches that have gained in membership. The same phenomenon is observable within denominations. The Catholic Church suffers from a shortage of priests and men seeking to become priests, but there is no shortage of vocations in the orthodox dioceses.no shortage of vocations in the orthodox dioceses.

— Robert H. Bork
in Slouching Towards Gomorrah, pp. 286, 287

And:

Feminist gatherings within traditional denominations celebrate and pray to pagan goddesses. Witchcraft is undergoing an enormous revival in feminist circles as the antagonist of Christian faith. The damage done to traditional religion that is most obvious to the people in the pews is the feminist drive to make the language of the scriptures and the liturgy “inclusive.” As in all of feminism’s endeavors, the charge is that the traditional—in this case the English language and the original language of the Bible—are unjust and offensive because they make women feel left out.
The complaint is both silly and one more instance of feminists’ ability to find offense everywhere and whine about it. But in churches as in universities and the military, the opposition collapses at once when belligerent women claim to be offended.

— Robert H. Bork
in Slouching Towards Gomorrah, pp. 287, 288

That is why, in churches, men stay away in droves. In case you missed one of the most important statements in all of that:

The strongest force seeking to destroy traditional religions is feminism. Radical feminists have little use for religion or churches as they are, but they do not leave the churches whose doctrines and liturgies they find objectionable. They work within to change the churches so that the final product will bear little resemblance to Christianity.

— Robert H. Bork
in Slouching Towards Gomorrah, p. 287

–Walter

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

September 19, 2007 by Walter Schneider.

From: http://savannahnow.com/node/360206

Men: guilty until proven innocent

Quotes from the article:

Child advocate John Walsh advises parents to never hire a male baby sitter.

The host of Fox’s “America’s Most Wanted” wants to help other parents protect their kids. He’s advocated for missing children since 1981, after his son was killed by a stranger….Is the no-mannies rule male profiling? Or is it just a precaution, no different than mothers dragging their sons into the women’s room with them until the boys are old enough to protest? Or moms standing outside the men’s room, yelling inside to their pre-teen sons “Are you OK in there?”….

Zaslow gave example after example of perfectly harmless men who, fearing they’ll be suspected of being a predator, give up on volunteering to mentor kids; coach a sports team; lead a scout troop; or even help a distraught child.

A doctor in Austin, Texas, Zaslow writes, came upon a lost child in tears in a mall. The man’s impulse was to help, but he feared people might think him a predator. He walked away, Zaslow writes. “Being male,” the man said, “I am guilty until proven innocent.”….

Refusing to hire male baby sitters is not the equivalent of saying all men are sexual abuse predators. It’s about minimizing risk.

But that’s not to say only men are high risk.

Sexual molestations committed by women are seriously underreported in this country, Rice said. Such cases often involve adult women having sex with adolescent boys whom they know. Which, sadly, too many people still don’t consider sexual abuse, but rather good fortune on the boy’s part….

“If men are so dangerous, then you should throw all your brothers, uncles, sons and fathers out of the house,” Rudov said. He is a frequent guest on cable news talk shows and talk radio (i.e. shoutfests), hence the snappy sound bites. He’s using hyperbole to make a valid point: casting all men as villains in the name of precaution isn’t fair.

Rudov says statistics about male sexual predators are distorted because sexual abuse by women is not reported or not even considered abuse. He also cites federal statistics that show physically abused children are more often victims of female perpetrators.

This summer, Virginia’s Department of Health launched an ad campaign for its sex-abuse hot line in the state where 89 percent of sexual abuse perpetrators are male. Billboards displayed pictures of a man holding a child’s hand with the caption “It doesn’t feel right when I see them together” and urged people to report suspected child abuse. Hundreds of men complained….

But one thing is clear: we don’t want sexual abuse education and awareness to result in fewer male teachers, fewer male mentors, fewer male role models; fewer fathers holding their children’s hands.Instead, we need more fathers and children holding hands.

Tighter than ever.

Contact Anne Hart at anne@southernmamas.com.

__________________
Comments and links by F4L:

Quote:

“But one thing is clear: we don’t want sexual abuse education and awareness to result in fewer male teachers, fewer male mentors, fewer male role models; fewer fathers holding their children’s hands.Instead, we need more fathers and children holding hands.

Tighter than ever.”

My question: “Who is we ?” At the very best, “we” is a small minority-sector of the population in the “enlightened” western nations. The vast majority of the population is “enlightened”, so much so that it firmly closes its eyes and minds to the all-out vilification of men. Yet, most of us (including most of all women) know that the vilification of men is unjustified or at least inequitable.

Gender profiling is mentioned in the preceding article. Yes, I was (as many other men were) many times in a situation where a child asked for help and I was too afraid to help. Then I either walked away, or, if possible, I went to ask the wife to come and help.

The gender profiling of men is not justified. The article doesn’t say much about that, other than stating things such as:

“Sexual molestations committed by women are seriously underreported in this country, Rice said. Such cases often involve adult women having sex with adolescent boys whom they know. Which, sadly, too many people still don’t consider sexual abuse, but rather good fortune on the boy’s part.”

Yes that is true. Unfortunately, the article does nothing to clear-up that issue. Let me therefore do it.

Check these links:

Sexual abuse of children

• Health Canada: Adolescent Sex Offenders
• USA: (2003 11 06) A Lansing mother accused of molesting her 2-year-old son and broadcasting the incident on the Internet pleaded no contest Wednesday to a reduced charge.
• Woman charged with raping boy after giving birth to his son
• Political opportunism and grand-standing vs. scientific facts: Women commit at least as much sexual abuse of children as do men.
• The extent of involvement by women in the sexual abuse of children
• Female perpetrators of sexual abuse of boys , by Jim Hopper, Ph.D. (off-site)
• Sexual Abuse of Males — Prevalence, Possible Lasting Effects, and Resources, by Jim Hopper, Ph.D. (off-site)
• The Invisible Boy: Revisioning the Victimization of Male Children and Teens
  by Frederick MathewsPrepared by the Canadian Foster Family Association (CFFA) on behalf of the National Clearinghouse on Family Violence of Health Canada.

  This document provides insight into the issue of sexual abuse of male children and teens. It outlines the prevalence of sexual abuse against boys and male teens in various settings, summarizes data on the perpetrators of the abuse, and identifies some of the effects on survivors. Implications for research, assessment, treatment, and program development are also presented. 1996, 68 p. Full Report (287kB PDF file, off-site)

• The psychological impact of sexual abuse: Content analysis of interviews with male survivors (off-site) [warning, 2 megabyte PDF], Lisak, D. (1994), Journal of Traumatic Stress, 7, 525-548.
• Meet the ‘Women’s Auxiliary of NAMBLA’
• Lesbian Child Sexual Abuse

–Walter
http://fahersforlife.org
http://blog.fathersforlife.org

Posted in Men's Issues, Feminist Jurisprudence, Women's Violence | Print | No Comments »

September 18, 2007 by Walter Schneider.

In 2006, Mike S. Adams, at Townhall.com, wrote a series of articles under the title “Why I don’t take feminists seriously”.

The series addresses a fair portion of the full scope of feminism (feminist Marxism, feminist humour, feminist sexuality, feminist masturbation, feminist racism, feminists on abortions, feminist logic, feminist men (e g.: husbands or boyfriends of feminist women), and much more). You need to read the series. Here are the links:

• Part I
• Part II
• Part III
• Part IV
  

Part IV of the series contains a link to an article on a Grinnell masturbation Workshop sponsored by the Feminist Action Coalition.

When I followed that link to Grinnell’s website, I got to a page at Grinnell telling me:

Note: The Article entitled “How To Love Your Body” has been removed due to it being used without permission, an infringement of copyright. If you would like the article, please contact the webmaster

Mike Adams noted in one of the articles in his series that the feminists butcher the English language (that is also true of other languages). So it is in that simple statement at Grinnell College: Individuals may and can be “entitled”, but the article cannot be and never was entitled to anything.

Moreover, as is customary with so many other things asserted by feminists, Grinnell’s assertion that the article of interest has been removed is not entirely true. Here is the link to a web page with the archived article:

“How to love your body: An S&B reporter observes Tuesday night’s masturbation workshop, sponsored by Feminist Action Coalition,” by Lola Garcia, Scarlett & Black, Volume 120, Number 05, October 3, 2003.

• Part V
• Part VI
• Part VII

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

September 14, 2007 by Walter Schneider.

Over the years I subscribed to a few formal and informal fathers-rights mailing lists.  The comments presented in this posting relate to a trend that recently emerged in all of those mailing lists. The trend relates to discussions in which general dissatisfaction is being expressed about the lack of unification in the men’s-rights and fathers-rights movements.

The dissatisfaction that receives so much attention right now is well-justified. There is no unity in the fathers-rights movement. The reasons for that are complicated and take too long to express in this posting. Let’s just accept the dissatisfaction as a fact, a fact that has been around for decades and periodically gains the focus of attention in the fathers-rights “community”.

It has been close to 30 years now that I have been active in the fathers-rights movement, and at intervals I observed and participated in the waxing and waning of expression of concerns about, and of proposals and even implementations of remedies (always failing) to solve, the lack of unity.

All of that matters very little. What matters is that not even the repetitive discussions of the problem of lack of unity of the fathers-rights movement are united or take place in a unified forum.

I had hoped that the blog of Fathers for Life would help to bring about unification. It has no more done that than any of the other many blogs or mailing lists in the fathers-rights movements did or do so.

The examples of expressions of concern about the disunity that are shown below are fairly representative of many; my comments are not. Not only are my comments politically incorrect, they don’t meet the standard for political correctness in the “community” of fathers-rights activists.

To summarize my opinions on the issues: it does not matter right now whether there is disunity or not. What matters is that a critical mass of people (yes, people, not just men or fathers) understands and agrees on what the problem is that needs to be solved. Unless that understanding and the required agreement exist it is not possible for a unified fathers-rights movement to emerge.

My take is that no formal, unified fathers rights movement can come into existence unless at the grass roots there is a wish to have one; and by “grass roots” I don’t mean fathers-rights activists but the people that wish to have fathers-rights activists represent them.

Here now are some examples of the problem symptoms that have recently been described, as well as what I think about them. It is not important that many fathers-rights activists read them and agree with them. It is important than many people are aware of them and that they want to participate in finding solutions.

Fathers-rights activists by themselves will not be able to define and implement solutions unless they have the support of a critical mass of the people.

Subject: Serious Problems at ACFC
Date: Sat, 8 Sep 2007 07:59:44 -0400
From: Stephen Baskerville <sbaskerville@cox.net>
To: <newsletter@stephenbaskerville.net>

Friends,

This letter is intended to begin a broad discussion on the future not only of ACFC but of the entire fatherhood/family/shared parenting movement. The opening and closing lines are not fluff. I really do have the highest respect for David Roberts and ACFC, but as many of you have complained, it has long been immobile. This is not an attempt to tear down ACFC but to make it better. That is only possible by involving you, our membership and constituency.

We cannot win this fight without an effective broad-based, mass membership organization. That was what I envisioned when I became president of ACFC, and I am still committed to it. But for ACFC to work, we need active involvement from people like you. Please join ACFC and make your voice heard. You might begin by leaving a comment at MensNewsDaily , where this is published: http://mensnewsdaily.com/2007/09/07/serious-problems-at-acfc-an-open-letter-to-the-board/.

Stephen Baskerville

President, ACFC

************************
FULL STORY

Comments by Fathers for Life

The problems and issues identified by Stephen Baskerville are and always have been endemic in the fathers-rights movement, and especially in any attempts to bring about national or international unification of the fathers-rights movement and -organizations.

For example, just a few days ago I received a complaint by a European fathers-rights activist. The FR activist (falsely labelled by a rivalling FR organization “a woman hater”) became so frustrated, discouraged and depressed on account of the false accusations made against him by the rivalling organization comprised of feminist men, that he announced his withdrawal from the FR rights movement in his country of origin.

Similar circumstances came about in 1994 in Canada for similar reasons as a result of the active sabotage of the Canadian efforts to unite the Canadian FR organizations under the auspices of the National Shared Parenting Association. Danny Guspy and a few collaborators attempted to gain control of those unification efforts, for the purpose of establishing a franchised legal services network. When their attempt to gain control failed, they engaged on a course of active sabotage of unification. Thirteen years later, the Canadian efforts to establish unification have not yet recovered from its 1994 destruction.

Perhaps Stephen Baskerville and others may be able to consider some of what my message to the complaining European FR activist states. At the very least, we all know that some of the dissidents identified by Stephen Baskerville that dropped out of ACFC and other organizations over the years were moved to drop out by pressure to make them act and speak in a politically-correct (i. e.: feminist) fashion. It may well be worth the effort to unite those dissidents in a separate organization. Anyway, here is what I think of the roots of dishonesty and political correctness in the FR movement:

To a Fathers-Rights Activist in Europe:
Sorry to hear of your decision, but before you make it reality, consider this:

1. The parent-child group that opposes and vilifies you is a feminist organization;
2. The vast majority of so-called men’s rights activists and fathers-rights activists are feminists, but they do not speak for the majority of normal men and women;
3. You can’t make omelets without breaking eggs;
4. When you stir up a hornets’ nest, you may get stung;
5. You don’t need to get along with feminists to be able to make progress;
6. Progress is made with the masses, not with individuals whose ideology so firmly constricts the blood-flow to and dominates their brains that no facts can possibly confuse them;
7. In the early 1990s, my experiences were very similar to yours. Nevertheless, I found comfort in the fact that - increasingly - many prominent fathers rights activists in the world who definitely have no feminist leanings at all totally agree with my views - and I with theirs;
8. Social evolution is gradually evolving away from feminist ideology, doctrine and dialectics (it actually is beginning to reject them), and towards acceptance and re-introduction of the concept of the traditional nuclear family, and that
9. You invested an enormous amount of time and effort into what you believe in, the restoration of the respect society once had for men and fathers. That should not be wasted.

The war against fathers and against the family is a long way from being over. It will probably be 50 to 70 years before that war will be won by people like you. I most definitely will not be around to see the end, while you quite likely have a chance of seeing that our side is winning.

On the other hand, I can assure you that you will not have a good feeling 40 to 50 years from now when it is certain that our side is winning and all you will be able to say is: “I am proud to have been part of that war, once, for a couple of years or so — many years ago.”

After I had run into problems similar to yours I began work on Fathers for Life. If before that, when I had the sort of opposition you experience now, I had said “Not everyone agrees with me. I can’t take that anymore, therefore I have had enough of it and will quit,” Fathers for Life would never have come into existence. Instead, without any assistance by the dissenters and feminist men (in fact, despite of those men), Fathers for Life now exists and thrives. It has had a total of close to 5 million visitors, with an annual average growth in website traffic of around 17 percent. While in 1994 I thought that I would do well to attract 30,000 visitors by the end of the year to the website, the website now has had 2,178,622 visitors during the last year.

Fathers for Life has become a social influence that it would never have become if I would have continued wasting my time trying to convert feminist men to more conservative views on the role of families and fathers.

Having slugging matches with feminist men may give you public exposure through the newspapers, but is has consequences that you obviously don’t like. Stop wasting your time by trying in vain to work with feminist men. Instead, work with the masses of the public. Then the politically-correct, feminist men will eventually adapt to what the masses want, without you having to do a thing to make them change those feminist men’s minds.

The public is in the majority anti-feminist. Keep working with the public. However, network in the background with pro-male and pro-family fathers rights activists, so as to stay ideologically connected. You will soon find that you get a lot more work done and that you will make much, much more progress with changing society to a system that functions again.

Liberate yourself from feminist men. They are a serious handicap. It is not likely that you will be able to soar like an eagle as long as you are amongst turkeys that drag you down.

It would be a shame if you, just because in one little skirmish of the big war that needs to be fought some feminist men said “Boo!”, you were to run away and hide from the war against the family. You are too smart for that.

Accept this saying by children, “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me.”

Still, I often felt that I didn’t need any of the aggravation that fathers-rights activism brings about. Often I became seriously frustrated and even depressed on account of all of the misery I see happening, but time and again I looked at the progress being made and took new courage.

Thirty years ago we thought it was a major event when an article critical of feminism appeared in the media. That happened then about three times a year in all of the major daily papers in the world.

Today there are every day so many articles critical of feminism and its ravages that it is no longer possible to keep up with and read all of them.

Moreover, feminist websites, especially those by radical feminists (also known as Marxist feminists or socialist feminists), have for the last four years seen a serious and lasting decline in traffic. You may wish to examine that trend by visiting Alexa.com through this link.

The statistics shown at that URL are for the [US] National Organization for Women (NOW). In the 2002 - 2003 time frame, now.org was in between 60,000th and 80,000th place in traffic ranking. Today, 2007 09 08, the website ranks in 278,697th place, just slightly ahead of fathersforlife.org (316,310th place) and way behind mensnewsdaily.com (142,490th place). [Update 2007 09 14: As of today, now.org ranks 294,00th,  mensnewsdaily.com 148,321th and fathersforlife.org 297,000th place, but short-term fluctuations in a trend line are not good indicators of a long-term trend.]

You can vary the results by replacing the domain name “now.org” in that string with the domain name of another feminist website of your choice. They all exhibit similar traffic-volume trends.

A piece of cowboy logic goes: “Always drink up-stream from the herd.”

You are far from fighting a losing battle! Don’t drop out, just get away from those turkeys and soar like an eagle.

Fraternally,

Walter
http://fathersforlife.org

Posted in Men's Issues | Print | No Comments »

September 13, 2007 by Walter Schneider.

How is it possible for radical feminists to achieve their sinister aims? The answer to that question is not hard to come by: indoctrination through time-proven communist propaganda tactics. Here is an example, quoted from a feminist website that purports to be an aid in the education of children:

Classroom Lesson Series

The Plight of Women’s Work in the Early Industrial Revolution in England and Wales
© 2001 Women In World History Curriculum
Interactive site full of information and resources about women’s experiences in world history. For teachers, teenagers, parents, and history buffs.

It is your own fault if you believe the following (or any other) quote from that website.

The Industrial Revolution in part was fueled by the economic necessity of many women, single and married, to find waged work outside their home.

Who is at fault for that? Once a community grows beyond a certain size, money becomes the means of exchange. That point was reached for most of humanity during the stone age. The problem with views like that expressed in the preceding quote is that they focus on women. Men had similar and often far more devastating problems, but those don’t get mentioned by the feminist propagandists and are thereby removed from view.

Nevertheless, to give any credibility to the claim that the Industrial Revolution caused women to be forced into the labour force, it is necessary to look at the time frame involved. It is true that prior to 1860 many women did go out and work. However,

The desire to free oneself from work was common to all classes and both sexes. Dr Joanna Bourke of Birkbeck College, London, has studied the diaries of 5,000 women who lived between 1860 and 1930. During that period, the proportion of women in paid employment dropped from 75 per cent to 10 per cent. This was regarded as a huge step forward for womankind, an opinion shared by the women whose writings Dr Bourke researched. Freed from mills and factories, they created a new power base for themselves at home. This was, claims Dr Bourke, “a deliberate choice. . . and a choice that gave great pleasure.”

David Thomas, in Not Guilty: In Defence of the Modern Man, p. 89

From about the middle of the 19th century on, the women’s movement worked hard and diligently to separate the domains of home and work, to make the home domain one dominated by women, and to assign the work domain to men. The women’s movement succeeded in that and saw it as a great achievement for women. It had managed to secure the home domain for women, and to have men exclusively bring home the bacon, in addition to having men exclusively do all of the sweaty, dirty and dangerous jobs that were to be done.

Beginning in about the 1920s in the developed nations, along with the rise of socialism and communism, radical feminists (a.k.a. Marxist or socialist feminists, the currently ruling faction of feminism), worked very hard, diligently and successfully, to undo all of the advances that the women’s movement had gained up to that point.

Already in the 1960s, just 40 years after radical feminism came to the fore, the USSR boasted that it had managed to include as many as 75 percent of women in the work force. It took escalating socialism in the other developed nations considerably longer to get that many women into the work force. There it took about 40 more years to deconstruct the women-dominated home-domain and to undo all of the social stability that the women’s movement had created up to the 1930s.
__________
The preceding text is an excerpt from the web page The Industrial Revolution and the Plight of Men.

–Walter

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

September 6, 2007 by Walter Schneider.

Bruce wrote:

Good afternoon, I know that there is a child support table out there on the income you make before taxes and what you have to pay for child support.  Can you provide me with this?

Thanks

Bruce

Hello Bruce,

I assume that you are interested in the Canadian Child-Support Guidelines.

Here is some background information that you should read about those.

http://fathersforlife.org/articles/report/formula.htm

You can look up government information on the CS Guidelines at

http://www.justice.gc.ca/en/ps/sup/

More detailed government information on CS guidelines is at

http://www.justice.gc.ca/en/ps/sup/grl/glp.html

The guidelines are not law.  Judges do not have to follow them and can instead use their “judicial discretion.”  They can, over and above CS amounts based on the guidelines, award special allowances.  Moreover, they can “impute” your income  (impute: http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/impute), and postulate what you should be able to earn rather than base their CS awards on what you are able to earn (you should be entitled to have your CS amount calculated based on your average gross income as per the last three years’ income tax returns).

There is no legal limit on what you may be ordered to pay.  For that reason it has happened that at times CS amounts awarded exceeded the payer’s ability to pay by as much as or more than a factor of two (ultimately having caused a good number of payers to commit suicide).

Regards,

Walter Schneider
http://fathersforlife.org

Posted in Child-Custody Awards | Print | No Comments »

September 1, 2007 by Walter Schneider.

As the founder of and spokesman for PappaRättsGruppen (a Father Rights Group, http://www.dads-r.us.org) I supported one of my members and fellow fathers at a manifesto/demonstration outside the lower court of Växjö last Friday.

In the newspaper Växjöbladet-Kronobergaren with only 3 000 subscribers (published in 30,000 copies on Friday, August 31st) you could read that a spokesperson for the foundation Pappa-Barn (Daddy-Child, http://www.pappa-barn.se) thinks that PappaRättsGruppen [Ulf Andersson’s organization - F4L] tends to focus on the dads - not on the children.

“I get scared when I enter their website, they are pure woman haters,” says Kim Möller, spokesperson for Pappa-Barn.

Kim is not impressed by PappaRättsGruppen and say that even the mothers should be able to join the struggle [by disfranchised fathers for child access and custody - F4L] and that every father group should invite women from women shelters to work together for equal rights in custody cases.

Maybe no one across the Atlantic heard about what happened in Sweden:

A mom with two boys was given a secret address by women working at a women’s shelter.  The mom claimed that the father of the boys had molested them.

That was was an obvious lie, as the court proved when when it sent the mom to jail for 10 months.

The dad now has the residency for his boys.

The three co-accused women at the woman shelter were acquitted by the Court of Eksjö:

“Women working at women’s shelters don´t have to check the truth behind the mothers’ stories.”

[The irony of that decision is that usually it is women like those at the Swedish women’s shelter who advice women like the sentenced mom to make such horrenduous accusations as part of recommended divorce strategies. –F4L]

According to Mr. Möller from Pappa-Barn, we dads have to co-operate with women like those?!

My question to Mr. Möller is: “What´s your malfunction, numbnut? Didn´t your mommie rock you hard enough?”

The text in the newspaper continues:

Like his rolemodels in Fathers 4 Justice in the UK, Ulf Andersson has taken Batman to his heart. This means that he has appeared in Batman clothing at several demonstrations in Växjö.

The outrageous behaviour above together with statements from PappaRättsGruppen such as “we men are considered to be sperm machines by the Swedish Court System,” makes Kim Möller frown. “You don´t gain anything by fighting extreme situations with extreme methods,” Kim Möller from the foundation Pappa-Barn points out.

The interview with Kim Möller was made on the phone by Mr. Michael Östlund,
reporter at Växjöbladet-Kronobergaren.

______________
Written by Ulf Andersson,
founder and spokesman of PappaRättsGruppen (The Father Rights Group)
http://www.dads-r-us.org

Posted in Men's Issues, Shared Parenting, Feminist Jurisprudence, Women's Violence | Print | No Comments »