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 »