“The Parent Trap”, on Dr. Phil

October 29, 2007 by Walter Schneider.

This is the TV show you’ve been waiting for, The Parent Trap, on Dr. Phil.

Of course, there is a bit of a problem right off the bat with that show, because it is called “The Parent Trap”, not “The Father Trap”. However, that does not matter much, because paternity fraud is now on the map, and soon you will perhaps even see it on Oprah.

Ruth called me to watch the show, and I only got to see a portion of it, but that doesn’t matter.

I saw Carnell Smith, a falsely alleged father - of four children I believe, with three of the four children not being his - who got defrauded and who, in spite it being known all around that he was not the father of those children, still was being forced to pay for them, who sued and won. Mind you, I doubt that he got much out of it, although his lawyer surely did.

I saw Marc Angelucci, who testified that 30 percent of the Association of American Blood Banks’ more than 300,000 annual DNA test for paternity find negative for paternity by the alleged fathers.

I saw a defrauded father and his wife (Enrique and Mia), whom the judicial child-support extortion racket raked over the coals for a daughter that isn’t theirs.

I saw the fanatical feminist (Gloria Allred, America’s most prominent feminist attorney and president of the Women’s Equal Rights Legal Defense and Education Fund (WERLDEF)) who raved on about the feminist doctrine that paternity fraud is a good thing because it is all about the children, and that any man who pays for them will do, because he is the right one as long as he pays. The audience’s sympathies just weren’t with her. They laughed her out of the house, but she stayed on anyway and kept on talking and interrupting anyone whose turn it was to speak. I guess she is not used to using courtesy and stops talking only if she hears a judge’s hammer hit the desk. She appeared to be deranged and without reason.

Note to Gloria: Feminist “law” can be imposed (you, women like you, and the judges and politicians who support and promote your agenda proved that) but it does not create justice - and the way you dressed up on the show made you look not a year younger than the 66 years that wear you down. Chuck the red jacket; it doesn’t become you. The original communists from whom you got your agenda never wore red. Chuck the red jacket.

I saw and heard Dr. Phil state outright that the child with whom the alleged father was being extorted and defrauded is a fraud victim, too, because she never gets to know the biological father whom she has a right to know. It would be a good thing to remind Dr. Phil or Oprah of that (the Dr. Phil Show is one of HARPO’s productions, owned by Oprah Winfrey that is), the next time either one has a show covering alleged deadbeat dads who don’t get to see their children.

The jig is up, the truth slipped out, and the feminists and feminist judges stand there like dummies with egg all over their faces, just as feminist Gloria Allred did today on the Dr. Phil show.

As most people in their right mind know, there is only one sex in the victims group comprised of victims who are further victimized by being forced to pay and to hand over the money to reward the women who are the perpetrators of paternity fraud.

These men and often their second wives as well are not only paying for the upkeep and raising of a child that is clearly a cuckoo and has absolutely no blood relation to either one of them, but they must pay the money to the cuckoo who laid the egg in their nest.

There is more. The feminists say that the child is all that matters, because the child is being brought up by the “father” whom she or he got to know as the father. The feminists say that, and feminist judges say it as well. They say it often, in spite of the paying fathers not being able to see the child he is paying for, because that child lives with the child’s biological mother and with the biological father who moved in back together (after the mother successfully and with the help of feminist judges managed to get another man, any man, not necessarily any man the offending mother ever met, to pay child support), with the child not even being able to see the “father” who pays the child support.

But there is still more, and I cannot list it all here. Just one more important thing. Mothers who commit paternity fraud can pick (and they have picked on a large number of occasions) the name of a man whom they allege is the father of their child right out of the phone book, and those men still must pay the money that is being extorted from them.

Interestingly, the courts and the child-support-enforcement agencies have no way to find those “fathers” when the court hearings take place in which those men are condemned to pay for the children that are not theirs. On the other hand, when those “fathers’” paycheques are garnished, the judicial powers and the powers of the child-maintenance enforcement system have absolutely no problem with finding them. By then is is too late for those men, and they cannot extricate themselves anymore, unless they have a hundred, two-hundred or more thousands of dollars to spare to hand over to the lawyers (and don’t forget, judges are almost without exception lawyers too).

Those men quite likely will never get to see the children whom they did not father and whom they never even knew existed. Yes, men had been vasectomized for years, since long before a given child that they are being forced to pay for was conceived and never once saw the child whom they were alleged to have caused to be conceived, and they still must pay, and the feminists and the feminist judges still insist that they are the only fathers the poor children ever knew and became accustomed to, and that all of that is in the interest of the child.

You can access good, detailed and exhaustive information on the Dr. Phil show: Parent Trap, http://drphil.com/shows/show/962

Perhaps more importantly for any of you who like to express their opinions in writing, you can post a message about paternity fraud and the show, The Parent Trap, at Dr. Phil’s message board.

Posted in Feminist Jurisprudence, Feminism, Propaganda Exposed, Paternity Fraud | Print | 1 Comment »

Men also suffer from domestic violence

October 29, 2007 by Walter Schneider.

This is a video you should watch:

Men Also Suffer from Domestic Violence Monday, 22 Oct 2007, FOX2 Detroit

The video is good and provides objective statistics, but it has a major flaw, just as does the following article.

Both, the video and the article equate DV with partner violence, although many feminists equate it solely to violence by men against women. We know that women are slightly more often violent than men are, but the video doesn’t stress that and the article to some extent denies it. Aside from that, and most importantly, the discussion of domestic violence also must address violence against children in families.  That has not yet received the required attention in the media.

Utahns hope to make domestic violence ‘intolerable’

Researchers voice concern over rise in assaults by females

By Rebecca Palmer
Deseret Morning News

Published: Sunday, Oct. 28, 2007 12:23 a.m. MDT

http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,695222626,00.html

Quoted from the article:

University of Utah scientist and social worker Moises Prospero says the issue of women acting as domestic violence perpetrators has thrown a curve-ball to advocates in the past five or 10 years.

There is no question that women are now acting violently at greater rates than they used to, but lead researchers are debating whether the women are defending themselves or picking the fights, Prospero said.

As yet, there is no consensus, but researchers are beginning to learn that women perpetrate psychological abuse at least as often as men do and are more likely to use weapons when committing acts of physical violence, Prospero said.

As yet, there is no consensus, but researchers are beginning to learn that women perpetrate psychological abuse at least as often as men do and are more likely to use weapons when committing acts of physical violence, Prospero said….

Yeah, sure. It’s a curve ball ever since anyone cared to look, which hasn’t been all that long, and no one in the mainstream media ever asked whether a man reacts in self-defence or picked a fight.

However, as usual, the article equates domestic violence to partner violence, and the largest single group of domestic violence victims, children, is being totally ignored. In that group of victims, biological mothers commit, or participate in, just about exactly 70 percent of serious (requiring medical attention) or fatal child child abuse. That doesn’t mean that biological fathers are the perpetrators of the other thirty percent. What it does mean is that biological fathers are a relatively small proportion of the remaining 30 percent of all perpetrators.

The problem with statistics relating to the perpetrators of violence against children is that, once the data collection has been massaged by feminists and feminist sympathizers (after which the general public then gets to see it), it is virtually impossible to sort out the biological fathers from “fathers”. “Fathers” could be any man in the life of a women, but it is known that by far most violence against children occurs in families from whom the biological fathers were expunged.

Other than that, the 30 percent of the remaining perpetrators of violence against children includes not only biological fathers but all other relatives, friends, acquaintances and anyone else in a woman’s life who is not the biological mother of an abused child. That is a fact that feminist sociologists, activists and statistitians (the boundaries between those categories of feminists are very blurry) love to obfuscate and to forget about.

At any rate, it appears that the truth about violent women (except for their violence against children) is slowly and increasingly being leaked and recognized. As of now that is not being reflected to any marked extent in the availability of funding for shelters for battered men and their children.

The fact of women being more likely to use weapons has been known and published for decades by responsible, creditable and objective social researchers. That’s nothing new, but poison, pillows, knives, guns, frying pans, baseball bats, boiling water or boiling food, etc., all make for great equalizers to compensate for women’s lower average strength. If you doubt that, just check the variety of “weapons” used by the women mentioned in the article.

As to the fact that the article mentions “reports” and “charges” has little relationship as to who actually started a given fracas. All we know for sure is that on average men are more likely than women to be charged, and that men are less likely to report being attacked or to lay charges.

Police reports are not reliable sources of domestic violence data. They reflect the bias of gender politics, especially that which is inherent in the police forces. The police operate under a very strong anti-male bias.

No self-respecting social researcher bases his studies of DV on police reports.

–Walter
http://fathersforlife.org

You may wish to look through the Table of Contents — Domestic Violence

Posted in Men's Issues, Child Murder, Family, Feminist Jurisprudence, Propaganda Exposed, Feminism, Women's Violence | Print | No Comments »

World population reduction by 80%

October 28, 2007 by Walter Schneider.

This comment is about the pervasiveness of propaganda, how it is being used to bring about the death of humanity and to get us to like what is being done to us.

When I was a kid, I could sleep at any time but was hardly ever allowed to do so during the day, unless I was sick, I had to go to bed every night at nine.  That was easy in those days, because there was no television to keep me up. Hitler’s or Goebbels’ speeches on the all-pervasive people’s receivers, the mass-produced, cheap radios (able to receive in general only the local radio station) that the Hitler regime had made sure were in every household (to enable his regime to indoctrinate the masses), were not all that appealing to me to have me want to stay up after bedtime.

My parents didn’t let me listen to those speeches anyway. Contrary to prescribed custom, in those years our radio was not on all the time, although my Dad always listened to the news when he could, and, as the war neared its end, those news got worse all the time if you listened between its thick coating of propaganda that persistently insisted that the Hitler regime was winning the war.

I could never understand how that could be. More than 80 percent of my home town (Duesseldorf) and its neighbouring cities (Duisburg, Essen, Wuppertal, Cologne, and Neuss - across the Rhine from Duesseldorf) that each could easily be reached in less then a half-hour train ride or in a streetcar-ride of an hour or less were in rubble and ashes, plainly to see for as long as the streetcars and the trains were still running and the bridges weren’t blown up yet.

The point of that observation was driven home by the fact that our family’s seven children were dispersed throughout Europe and Germany. The oldest brother made at times daily flights to England, and he mostly walked towards the end of the war, because there were few airplanes left, and, anyway, no fuel left to fly them with.

The second-oldest brother was off to conquer Russia and managed to escape the fate of being captured and killed as a POW by the Russians.

The third-oldest brother, Hans, became at age 14 a helper at an anti-aircraft-gun battery. He never managed to protect the nearby city of Krefeld (that city was put to rubble and ashes, too, as all German cities were). He volunteered for the Air Force, was trained as a pilot but never put into action as one. He was stationed on the Island of Ruegen (home of the V2), and then, because the fuel shortage made him useless as a flyer, he was transfered with his whole company into the Army, marched down Italy, back up Italy, got captured and became a POW of the Americans near Venice and escaped from a box car of a POW train that was to take him and other POWs to France, to work in the coal mines.

That was shortly after the war, just before Hans had his eighteenth birthday. But throughout all of the last period of the war the radio kept insisting that Germany was winning the war.

My three sisters had been moved to rural locations in Bavaria. My Dad insisted that towards the end of the war, when we had taken to making nightly visits and stays in our basement on account of the air raids, when bombs fell and exploded so close to our home that they caused pieces of concrete to fall off the ceiling in the basement, that my two youngest sisters and I had to come back home, so that, if we died, we would die together, and that if we survived, we would survive together. The radio still insisted that Germany would be victorious. But I think now that Dad had not necessarily been focused on our survival as he had been on our deaths, as he didn’t want any of us to wind up being marched off into Russian concentration camps or worse.

While we had taken refuge in our basement and lived there continuously during the last six weeks of the war, to be relatively safe during the shelling from across the River, and to avoid being killed by fighter planes that shot at anything and everything that moved and was visible to them, and when as many people got killed in Duesseldorf as had been during all of the prior air raids, the radio intensified its insistence: Germany was winning the war.

The radio insisted that Germany was winning right up to the time when the SS shot and killed someone on our main street (the Koelner Landstrasse, in the suburb of Wersten) while we could hear the American tanks roll in that arrived a few minutes later. But when those tanks came, and when reality set in, and when the nightmare stood still but did not go away, I was sorry that Germany was the loser. I was then three weeks short of my tenth birthday and from becoming a pimpf in the Hitler Youth (the equivalent of a cub in the Boyscouts) and was, for all intents and purposes, emotionally a Nazi.

In spite of having been protected by my parents from all of the propaganda they could protect me from, they had not been able to protect me from the propaganda I became subjected to in school and in the world outside of our family. If anyone would have asked me to join the Army at age ten (as all boys aged 14 had been), I would eagerly have joined, to die for the Fatherland.

But I didn’t like Hitler and didn’t like any of the party members and officials I had come into contact with. Partially that was due to the influence of my parents, and partially it was due to the failed attempt of my teacher (Fraulein Krapot) in Grade II to send my buddy to the concentration camp (”fortunately”, his mother and he - his father already was in camp - had committed suicide just before I came next morning to pick him up for school).

Unless you critically examine your children’s text books, you have no idea how much propaganda children are being subjected to in school. That is even true today, and any parent who does not critically examine all of the text books used by his children is neglecting his duty.

In spite of having been protected by my parents from all of the propaganda they could protect me from, they had not been able to protect me from the propaganda I became subjected to in school and in the world outside of our family.

My parents could not confiscate my text books, though even the arithmetic primer I used in Grade I was pervaded with propaganda (the Americans did the removal for them, after the war was over), and neither can any parent today in any practical way.

While my parents would have been sent to the camps for confiscating my text books, and I would have become a ward of the State, today’s parents are not much better off. If they were to confiscate their children’s text books, or even if they were to home-school them, the all-powerful state would insist that they were to indoctrinate their children with the State’s curriculum. If today’s parents were to teach their children only what the parents know to be true, they would run foul of the law and experience the full power of the State. Resistance would be futile and ultimately and invariably result in financial ruin of the parents, and their children quite likely become wards of the State.

Incredibly, that is today most likely to happen in the former Nazi Germany.

The power of propaganda is enormous, more so now than then. Propaganda is no longer an art, it is now a sophisticated science used as an all-pervasive and all-powerful tool in very forceful ways for the indoctrination of the masses, beginning with our children in school, even in Kindergarten (”Mommy, today I learned in Kindergarten that a man can become a woman, and that a woman can become a man.”).

Propaganda prevails, no matter what, no matter that the ideologies that drive it change over time, no matter that totalitarian fascism, dictatorial communism or the new world order and the destruction of our families and even of human lives in unimaginable numbers is being crammed down our throats. Propaganda prevails, permeates our lives and makes us into obedient nebish, especially our young, our children.

But there are alternatives that can alleviate the aims of propaganda and its deadly consequences. My parents made me read books, and I always was, perhaps on account of that, a voracious reader.

There are books today that are not part of the curriculum and that even counter it, and, unlike during the Nazi regime - when the publishing, possession and reading of such books was prohibited and punished - so far it is still permitted to have and to read books like that, except in Germany, where the possession of Hitler’s Mein Kampf, from which so many things can be learned about what we must not do to wind up in a regime like the one he imposed is now being punished by imprisonment

Nevertheless, the publishing of books is governed and censured even today. Many politically-incorrect books will not be put into print or, if printed and published, those books will be removed from the bookstores (e. g.: Prone to Violence, by Erin Pizzey). That is on account of not only the power of the State but also on account of the pressure and oppression exercised by special interest groups.

However, now there are information channels in addition to those that were available to the Nazis: Television, Talk Radio and the Internet.

Television is being controlled and censored by the State and by special interest groups. Television therefore now greatly intensifies the influence of propaganda, and anyone who still believes that television presents the truth, all of the truth and nothing but the truth has another thing coming and will eventually experience a rude awakening.

Talk Radio is a powerful means of getting useful information. Interestingly, popular Talk Radio programs appear to present information that is of primary interest to conservatives. One has to be careful to pick and choose, because much of the information presented on Talk Radio is nevertheless to varying extents politically-correct, and some of it ludicrous or plainly kooky.

However, there is also the Internet, and, once one cuts out all of that sex, porn and other crap, the Internet is an enormously powerful and productive means of accessing good information. It is like the most massive library on Earth, and it has an enormously powerful and effective index system so that important information can actually be found.

I got going in these musings by telling how much I liked to sleep. There is a point in that, and I should come to it.

I no longer sleep much. I sleep on average about four to five hours a day (with the odd snooze during the day on some days when I absolutely must and can find the time). That has been the case ever since my sleeping pattern abruptly changed during the breakup of the family I had until Thanksgiving Day of 1975. So, now I get a chance to listen to Talk Radio instead of sleeping. The station of my choice has a website at http://www.coasttocoastam.com.

Not being able to sleep and not having to drive to work anymore gives me a lot of time to read, study and write. On account of having experienced the breakup of my family, I became interested in examining the causes of that and of the breakup of millions of other families. There has to be something in the way of propaganda behind that, I thought. Nothing so obviously destructive to people, communities, nations and all of civilization could possibly come out of the blue.

I searched, looked and found “the implementation of the international agenda for the planned destruction of the family,” upon which much of the message presented at the website of Fathers for Life focuses (mentioned or discussed in 24 pages at F4L). The driving force behind that is the implementation of the unimaginably sinister agenda for reducing the world population.

For years I added to what I found on that. The header of this comment is “World population reduction by 80%”. The reason for that is that when I listened last night to Coast to Coast AM, they had a program on exactly that issue. The program ran for two hours. I managed to listen to only the first half hour of it, but I was amazed to hear from the guest, filmmaker and activist Alex Jones, a long list of atrocious items that exactly matched the items of concern to me in relation to the agenda for the reduction of the world population to the numbers that existed at the time of Christopher Columbus.

Anyone can find information about those items that should be of great concern to anyone whose eyes are not yet blinded by State-sponsored propaganda having pulled the wool over his eyes. The issue involved is so massive, so challenging to the imagination, so all-pervasive and so deadly to people and to all of humanity, so destructive to what we thought were our civil rights and liberties, that it quite literally boggles the mind.

All of us are to varying extents concerned about the consequences of the deteriorating quality of our lives and about the deterioration of the environment. Still, even though mutual respect and love were largely replaced with hatred, greed and lust, and even though we no longer care to propagate our very successful cultural heritage or even ourselves in numbers sufficient to even maintain our population levels because the culture of death removed our will to live, we do now live much longer than we used to just a hundred years ago. We live longer, without much hope of ever achieving the Paradise on Earth that the new prophets promise us. Just as Hitler’s promises of victory never materialized but still kept getting made and resulted in much of Europe being in rubble and ashes, the promises of Paradise on Earth give us increasing chaos and disorder that is being perceived by ever increasing numbers of people to be Hell on Earth, a hell they wish to escape from. If we now were truly happy, suicide rates would not have escalated to the levels they did. Happy and satisfied people do not commit suicide.

Many of the visitors to F4L are people concerned about the deterioration of families and family life, about separation and divorce, but listen.

Of what use is it to worry about the consequences of actions if the actions are permitted to continue anyway. If we wish to do something effective about problems and their consequences, then there is only one effective way to deal with them: the root-causes of the problems must be ripped out and eradicated. Before you decide what to do, you must understand what the problem is, but not only that, you must first realize and accept that there is a problem.

The exact sources of the information backing up the two collections of information on the program for population control promoted through our governments and the UN that are shown below may not match and probably overlap (I didn’t yet have the time to check that), but if two (and many more) parties arrived at virtually identical conclusions, then they can’t all be wrong. For Heaven’s sake, check them out and do something to prevent what the real powers in the world want to do to us.

I wrote above about propaganda. You may think that what is contained in the following is propaganda as well, but it isn’t. It contains so much information from authentic official sources (including the sources), that the conclusion is unavoidable. It is the truth.

If you don’t like the conclusions that are presented in the two collections, read the source material and draw your own conclusions, but don’t forget one thing.

Familiarity breeds contempt and ignorance. Just as other people my age and I had been subjected to propaganda of the fascist sort all of our lives to age ten and older and became indoctrinated, so you have become indoctrinated through propaganda. You have been brainwashed. Cut through that, go to the source of the information on population control and draw whatever conclusions you must draw. You still have some free will, I hope.

From http://www.coasttocoastam.com/shows/2007/10/27.html#recap

Recap

Operation: Endgame

Filmmaker and activist Alex Jones discussed his newest film, Endgame, about what he says is one of the biggest unreported stories in history– the “global elite’s” plan to reduce the world’s population by 80%. Full recap to follow.

Related Articles

‘Endgame’ Trailer

View the official trailer for Alex Jones’ Endgame, which chronicles the so-called “global elite’s” rise to power and purportedly reveals their secret plan to exterminate humanity. More info about the topic can also be found at prisonplanet.com.

About world-population control at Fathers for Life:

The announcement by Coast to Coast AM, of Endgame, states that there is a secret plan for world-population control and reduction. There is no doubt in my mind that the plan is no secret. The information is there and readily accessible. It is being censored and not being reported at all in the mainstream media, but it is being frequently reported in the conservative media. Most importantly, it is being reported on the Internet, and its sources are still accessible there. It is no wonder that the powers in force want to censor the Internet, too.

While you still can, check the following links:

• The repackaging of Margaret Sanger
• World-population control and reduction
• The implementation of the agenda for the planned destruction of the family

Walter
–Weaned from Nazism, re-educated to consumerism, then to being liberal, and then, finally, liberated out of my own choice from the influences of virtually all propaganda, to become a devout conservative. There is a saying about that:

Anyone who hasn’t become a conservative by the time he is in his mid-forties is a liberal who never smartened up.

Posted in Divorce, Education, Men's Issues, Family, Propaganda Exposed, The New World Order | Print | No Comments »

Trends of the politics of sex

October 27, 2007 by Walter Schneider.

This may be of interest to anyone who wishes to know about trends of various indicators regarding the consequences of the changes in the politics of sex.

Have you ever used the information provided through alexa.com on traffic volumes and ranking for websites (e. g.: angryharry.com)?

If not, do it, and you will be surprised by the wealth of information you can glean from that. By replacing angryharry.com in the preceding link with the corresponding domain name and suffix for any other website you know, you can make an examination of website “reach” (the percentage of all Internet users who visit a given site) that a given website represents over time. Alexa.com even permits to compare, graphically, up to five different websites on a common chart. Most of the various indicators and terms used for the analysis report are explained here: http://www.alexa.com/site/help/traffic_learn_more

Reach and any other of the indicators provided by alexa.com are relative, not absolute. In the case of “reach”, for example, the indicator shows what percentage of all the website traffic to all Internet websites goes to an individual website, but it does not show the absolute number of visitors going to that individual website. That means that if the growth rate for all Internet traffic is greater than that for the website traffic for an individual website, the “reach” indicator for the given individual website will show a decline that correlates to the difference between the growth rate for all Internet website traffic and the growth rate for the specific website being examined. The important thing here is that although website traffic to a given website traffic steadily increases, its reach or rank can decline. That would be more or less normal. However, if the reach or rank for a website increases, that means that the website receives an extraordinary amount of Internet user interest that is in excess of the rate of traffic volume growth of the Internet.

A website that has a steady or slowly growing traffic volume by its visitors will nevertheless see its reach and rank decline for as long as the traffic volume for all Internet websites growth at a faster rate.

That must be considered when examining the apparently declining popularity of apparently all feminist and most men’s rights websites. However, that can be deceiving. Not unless the total proportion of all Internet traffic that goes to feminist or men’s rights websites is taken into account can it be determined whether the public’s interest in feminism or in men’s rights, with respect to the opposing group of websites, is in decline.

There has been an enormous proliferation of men’s- and men’s-rights websites. It stands to reason, but I don’t know for sure, that feminist websites may have seen a similar proliferation. I believe that may be so, as the trend lines for reach for virtually all pro-men websites show a decline over the last few years. Feminist websites have seen corresponding declines. I speculate that the decline is an indication of the dispersion of the public’s interest in men’s issues, from relatively few websites some time ago, to a much larger number of websites now. The total attention given to men’s issues may well be increasing, even though most men’s rights websites, each, see declining trends for reach.

Statistics reflecting their influence over time should be tracked. That is time-consuming, but an examination of those statistics shows how well fathers’ rights websites reflect aspects of the public opinion.

It must also be considered that more and more people have PCs and Internet access. It is hard to determine what portion of the public (that with Internet access plus the portion without) has an interest in men’s rights issues. The one with PCs and Internet access has a direct impact on policies and a large and perhaps complete presence on the Internet. The portion that doesn’t has nevertheless a very important indirect influence, namely through elections (limited only by fast-growing voter-apathy) and now - ever more so - through public opinion polls directed by the media and the politicians.

Nevertheless, websites do influence voter opinions. For instance, the proportions of the sexes of the visitors to a fairly popular and somewhat liberal FR website (1 male for every 1.14 females) is shown to be in the ten most-often visited general interest websites with similar affinities to be very much the same (1 male for every 1.38 females). That website is neutral in relation to feminism.

On the other hand, the proportions of the sexes of the visitors to a fairly popular and somewhat conservative FR website (1 male for every 0.8 females) is also shown to be in the ten most-often visited general interest websites with similar affinities to be similar (1 male for every 0.94 females). That website opposes feminism.

Both websites will influence voters. The one with the most visitors (the conservative one) will have the most influence on voters when it comes to the influence of the two respective websites.

“Public opinion” drives “democracy” and thereby policy. Ideology drives special interest groups. Special interest groups control the media. The media promote ideological issues dear to the hearts of special interest groups. In effect, that is propaganda in action, mostly agitprop. Propaganda indoctrinates the masses, agitprop incites them. The masses elect “their” representatives who are in reality those individuals whom the special interest groups wish to have elected.

Moreover, elected representatives will cater to “public opinion” to make sure they will get elected. Anyone who is not politically correct will not get elected. In the end our elected representatives (not necessarily those who stand for election) all have virtually identical platforms (regardless of which party they belong to) that all cater to the goals of the special interest groups that have the most influence. What passes for “public opinion” in the media is in fact a mixture of direct and indirect manifestations of the wishes of the special interest groups that dominate and control the media. True public opinion doesn’t matter. Public opinion only matters if it is a proper reflection of “public opinion” in the media, in other words, if it is politically correct and reflects what the special interest groups in power want.

But there is more. Special interest groups control all sectors of society, especially the bureaucracy or administration or government services, over the latter three of whom our elected representatives have absolutely no control. Instead, the bureaucracy controls the elected representatives. That extends to censorship of information sent to constituency offices of elected representatives, especially when the office staff is being supplied by the government administration in whatever nation the office happens to be located. There is no guaranty that information sent to an elected representative through his office will actually reach him. Worse yet, confidential information or information that has the potential of damaging the career of an elected representative can be and has been strategically leaked by administration staff if the information is politically incorrect and counters the ideology that drives the administration. Some elected representatives have had their careers damaged and even destroyed in that fashion.

The leading members of the bureaucracy are in effect appointed for life, with change in the direction of the bureaucracy only happening through attrition and through changes in the relative power of ideologies and of the special interest groups that promote them.

For instance, the German bureaucracy came into existence and had an unbroken history of existence and control since long before there was a modern German nation, since about 400 years ago.

Generally, ideology-driven changes in the German bureaucracy over time happened at a glacial pace: from monarchy, to confederation, to the virtually absolute rule of the Kaisers, to the Weimar Republic, to the Nazi regime, to the liberalism of the sixties and the student revolution of 1968 (brought about, as in all other nations where it happened, through organizational direction by Moscow and funding by Pankow - the capital of the GDR - it happened not just in France but in many nations at the same time - e. g.: 1968 in an international context), and then to the world-wide usurpation of power and control by radical feminism - largely by means of the influence of radical feminism on the UN.

All those changes happened through whatever special interest group’s ideology influenced the bureaucracy, controlled it and then had the bureaucracy promote and enforce it.

Democracy? Not at all! We have degrees of bureaucratic totalitarianism, with the extent varying according to what extent the members of a special interest group manage to ensconce themselves in a bureaucracy. The power and influence of the bureaucracy ranges from being mild and causing some changes, to being in absolute control and causing quick and even large changes and totalitarianism.

I digress, although those thoughts relate to the great influence of the driving forces that steer the characteristics of the shifting and changing foci of “public opinion” on the Internet.

The trend lines for reach of men’s rights websites are almost synchronized (even down to peaks and dips over the space of a few days - and more about those peaks and dips a little later) with corresponding declining trend lines for feminist websites. They reflect media-generated and -promoted “public opinions” that the public made their own through having its interest perked. It cannot be said for sure why the public’s interest got perked. As things are going, that will normally be because the public reacts the way the social engineers that determine what the media’s contents had to be wanted the public to react to (that is in effect the consequence of indoctrination and propaganda). It is somewhat less likely that the public reacted due to politically undesired and unanticipated concern or outrage. Hitler already knew that when he stated in Mein Kampf that one should never underestimate the enormous capacity of the masses to forget and how easy it is to sway the masses with properly designed and successful propaganda.

Today, of course, propaganda is no longer an art. It is an applied science against which the general public has virtually no defence, except for what is passed around on the Internet. That, of course, explains why many governments do their utmost to gain control of the Internet, so that it can be censored.

All of that is an area that should be of interest to men’s rights activists. Although the tools for that exist (e. g.: the selection of a number of the top ranking feminist and pro-men websites through a search engine, based on exactly corresponding search parameters, and then the examination of traffic parameters over time for the two groups of websites), I don’t know of anyone in the men’s rights movement who has been or is doing such an analysis.

However, the examination of Internet traffic data for the marketing sector (that is, the marketing of goods and services, ideas and politics) is a fast-growing business. If you have the time, check the Internet for studies or reports on audience affinity, but don’t get your hopes up that you will find any information that is truly useful to the men’s movement. Useful and detailed audience-affinity survey-results are important, expensive and confidential.

The men’s movement has not commissioned a single audience affinity survey. Being totally without funding, it doesn’t have the money for that. Many government-favored organizations have the money for it, because they are being lavishly funded out of taxpayers’ revenues, but I doubt that they have commissioned any audience affinity surveys. Why should they? Don’t they have their camp-followers in the government to commission those surveys, if not for special interest groups, then at least to make survey results available to government-paid government-funded and politically-correct special interest groups?

Figures on the history of traffic volumes are not readily available for free on the Internet. Manually tracking them (which I did for a few websites and for a few years some years back) is very time-consuming. However, I recently began to record some parameters on the popularity of some issues, such as those that you examine now and then (see trends of the prevalence of studies and study programs for men and women). That takes much less effort and still has some value. Those popularity figures are somewhat misleading in absolute terms but relate fairly well to the public’s relative foci on specific men’s and women’s issues.

As I stated above, I looked at the characteristics of the reach trends for a number of websites, comparing some of them over the years. I found that the short-term variations (especially those for the high-traffic websites) are driven by what is prominent in the media. For instance, the large peaks in both the reach trend-lines of now.org and fathersforlife.org in November 2006 and September 2007 (shown here, but you will have to select the option for reach and enter “now.org” in the appropriate input field to make a website comparison) are quite likely related to two separate media campaigns on anorexia nervosa, designed to create sympathy for women who choose to starve themselves as victims, alleged to be largely due to the fault of men (there is a marked homosexual influence on the fashion industry) of course, men who, ironically, are frequently femme-type homosexuals. Femme types promote the boyish look in women, while butch-types promote the buxom, voluptuous look in women.

It is interesting that when masculinity still counted, butch-homosexual men ruled the fashion industry, while during predominantly liberal periods femme-homosexual men (one could call them feminized homosexuals) ruled (with the fashion ideals that women bought into over the years being the flappers during the roaring twenties and the days of the Weimar republic, and the anorexic models during our “much more enlightened” times).

The key to becoming a controlling influence in social evolution is to be the most influential special interest group. It is not possible to become a dominating special interest group without gaining control of the curriculum and the education system. The feminists did that, and that is why they cannot be dislodged from their position of power unless the control of the curriculum is wrested away from them.

But what difference does it make whether women rule, or the rulers are ruled by women? The result is the same. (Aristotle, in Politics)

Plato, in Republic, has Socrates offer this advice to philosopher kings: Take all the children from their parents and rid the city of adults.

Who owns the youths controls the future. (Slogan used by Napoleon and also by the founders of the Wandervogel (”bird of passage”), the enormously popular youth movement that began in about 1880 in Germany and produced many of the prominent (and often homosexual) Nazi leaders, in German: “Wer die Jugend hat, hat die Zukunft.”)

Give me your 4-year-olds, and within one generation I’ll construct a socialist state. (Lenin)

The power of the Internet, media, bureaucracy, elected politicians, all sectors and institutions of society, including even all religious denominations, firmly rests on the indoctrination that our children and youth receive in the most important sector of the bureaucracy: the public education system (of which TV is without a doubt an important part for a captive audience comprised of children and adults - e. g.: the teaching of homosexuality as a valid and even desirable life-style on Degrassi). That sector of the bureaucracy, too, is centrally controlled. Therefore, in the long run, we live in a totalitarian system driven and controlled by whatever ideology rules.

Dissatisfaction with feminism plays a role in the slowly and barely growing influence of men, but the men’s rights movement is not the driving force for instilling that dissent. The driving force is the opinions of men who were raised in and indoctrinated by a feminist-dominated and -controlled education system. As of now, and probably for some generations to come, social change occurs and will occur, but it is and will be little more than a little bit more influence by feminist-indoctrinated and largely feminized men.

All of what I stated above relates to short- and medium-term variations that are super-imposed on long-term cycles, not trends. History repeats itself, and now we come to a node in the characteristics of short-term, medium-term and long-tern trends.

The social programs, policies and corruption created by feminism are prohibitively expensive. If at all, it will be extremely difficult to eliminate them or to replace them with more constructive and productive programs and policies. Most likely the world economy will collapse before we can halt or reverse social “progress”. A new dark age will descend on us, most likely within this generation.

The ages of civilizations range from about 800 to 1200 years. Our civilization is tottering and will soon fall for many of the same reasons that caused the fall of the Roman empire: invasions by “Barbarians”; total fertility rates that are far, far below required replacement levels; extortion and even torture to collect onerous and destructive taxes (child support enforcement is one of them, and physical torture is frequently being used to enforce that), and wide-spread, all-pervasive and escalating corruption. Not until many centuries had gone by did the West extricate itself from the Dark Age that followed the decline and fall of the Roman empire.

Our sun has already set once more. Dusk is upon us. It seems that all that matters now is how much longer we have before total darkness sets in.

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

Feminism and families are as old as civilization

October 27, 2007 by Walter Schneider.

Deep down, more or less buried under a layer of chivalry that varies in thickness from man to man, every man knows either openly (a few) or subconsciously (most) that he is being shafted, that ongoing and escalating anti-male discrimination has, in the eyes of society, turned virtually all men into sub-humans, through a process that is not driven centrally, as in other totalitarian regimes, but is steered and motivated by an all-pervasive, totalitarian and state-promoted ideology, a religion. In effect, today’s men are the equivalent of the Jews during the late 1930s in the Nazi regime. Men are being vilified and slandered by much the same but far more pervasive and effective methods as those used in other totalitarian regimes. Today’s men are the Jews of the third millennium, and they are not happy with that.

Feminism has become a state-promoted and state-sponsored religion. That, in a closed world-society, makes opposition by men about as effective as it was for them to oppose the priests in ancient Egypt. Nevertheless, men are as much the slaves now as they were then, with one important difference. Men are no longer led and directed by men, they are being led and directed by women, and - let there be no mistake - this time not by their mothers, the mothers that at one time stood by their husbands and fathers of their children.

The social institution of the family is as old as civilization, and so is feminism. When women and men were still united, when families were still important and the building blocks of our civilization, opposition to feminist oppression was still possible. The successful war against the family put the ax to that, and the eradication of the traditional nuclear family is almost done.

Men weren’t defeated, they resigned - once the protection of their families was gone. They are not so much retreating and fighting a rear-guard action now as they are negotiating from the position of the defeated the terms of their surrender after the war against the family is almost over.

We don’t have much time (some people say, no more than two years in the US) before we run out of a chance for saving the family, the restoration of the status of men and of the respect society once had for men, before the social chaos and damage brought about by feminist liberalism becomes irreversible. Here in Canada there are no discussions like that in the mainstream media. There are few discussions like that in any of the developed nations. There are most definitely very few discussions like that in the men’s movement.

As far as saving our families is concerned, the members of the men’s movement seem to be busy scrabbling to salvage for themselves what they can amongst the ruins, rubble and ashes of what once were our families.

Yes, men do get riled up already, openly and in practical ways. They insist on getting their share of the equality that feminism had promised men would get by women assuming their fair share of the work and the risks formerly carried by men alone.

Just last Wednesday a man told me that a woman he had been living with and whom he had intended to marry refused to work, and that she had instead constantly partied. He “fired” her because she would not work! He was quite clear and adamant on that. He considered her not to have lived up to what was her duty, namely to contribute her equal share of work to their consumer group of two.

I think that’s great, he had every right, and I am sure that there are many more men like that. He thought of equal shares in terms of sharing expenses and had to assume all, instead of sharing them. She thought of her equal share in terms of what she considered to be her rightful share of what she thought to be enjoyment, by acquiring and using up all of it and by consuming all of the money he brought home. Neither of them had been willing to exercise their primary function and the responsibilities and duties that arose out of their union, to produce and raise children in the safety and comfort of the family. That they broke up was a good thing under their circumstances, but not a good thing for society. It is an evolutionary dead end for civilization and for the population in that civilization.

We need functioning families, not happy consumer groups of men and women.

If consumerism is the primary goal of society, then it will be better for men and women not to share anything at all and to live in individual isolation. That will drive the frenzy of consumerism and production of consumer goods to the max, but without families and children the economy and society will collapse, and we will all be gone within two generation.

- Walter

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

Re: Warren Farrell interview - Oct 2007

October 26, 2007 by Walter Schneider.

Dear Robert,

With me having read most of his books over the years, Warren Farrell opened my eyes about many of the misconception I had for most of the many years of my prior life. Those misconceptions related to the respective appreciation we as a society have and that I had with regard to the inequalities of the sexes. I am very grateful to Warren Farrell for that.

I should have known better about many things relating to women:

• Having been, like virtually every other man, abused by girls and women - physically and emotionally, but in my case not sexually;
• Having been discriminated against in favour of women and girls;
• Seeing women in power in many different companies, corporations and businesses act as absolute tyrants, without compassion and being absolutely ruthless;
• Experiencing the failed attempt of my teacher (Fraulein Krapot) in Grade II to send my buddy to the concentration camp (”fortunately”, his mother and he - his father already was in camp - had committed suicide just before I came next morning to pick him up for school);
• Seeing that many women possessed less and often much less or none of the sense of fairness inherent in men, and so on.
• Having seen many men study and work hard to achieve success, only then to marry women who did nothing of the sort, men who then became divorced against their will and had those women take those men’s children and almost every cent they had and destroyed those men’s careers to boot, turning loving fathers and even loving and doting husbands into “criminals” because they were then dead-broke and automatically were labelled deadbeats.
• Having experienced, as many of us did, that a good number of good men amongst our friends, acquaintances and co-workers committed suicide because of the insurmountable despair and depression they were in, as they could no longer live without the means to make a living.

Warren Farrell also gave me a lot of information with which to debunk feminist propaganda. I am just as grateful to him for that.

Many fathers rights activists (and I truly hope that the vastly larger number of people in the general public did so) learned from Warren Farrell to be objective when making claims about sex-discrimination against one sex or the other. Many fathers rights activists learned that, but virtually no women’s rights activists ever did, at least none of the ruling ones that came to power. That is no surprise, and there is life after Warren Farrell, or, better, there is life outside of Warren Farrell’s hoped-for Paradise on Earth. There is reality.

Generosity, fairness and honesty are hammered into men, along with “boys never hit girls” (chivalry, that is), beginning when they start walking, but there is absolutely no equivalent or corresponding female virtue that is hammered into women - at least not now anymore.

Women are no longer taught to be feminine. Yes, I know, subservience is said to have been taught along with that, but I never saw any subservient women in my large family and very large extended family or in any of the families of my peers in the neighbourhood I grew up and lived in for the almost 30 years of the beginning of my life. All of them were the undisputed managers, treasurers and rulers of their families, even though virtually all of them respected men and loved their husbands, whom they made sure were the heads of their families. It has been that way since antiquity.

But what difference does it make whether women rule, or the rulers are ruled by women? The result is the same.

— Aristotle (Politics)

To my knowledge, no one ever found a substantiated fault with any of the comparisons Warren Farrell made in any of those many, many “gender” comparisons he made (they most definitely are not comparisons of the genders - there are seven genders, with more to come - they are comparisons of the two sexes) in his books. The facts presented in them are objective and well-reasoned, their interpretations not quite so much, and sometimes hardly at all. Mind you, interpretations are to varying extents opinions. Opinions are driven by feelings and facts but not necessarily by facts as much as by indoctrination and ideology, and often are based on no facts at all.

Although I promote Warren Farrell’s books and some of his other writings, I never forget that he is a feminist, in his own words, an “empowerment feminist”.

Much of what is being discussed in the Questions and Answers you forwarded is reasoning based on and promoting feminist objectives for the re-engineering of humanity. Of course, most of what Warren Farrell uses in those Questions and Answers is allegory, but let me apply my reasoning to just one allegory he used (the rowboat) as an illustration of what he wishes humanity would achieve to bring about Paradise on Earth.

What is the reason for manning a rowboat? There could be many, all dealing to some extent with effective use of energy and resources to achieve a goal. Let’s say that we want to stage a race. The goal is to have one boat win the race. We will get four boats ready, all crewed with an equal number of people of average strength and skill — average within their sex groups; men are on average a lot stronger than women are.

1. One boat is manned by men;
2. One boat is crewed by an equal mix of men and women, equally distributed on both sides of the boat;
3. One boat is crewed by an equal mix of men and women, with women on one side and the men on the other side of the boat, and
4. One boat is “womanned” by women.

No one with even only a bit of common sense will doubt that the order in which the different combinations of crews and boats are listed above will also be the order in which they will cross the finish line. I estimate that No. 1 will be way ahead of all the others, that No. 2 and 3 will come in next, with No. 2 followed closely by No. 3, and with No. 4 coming in dead last, about as far behind as No. 1 will be ahead of 2 and 3.

It is all nice and good for Warren Farrell and others like him to promote equal rights for women and men, but that will and has come at a cost with respect to performance.

I stopped reading Warren Farrell’s Questions and Answers after I came to his reasons for demanding that women should be in the armed forces.

Well, I am convinced that just as boat No. 1 will come in first in the race, so an army that is “womanned” by women in the front lines (even only partially or, worse, 50:50) will come in a distant 2nd or 3rd. It will lose every battle with an opposing force comprised only of men.

It is on record in a number of nations that women in fighting forces caused a variety of havoc and calamities of varying extents. That’s the reason why all such attempts to bring about “equal rights” for women were canned in the USSR and even in Israel, except in the modern progressive nations that listened for too long to the ideology that causes Warren Farrell to state what he did in the Questions and Answers you forwarded.

The lower performance when enforcing equal rights for women (it never is “equal rights for men”) is also true of society in general, in which women have every right that men have but few (if any) of men’s obligations and duties, and most definitely fewer of the capabilities of average men. True, that is a major bone of contention that bothers Warren Farrell.

However, most women are far too smart to want to be truly equal with men. That is the way things are going, because women have the power and will get their way. For one thing, they would live on average much shorter lives (ten percent shorter), and women would have to give up far too many comforts that they became accustomed to and that men provide to them - often for free, except at often great costs to men. That is why many women state outright that they don’t want to be feminists - but they nevertheless avail themselves of every possible advantage at the expense of men that feminism provided for them. Can anyone blame them for that? They do nothing other than what is natural for women. They go bargain-hunting; and people like Warren Farrell certainly have a lot of bargains on offer for women, except that some of what is being offered to women is no bargain - and women know it.

There is still no military draft registration for women anywhere. That is something that Warren Farrell keeps harping on.

Notwithstanding all of the harping by the Warren Farrells of this world, women don’t take what they don’t want. There is only a smattering of women in the trenches (combat positions, that is, about 200 or so in the Canadian Armed Forces, even though the Canadian taxpayers - as did taxpayers in many other “progressive nations - paid billions of dollars, the lion’s share, about 70 percent of that, paid by men, to entice women to want to voluntarily be equal with men and kill and be killed).

However, women now roughly comprise 10 percent of the armed forces in Canada and in any other developed nations that let women join. That is about exactly the percentage of women who were in safe service positions in world war one and world war two. They do much the same jobs, except, for most, for much higher wages, and they rise three times as fast through the ranks than men do who actually do or will do the real fighting. That is “equal rights for women”, not for men.

When it comes to men and women laying their lives on the line for the good of society, you may wish to see where the progress is that gender-equality activists demanded for women for two decades and more. Take a look. (I sent that to you once before, although for different reasons.)

All of that does not mean that women are inferior. Women can excel in many fields. Some of those fields are not accessible to men (e. g.: bearing children) and some of them are barred to men (e. g.: women’s locker rooms, bathrooms and clubs). However, it does mean that men and women can work well with one another and become more productive and effective than as if they compete in many fields for which men are on average better qualified.

It does mean lower overall performance of any system in which men must, just to enable women to function on an equal level, lower their performance, just as they must in the boat race in boats No. 2 and 3, for no other reason then that women should in the name of equality hold “their own” with men.

When women successfully hold their own in traditionally male fields, men most often must hold back to let women measure up. At best, the system’s performance will be mediocre, at worst, disastrous.

I agree with Queen Victoria.

I am most anxious to enlist everyone who can speak or write to join in checking this mad, wicked folly of ‘Women’s Rights,’ with all its attendant horrors, on which her poor feeble sex is bent, forgetting every sense of womanly feelings and propriety. Feminists ought to get a good whipping. Were woman to ‘unsex’ themselves by claiming equality with men, they would become the most hateful, heathen and disgusting of beings and would surely perish without male protection.— Queen Victoria, March, 1870
http://www.ladiesagainstfeminism.org/index2.htm

We all know that the predictions made by Queen Victoria came to be true, except for the perishing of women - although men still protect and often are now even forced to protect women (something they formerly did voluntarily and eagerly). It is not just women that perish, but all of society is perishing. However, some equal rights activists will fight to the last bullet on this until nothing but rubble and ashes remains.

Here is a quote from Warren Farrell for the last word on all of that. Although it is not quite fair to use that quote now, it is revealing and explains a lot, and he made it far from being secretive about it.

Soon I began distinguishing among the feminism I loved (what I now call empowerment feminism) and the two forms of feminism I feared (victim feminism and competitive feminism).
Empowerment feminism empowers a woman by encouraging her to develop all of her potential without regard to gender. It is the feminism I shall always support.— Warren Farrell
in Women Can’t Hear What Men Don’t Say:
Destroying Myths, Creating Love, p. 2

I wonder whether that means that the other 40 and more different brands of feminism don’t bother Warren Farrell.

No, thanks, I will not promote feminism and women’s equality in Warren Farrell’s sense. It’s a dream that will never come true. It is deadly for men to pursue it, and it would be deadly for women if we ever would get true equality - and women know it! However, it is being enforced and rammed down our throats. Why? For no other reason than to extort more taxes, just as in the child support enforcement systems. And then we wonder why men’s suicides are four times those by women, close our eyes and ears and say nothing.

Equality ueber alles until the last bullet? Not this man, but when it comes to equitability, not necessarily equality, for women and for men, I am all for it. Too bad that almost no feminists are honest enough to see it that way. They forgot all about the important difference between the equitability and equality: fairness.

Those feminists who brought about the state of our current affairs and created the widening rift between the two sexes that is ever more widening have no excuse for forgetting. They didn’t forget. They deliberately excluded fairness and equitability, for the simple reason that if you use those two constraints, feminism will fall flat on its face.

No nation, no civilization and definitely not humanity can function well without the complementarity of the sexes that the differences in the sexes provide. Only by using that complementarity can we hope that any group, family, community, nation and civilization can thrive by being more effective, respecting, loving and productive than the sum of its parts. That turned savages into civilized people.

Competition between the sexes and the war between the sexes do the opposite and turn civilized people into savages. Why do taxpayers need to fund that?

–Walter
http://fathersforlife.org

Robert wrote:

This very recent article re from Warren Farrell would make a good web page, perhaps ?

He has given his permission for us to use it.

RW
———-
Q&A /

WARREN FARRELL, author: ‘The flip side of feminism’

By HYPERLINK:
A new book asks whether lifting women up means taking men down

By HYPERLINK Maureen Downey, The Atlanta
Journal-Constitution, Published on: 10/21/07

Warren Farrell is a leader in the men’s movement who contends that the culture cares more about saving whales than males. James Sterba is a University of Notre Dame philosophy professor who believes that the feminist ideal of equality has yet to be realized but remains a moral imperative.

The two face off in a provocative new book called “Does Feminism Discriminate Against Men?” While the book is aimed at students of gender studies, most women and men can relate to the topics it discusses, from who does more housework to who gets custody of the kids in divorce.

The book is more a friendly skirmish than a war, with both men agreeing that discrimination based on gender is wrong. They disagree strongly, however, over which gender suffers the greater discrimination today.

In a telephone interview with editorial writer Maureen Downey —- who admits to siding far more with Sterba’s position —- Farrell shares his views on the gender divide.

Q: In questioning women’s assigned roles, didn’t the feminist movement also question men’s fixed roles? You seem to argue that feminism didn’t try hard enough to answer those questions about men’s roles, but was that the responsibility of feminism?

A: Historically, we taught women to row, metaphorically, on the right side of the boat, and men on the left. Fortunately, feminism taught women how to row on both sides. Unfortunately, no one re-socialized men to row on both sides. Until we do, we also limit women’s flexibility, because when women row on the left, if men can’t also row on the right, the boat goes in circles. And men and women are in this boat together.

Q: You contend that one of the institutions whose sexism benefits women is the military, because of male-only drafts and combat exclusion of women. But can’t these exclusions hurt women who choose the military, since it’s through combat that officers win the most prestigious positions in the military?

A: First, if we registered only blacks, Jews or women for the draft, we would immediately recognize that as racism, anti-Semitism, or sexism. When we require only our sons to register, we call it responsibility. Thus the U.S. Post Office’s slogan to register our sons is “A Man’s Gotta do What a Man’s Gotta Do”; our slogan for women is “A Woman’s Body, A Woman’s Choice.”

Women are the only group who get the right to vote without responsibility.

Only adolescents expect rights without responsibilities. Adults know they go together.

Second, women are 14 percent of the military but only 2 percent of those killed. Women get administrative and other jobs that are more easily transferable to civilian life than is killing. They become officers at equal rates to men. This protect-the-woman attitude is reinforced by both sexes in all hazardous professions. However, this protection of women also hurts women. It is hard to place women equally at the very top of responsibility if we prevent women from equally sharing the toughest responsibility: death.

Q: You maintain that men die younger than women and that it’s really men’s health that’s been ignored by the medical establishment. Yet aren’t most of the trials for new drugs in this country based on men’s heath conditions and metabolism?

A: Medical database searches show that during the past 40 years women have been studied more than men. Prior to that, drug companies tested new drugs more on men (especially male prisoners) for the same reason they tested them more on rats. They tested them most on what they valued least.

Q: You cite the 5.2-year advantage in life expectancy that women have over men as your best example of discrimination against men in health care. But aren’t many of those early deaths among men due to higher levels of smoking, drinking and car crashes?

A: Yes, speeding is a symptom of our approval for male risk-taking behavior:

We teach boys playing football to call abuse “glory”; we teach girls to call the police. We are unaware that men who divorce are 10 times as likely to commit suicide as their wives; so we take the children away from them, leaving them without purpose and leaving children without dads. We still expect our successful men to repress feelings rather than express feelings, yet success is still his best preventive medicine for avoiding the cancer of female rejection.

Ignoring men’s health is like ignoring global warming. We are all interconnected. When either sex wins, both sexes lose.

Q: You maintain that many date-rape policies on college campuses are unfair to men, specifically those that say a rape can take place if a woman is drunk and thus incapable of expressing unwillingness. Yet if a man signed away his car or his home while drunk, would you say that he should be held to that contract?

A: If a man signs a contract and he is drunk, contract law says he should be held responsible. He made the decision to drink. But the real question here is when a man and woman drink together, why is the woman not held responsible for saying yes to sex and the man is? We either hold them both responsible or we hold neither. More important, why are we treating our daughters like children and treating our sons of the same age like adults?

Q: If men are so powerless, why do they still dominate the nation’s critical institutions —- the U.S. Supreme Court, the Congress, the CEO positions in most companies?

A: To me power is about control over one’s life. I discovered that, when women earn about $100,000 per year, they say, “I have enough money; I need time — for my family, friends, myself, to travel, and for exercise.” Men need to learn this from women. Psychologically, men are about where women were in the 1950s. We need to help our sons question the traditional male definition of power —- feeling obligated to earn money someone else spends while he dies sooner. That’s powerlessness.

ELIZABETH LANDT / Staff Illustration of a woman.

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

What’s wrong with having equality for women AND men?

October 26, 2007 by Walter Schneider.

The article at the link identified below needs to be put into context.

Women’s group closes after losing its funding

Opposition MPs say Harper government `turning back clock’

Sep 21, 2007 04:30 AM
Les Whittington, Toronto Star
Ottawa Bureau

OTTAWA–Women’s rights advocates accused the Harper government of ignoring their struggle for equality after a leading women’s group closed its doors because of a lack of federal funding….(Full Story)</blockquote>

During more than 30 years of pushing for equality for women and cramming it down our throats, special interest groups like NAWL (the [Canadian] National Association of Women and the Law) achieved many rights and advantages for women that put men at a distinct disadvantage.

Arguably, in effect the elevation of “equal” rights for women, as opposed to corresponding men’s rights, turned men into second-class citizens and in some sectors in society, especially in jurisprudence, to decidedly being regarded as sub-human.

The list of inequities is too long to be shown here in full, but here are some of the points that immediately come to mind:

1. Pay equity: Women receive preferential hiring and men experience preferential firing.The vast majority of the unemployed is comprised of men.Controlling for job choices made, level of education, tenure on the job and hours worked, many studies show that women’s average annual incomes exceed those of men.
2. Health Care: Funding for medical research for women’s health issues exceeds funding for medical research for men’s health issues.Women’s average life expectancy exceeds that of men by almost exactly five years in the whole world, and by seven years in Canada.While at the advent of the feminist take-over of our nation there were about 400 female suicides vs. 1,200 male suicides in 1964, those annual suicides now rank in the order of 750 and 3000, respectively. Yet, every little rise in female suicide rates is announced with great fanfare, hue and cry, while the almost inconceivably large increase in the numbers of annual male suicides receives little attention.
3. Job Accidents and Job Fatalities: Roughly nine out of every ten serious casualties and fatalities resulting from job accidents are men.
4. Jurisprudence: Although women commit crimes at about the same frequency as men do, the vast majority of inmates in prisons is comprised of men, at a ratio of about 100:1 in Canada and about 17:1 in the US.Child-murder is called “infanticide” when perpetrated by women and “murder” when men do it, resulting in vastly differing sentencing for women and for men, with women rarely being convicted, while men almost always are, with women receiving nominal sentences (two-years-less-a-day, and rarely served) and with men serving many years in prison for the murdering of children.Women in divorce and child-custody hearings can lie with impunity and are, if proved to have committed perjury, never indicted or prosecuted for the crime of perjury (one single exception to that rule was the case of a mother who about 20 years ago spent 14 days in jail for her crime of perjury in a child-custody hearing in Edmonton).

   Child-custody is in nine out of ten cases awarded to women.

   Child-support awards paid by men to women exceed those paid by women to men, at about up to 8.5 times the average of women at the same income levels.

   Single custodial fathers average only about one dollar per month in child support for every $50 received by the average custodial mother.

   There are twice as many women non-custodial parents evading child support payments than there are men who do so, and that is even though the number of non-custodial mothers is ten-times less than that of non-custodial fathers.

5. Family Violence: Although women commit partner violence slightly more often than men do, there is roughly $500 million each year in funding for battered-women’s shelters in Canada versus no funding at all for battered-men’s shelters.A handful of shelters for battered men sprang up over the years because there is a great need for them, but they invariably had to close down again for lack of funding. There are few deadbeat dads, but many battered men who are dead-broke.In at least one case (in Calgary) the government refused to grant an operating licence to a battered-men’s shelter that at great cost had been made operation-ready out of the operator’s own financial resources.

   Biological mothers commit the vast majority of violence against children in families, while biological fathers commit about one-ninth of the violence against children in families that women do. Yet, groups like NAWL never ever mention violence against children by the children’s mothers, while those groups wage a veritable propaganda war against men as the perpetrators of all family violence, alleging that women who are violent always act in self-defence, even though women in cases of family violence comprise the vast majority of aggressors.

6. Public Perception of Women vs. Perception of Men: That can be summed up in four words: Women good, Men bad!The mainstream media - on account of preferential hiring of, and due to domination and control by, feminists and feminist sympathizers and camp-followers - has become so saturated with pro-female and anti-male propaganda that now it has become virtually unbearable for respectable men and for any women who still respect men to read or watch or to believe much of what is being put into hearing, view and print.Yet, the majority of the public is a virtually captive audience for that all-out anti-male propaganda war. The anti-male propaganda war aimed at putting men into a bad light has been and is effective, increasingly more so.

   During the years of feminist domination and control, the media became so saturated with anti-male propaganda in ads, in commercial, in articles and in programs, that they easily rival and far exceed the impact of similar efforts by other totalitarian regimes to indoctrinate the masses.

   Yet, whenever complaints are launched, they are invariably (with rare exceptions, e. g.: Michele Landsberg) being scoffed off by explaining that the slighting and outright slandering of men is being committed not out of ill will but in good humour.

   A hate crime still remains a hate crime.

7. Wealth: Men pay 70 percent of all taxes and 70 percent of contributions to pensions-plans, health-care plans, old-age security, employment insurance and other parts of the social-security safety net, yet women receive 70 percent of the payouts and benefits arising out of the social-safety net, mainly due to men’s vastly shorter life expectancy but not the least because the paying for, and the awarding of, such benefits is quite plainly discriminatory against men.Women own 70 percent of all corporate equity, largely on account of women having inherited the wealth that deceased men passed on to them, but most importantly also because, when divorces happen, women keep kids, car, cash and castle.On average, men quite literally work themselves to death slaving for women, yet, they receive absolutely no credit for doing that.

All of the claims made in the list of inequities are corroborated by credible sources (all of them accessible through http://fathersforlife.org).

You are welcome to contribute links to credible sources of such information that you wish to include with your comments. F4L will ensure that appropriate links contained in your comments will work and are clickable after your comment has been posted.

Posted in Health, Censorship, Men and Women Work, Men's Issues, Feminist Jurisprudence, The New World Order, Propaganda Exposed, Feminism, Women's Violence | Print | No Comments »

Totalitarianism, Terror, Torture and Corruption in America

October 24, 2007 by Walter Schneider.

How the Failures of Welfare Reform Created Our Lawless Courts

Today I posted this comment to mensnewsdaily.com:

Dear Terrylynn, Teri and David,

(Re: Your three-part series on “How the Failures of Welfare Reform Created Our Lawless Courts”)

Many thanks for writing those articles.

Your last part contains a couple of minor typos that a spelling checker cannot pick up: “scaring” of testicles should be “scarring”, and “does” for making bowel movements possible should be “doses”. I did not look for typos, and there may be more of them.

I wish I could say that I enjoyed your three-part series, but how does one “enjoy” a description of totalitarian terror used in the war against fathers and families? Nevertheless, your articles are extremely important. They describe methods of corruption, usurpation of power, extortion and even torture that are right at home in any totalitarian system. I know, because I grew up in such a system.

It seems that as of now the fathers rights “community or movement” is, as is often the case, totally quiet, perhaps unaware. Without someone shaking them up, they may not become aware.

Mind you, looking through web ranking statistics for mensnewsdaily.com today (I often do that, as the web ranking for http://fathersforlife.org has for a few months had a very similar rank), I found that the reach of MND doubled yesterday. I suspect that is on account of your third part in the series. You may wish to check with MND, have them analyze their website traffic details and verify my suspicion.

I will help to promote your series, by sending a notification to my mailing list, and also by posting it to http://blog.fathersforlife.org. However, I will call things not merely by the title of your series. That title is too mild. It seems to me that, given that a major portion of knowledge and understanding gained from newspapers is gleaned from headlines, the title of your series should be “Totalitarianism, Terror, Torture and Corruption in America”, while the subtitle of that heading may employ the header for your series, even though it is not merely the courts that got corrupted but all of jurisprudence (e. g.: law enforcement) did, including all social institutions.

I have no illusions that the same methods you describe are not now also being used in other nations that experienced “the slow march through the culture” by radical feminism (a.k.a. Marxist- or socialist-feminism) and its supporters. Feminism did nothing other than have a successful ride on the implementation of Antonio Gramsci’s and the Frankfurt School’s prescription for gaining power for socialism (totalitarian communism, to be more precise), namely through the subversion of all social institutions - including the family - from within. No Typhoid-Mary ever had such a large impact on society and on all of civilization.

There shouldn’t be any doubt in anyone’s mind that the cultural revolution was successful. After all, we live right amongst the aftermath of its consequences. However peaceful it ostensibly was as an effective alternative to military world conquest, it absolutely succeeded and gave absolute power to those in power. Still, as your articles show and as many people realize, things are not at all peaceful anymore.

Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. (Lord Acton)

All the best,

Walter Schneider
______________
Here are the links to the three-part series:

October 18, 2007

Terri Lynn Tersak

How the Failures of Welfare Reform Created Our Lawless Courts (Part One)

Despite the best of intentions, the programs developed within our “Welfare Reform” of the 1990’s served as the major funding sources used by the states to promote single-parent families. This resulted in the decay of the cornerstone of our society, marriage and intact, functioning family.
We told by both major American political parties that our “welfare […]

October 22, 2007

Terri Lynn Tersak

How the Failures of Welfare Reform Created Our Lawless Courts (Part Two)

By Terri Lynn Tersak , Teri Stoddard and Dave Heleniak
In Part One of this series, we reviewed how the US Congress functionally transformed our welfare state into a child support state. Arguably the most despicable of the backlash effects of this enormous error are mechanisms that pay the states to promote, protect, and […]

October 24, 2007

Terri Lynn Tersak

How the Failures of Welfare Reform Created Our Lawless Courts (Part Three)

By Terri Lynn Tersak , Teri Stoddard and Dave Heleniak
W hen the United States Congress wants to let us know what they really think about the state of an issue (or what they want us to believe they think), what should be done about it, and what legislation should be promulgated to effect […]

Posted in Family, Men's Issues, Feminist Jurisprudence, Feminism, The New World Order, Propaganda Exposed, Women's Violence | Print | No Comments »

Taken Into Custody — MUST-LISTEN INTERVIEW

October 21, 2007 by Walter Schneider.

Dr. Stephen Baskerville’s, author of “Taken Into Custody”,
Interview on WJR Michigan.
MUST LISTEN INTERVIEW!

Make sure you listen to this entire interview of Dr. Stephen Baskerville, Ph.D. on 760am WJR. This is a MUST listen interview which provides numerous examples of why the Michigan Family Court Systems are broke and have failed families, parents and children. Dr. Baskerville, Ph.D. also explains how PPOs or Personal Protection Orders are commonly used in Michigan during child custody disputes. Dr. Baskerville’s book is one of the best researched books on the attack on marriage, fathers and children. What you read will shock you! After listening to the interview, buy Dr. Baskerville’s book, “Taken Into Custody”.

Buy the book even if you can’t find the time to listen to the interview!

Posted in Men's Issues, Divorce, Child-Custody Awards, Family, Feminist Jurisprudence, The New World Order | Print | No Comments »

Spanish Jurisprudence: the persecution of fathers

October 20, 2007 by Walter Schneider.

PRESS RELEASE (German-language original appended after the following English text)

The platform of fathers’ and children’s rights organizations in Spain announces that the German-Italian 37-year-old teacher Richard Monteghepardi, of Krefeld, began on October 15, at 12 o’clock, an unlimited hunger strike at the Ministry of Justice of Spain (road Manzana, 2) in Madrid.

The protest is directed against the systematic discrimination and criminalisation of fathers by the Spanish government, whose politics and laws already tore hundred of thousands of children and fathers apart to cater to the so-called “gender violence” .

Each year in Spain up to 170,000 men and fathers are indicted therefore, with the vast majority of those cases being shown to have been based on false allegations. Nevertheless, right from the start an indicted father is treated as a criminal and routinely loses contact with his children.

Thus, for example, Richard Monteghepardi was sentenced on February 14 - the name day of his daughter, Valentina - to seven and one-half months detention, based on a false allegation by the mother of their common child (an accusation of a falsely alleged wrangling in front of their daughter’s school). Although acquitted in a subsequent appeal, Richard Monteghepardi was in the meantime for months not allowed to either see or contact his daughter.

Even foreign tourists increasingly become victims of this political-judicial flood of persecution.

After all, a woman merely needs to call the police in order to claim that her husband or boyfriend is a little nervous, and immediately the police arrest the man (that is not an exaggeration!).

In short order, communication difficulties ensure the consequences: after 72 hours of police custody, the criminal process follows within the next 48 to 72 hours.

Four months ago Richard Monteghepardi was indicted once more. The accusation was rejected by the Court. Nevertheless, he again lost for four months absolutely all contact with his daughter.

We therefore declare our solidarity with Richard’s protest action against this sexist law and family policy of the Spanish government, and thus ask the German media in their homeland that this scandal will be reported in detail.

Contact: Domingo González Alonso
Tel: 615 055 250 (Spain)

_________________
PRESSEMITTEILUNG

Die Plattform sämtlicher Väter-und Kinderrechtsorganisationen in Spanien informiert dass, der Deutsch-Italiener 37 Jahre alt Lehrer Richard Monteghepardi, von Krefeld, hat am 15. Oktober um 12 Uhr einen unbefristeten Hungerstreik am Justizministerium Spaniens (Strasse Manzana, 2) in Madrid angefangen.

Der Protest richtet sich gegen die systematische Diskriminierung und Kriminalisierung der Vätern von der Spanischen Regierung, deren Politik und Gesetze zur sogenannten “Geschlechtergewalt” bereits Hunderttausende von Kindern und Vätern auseinandergerissen hat. Jedes Jahr werden in Spanien bis zu 170.000 Männer und Väter deswegen angezeigt, die allermeisten Fälle entpuppen sich als Falschanzeigen. Trotzdem wird man von vornherein als Krimineller behandelt und Kontakt zu seinen Kindern verliert.

So wurde zum Beispiel Richard Monteghepardi am 14. Februar, dem Namenstag seiner Tochter Valentina, von der Mutter des gemeinsamen Kindes wegen eines angeblichen Gerangels vor der Schule zu siebeneinhalb Monaten Haft (!) verurteilt; in zweiter Instanz wurde er zwar wieder freigesprochen, währenddessen aber durfte er monatelang seine Tochter NICHT sehen noch kontaktieren.

Selbst ausländische Touristen werden zunehmend Opfer dieser politisch-juristischen Verfolgungswut.

Man braucht ja nur eine Frau die Polizei anzurufen, um zu sagen, dass ihr Mann oder Freund ein wenig nervös ist, dass auch schon umgehend die Polizei den Mann verhaftet (das ist KEINE Übertreibung!). Verständigungsschwierigkeiten besorgen schnell den Rest: nach 72 Stunden Polizeigewahrsam folgt ein Strafverfahren innerhalb der nächsten 48 bis 72 Stunden.

Richard Monteghepardi wurde vor vier Monaten erneut angezeigt. Die Anzeige wurde zwar gerichtlich abgewiesen, trotzdem hat er erneut seit vier Monaten absolut keinen Kontakt mehr zu seiner Tochter.

Wir solidarisieren uns daher mit Richards Protestaktion gegen diese sexistische Justiz und Familienpolitik der Spanischen Regierung, und bitten also die Deutschen Medien in ihrem Heimatland von diesem Skandal ausführlich zu berichten.

Kontakt: Domingo González Alonso
Tel: 615 055 250 (Spain)

Posted in Men's Issues, Family, Feminist Jurisprudence, The New World Order | Print | 2 Comments »