November 28, 2007 by Walter Schneider.

Chicago Sun Times

Research with a ‘gender lens’
NORTHWESTERN | New institute will study women’s health

November 26, 2007
BY JIM RITTER Health Reporter/jritter@suntimes.com
(Full Article)

The headline of Jim Ritter’s article should have read “Research” with a gender lens. That is because research that is done through a gender lens is an oxymoron. It is not objective. It is off necessity biased and therefore possesses all of the aspects that puts advocacy research outside of the realm of objective and truthful scientific investigations.

If it were not supported through hundreds of millions and even billions of taxpayers’ money, gender-lens “research” would be nothing other than outright comical.

I will take the points raised in the article by Jim Ritter in the Chicago Sun Times and comment on them point by point, with a few links to some of the sources of information used to comment on and to elaborate on each point raised.

That debunking of Jim Ritter’s article will be posted to this blog when time permits. It will take some time to get around to doing that, as I am involved in something right now that will take most of my time for the next few days. The best way to be informed of when the debunking is being posted would be to subscribe to the RSS feed at this blog.

For now this comment is a somewhat less focused refutation of Jim Ritter’s ridiculous claims as to the poor state of women’s health. General objective comparisons of aspects of the status of women vs. the status of men can be found at this blog by doing a search for “gender gap”. (Go down to the end of the menu on the left.)

In general, Jim Ritter’s article is a propaganda piece, produced true to Hitler’s prescription for making propaganda successful. Hitler said in Mein Kampf that,

The function of propaganda does not lie in the scientific training of the individual, but in calling the masses’ attention to certain facts, processes, necessities, etc., whose significance is thus for the first time placed within their field of vision. …All propaganda must be popular and its intellectual level must be adjusted to the most limited intelligence among those it is addressed to. Consequently, the greater the mass it is intended to reach, the lower its purely intellectual level will have to be. But if, as in propaganda for sticking out a war, the aim is to influence a whole people, we must avoid excessive intellectual demands on our public, and too much caution cannot be extended in this direction. …

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

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

—Hitler, Mein Kampf, Chapter VI

The ostensible need to study women’s health separately from men’s health is nothing other than an attempt (that will without a doubt in the end be successful) to rule out objective and truthful studies of the health of the sexes. Thereby the massive and deadly effects of discrimination against men is removed from view.

The truth about men’s health is that, although there is no controlling biological reason, men die on average (the world average) five years sooner than women do. That gender gap in the life expectancies of the sexes is the consequence of the sum-total of anti-male discrimination in society. If men and women were to have assumed identical and equal risks during the past hundred years, by the end of the millennium about 240 million men and boys would have been alive that had died due to the effects of systemic and systematic anti-male discrimination. That truth that can be successfully hidden from public view if women’s health and other women’s “problems” are being studied separately from those of men and if men’s health and other issues are thereby being ignored.

Men are constantly playing catch-up in such discussions. It is extremely rare that men’s issues are the primary cause for an article like that by Jim Ritter. In the vast majority of cases men simply play a “me-too” game in reaction to outrageous feminist propagandistic claims. Thereby the feminists (the Jim Ritters included) drag us down to their level.

Unfortunately the feminists are winning their propaganda war against men. That could be alleviated to some extent through launching men’s studies programs at a rate that brings about an equal number of men’s and women’s studies programs/

	Search Returns
Date	Women’s Studies	Men’s Studies	Women’s Studies Program	Men’s Studies Program
2006 08 28	24,100,000	602,000	340,000	686
2006 09 14	11,500,000	398,000	330,000	636
2007 03 24	2,770,000	296,000	269,000	594
2007 04 11	2,570,000	275,000	261,000	1,110
2007 07 14	2,160,000	465,000	238,000	1,060
2007 08 13	7,580,000	675,000	239,000	1,080
2007 10 09	6,030,000	409,000	68,200	919
2007 11 25	2,300,000	388,000	77,000	69

It is even more unfortunate that in such discussions men can’t avoid being dragged down to the feminist level of intelligence. Someone told me quite some years ago, “Never argue with an idiot. He drags you down to his level. He is right at home there, and you’ll have to play by his rules. Therefore you are likely to lose every time.”

There is a good number of blogs on men’s issues. Marty Nemko’s blog on men’s issues is quite successful in presenting men’s issues not so much from a defensive as from an offensive position. It is too bad that men’s rights activists don’t promote it more than is the case. Rather than having men react to outrageous feminist claims, it would be far more effective to have the feminists react to the truth on men’s issues.

–Walter

Posted in Education, Men's Issues, Feminism, Propaganda Exposed | Print | No Comments »

November 25, 2007 by Walter Schneider.

The following excerpt is from “Feminism - Terms defined“

Many of the terms used by feminists come straight from communist dialectics, and many of the slogans and ideas promoted by women’s studies lecturers are being quoted almost verbatim, and in many cases are exact quotes, from communist text books.

The major cause for the overwhelming public interest in women’s issues is the feminist doctrine of women’s victimhood. The imbalance in attention given to women’s issues existed for at least the last 200 years of modern history, but it received an enormous boost through the activities of the radical feminist activists that made their appearance in the mid-1960s.

Men’s rights will not be given an amount of public concerns equal to that given to women’s issues until at the very least an equal amount of concern is given to men’s studies as is given to women’s studies.

The following statistics compiled from search results using http://google.com illustrate how far the feminist ideology has spread and overwhelms academic thinking, the media and all of society:

An encouraging trend reflected in the statistics shown above is that the interest in women’s studies is on the decline and fell by 90 percent during the 2006-2007 interval. That is in spite of the ease with which someone sufficiently interested can become a certified feminist. Check this course outline at the website of the Women’s Studies Program at the Northern Illinois University’s College of Liberal Arts and Sciences (note that you could also learn how to cook like a feminist, although it is not quite obvious from the list of courses offered whether three hours of instruction in FCNS 406, Global Food and Nutrition Issues will provide the necessary skills to be able to operate a kitchen stove or to make a cup of coffee):

The Women’s Studies Program is an interdisciplinary academic program housed in Northern Illinois University’s College of Liberal Arts and Sciences. Any undergraduate student in the university may earn a minor in Women’s Studies by taking 3 core courses and 3 additional courses selected from related electives offered for credit towards a minor (18 hours total). The College of Liberal Arts & Sciences also offers students the opportunity to construct an individualized major in Women’s Studies (B.A. or B.S.). At the graduate, master’s and doctoral level, students may earn a graduate certificate in Women’s Studies, which requires two core courses and two approved graduate-level elective courses (12 hours total).

Find out more about us: About our Program

On the other hand, the interest in men’s studies has not seen a comparable increase in attention given. Moreover, when one examines the search returns for men’s studies programs it appears that those programs are permeated with a strong pro-homosexual bias by new-age men (a product of ongoing feminist indoctrination). It appears hardly possible that pro-homosexual activists acting on behalf of a population sector that comprises no more than about two percent of the adult male population will either have the interest or the necessary influence to revert the systematic deconstruction of the traditional nuclear family and the vital role of the father in it. However, there is a far more disturbing aspect of the lack of men’s studies programs. Many of those programs on offer are being run by anti-male feminists (of the male and the female variety).

An anti-male campus?

Nearly every large college campus and many smaller ones have a Women’s Studies department. There are over five hundred women’s studies departments and over one hundred colleges that offer a degree program in women’s studies. There is not a single degree program or department in men’s studies in the U.S. It is difficult to get exact numbers, but it appears that there are fewer than a dozen classes labeled men’s studies being offered in colleges anywhere. Some that are labeled men’s studies are in fact anti-male. Kenyon College, for example, has a Men’s Studies program that in the words of one professor is in opposition to, “The white, male, heterosexual, able-bodied, Christian, middle-class norm.” (Source: Mysterious Decline-Where Are the Men on Campus?” April 29, 2003, by Philip W. Cook and Glenn Sacks; ifeminists.com)

Far more than enough resources are being used up to assist the feminists in their search for problems befitting the solutions they devised. No wonder men are being made the scapegoats for every imaginable social ill. As the statistics in the preceding table show, men don’t talk back much. After all, scapegoats don’t talk….(Full Story)

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

November 21, 2007 by Walter Schneider.

Joe (not his real name),

About your comment on the bonding and arresting of judges and their
collaborators.

It won’t work.

Aside from the fact that we always get the government we deserve (the politically-correct “majority” in power wants exactly that sort of government), it won’t work because that has already been tried a number of times. Just to mention a few of those times:

1. The evolution of laws in Ancient Sparta that favoured women and brutally indentured, oppressed and exploited men, and that in the end brought about the demise of Sparta. (Link)

2. The assassination (that is what it was) of Socrates by the sophists of Ancient Greece and by its lawyers and politicians.

   —-quote—
   There is an excellent essay that illustrates such a parallel, the demise of ancient Greece that followed within about a hundred years after the Cult of Apollo deliberately began to teach sophistry to the young men of Athens, for no other reasons than to destroy the superior Greek culture from within. Socrates opposed sophistry as a state- or cultural aim. On account of that he was sentenced to death for corrupting the youth of Athens, and he was made to execute himself by drinking the poisoned cup.

   Read the following:
   
   From Plato’s Theaetetus to Gauss’s Pentagramma Mirificum: A Fight for Truth, by Bruce Director

   Socrates was the last to oppose sophistry for a long time before anyone dared to do that again. Sophistry was victorious then (as political correctness and relativism are today). The rest is history. Aristotelian “logic”* ruled for more than a thousand years, causing cultural evolution  to stagnate, and causing much death, poverty and other suffering in the process. History repeats itself. This time the outcome will be similar; now only the scale of the social catastrophe differs. (*Aristotle was not a sophist, but sophists love to pick and choose from Aristotle’s explanations of logical arguments, thereby giving themselves the appearance of wisdom and their assertions, which are nevertheless false, the appearance of being true. See “On Sophistical Refutations,” by Aristotle)

   —end quote— (More at The depopulation crisis is real)

3. The fall of the Roman Empire for the same reasons that are causing the West to collapse now: Excessive taxation, corruption of government and the courts, low birth rates and the immigration of “Barbarians”. The result of that one was a dark age that lasted for about a thousand years.

4. The Glorious Revolution of 1688 that produced the English Bill of Rights (1689) from which important portions of the American Constitution were copied. I. e.: You ought to compare the passage that declares the right to bear arms. (Link)

5. The banishment (under pain of death) of all lawyers from Canada under Louis XIV. The French colonies were lawyer-free for about 150 years. (I forgot the exact time and length of the interval and don’t want to look it up right now)

6. The American War of Independence was fought for the very same reasons that motivate you to call for bonding and arrests and that were some of the major reasons for all other demises of governments before: corruption, taxation…, whether those government fell through revolution or under their own low productivity and excessive weight.

   That war gave some freedom, but not a heck of a lot of it and most definitely not for very long. That freedom didn’t last any longer than it did in England after the Glorious Revolution of 1688.

7. The French Revolution. The freedom ostensibly brought by that never really came about, aside from transferring wealth from the nobility and from the Church to the state (at the cost of the lives of a lot of the French nobility, and of the lives of anyone else who didn’t toe the party line).

   That ended in totalitarianism and Napoleon. Napoleon attempted and almost succeeded to give all of  Europe a new code of law, the Code Napoleon. The Code Napoleon is still very much in existence in much of Europe and in Quebec, and so are the lawyers that feed and grow on it.

8. The Bolshevik revolution. That brought no freedom at all, only totalitarianism; until that ended and collapsed under its own weight (but the lawyers are still around). However, the lawyers in the USSR were a big part of it all. For one thing, they created the first system of People’s Courts under a modern totalitarian regime.

9. Hitler’s rise to power, which brought “freedom” for workers, industry and capitalists, and an industrial/military complex under the rule of a dictator.

   That “freedom” was gained in order to bring order into the freedom of the Weimar Republic (born in 1917, at the same time as the Bolshevik revolution, died in 1933 when Hitler came to power). The interesting aspect of that is that the Weimar Republic was a model for the new world order. It had brought corruption of the economy and corruption of moral standards that caused people to clamor for Hitler to bring order into the morass. The government of the Weimar Republic was on a national level what the UN - the government of the new world order - is now on a global level.

   Mind you just as in the USSR with the communist party, so in Germany. Hitler would never have gotten into power if it would not have been for women voters. A lot of them swooned when they came close to him, to within a few hundred feet (even within only a few feet of the newsreel screens or the loudspeakers of their radios). But even at that, Hitler did not get the majority of the votes he required (in our totalitarian times that is no longer true for the regimes to hold on to their power). He did the rest through stealth, cunning and brutality.

   David described some of the tactics that were used against him. There are others who experienced the same. The scale of the torture isn’t yet as big as it got under Hitler, but Hitler started on a small scale, too. There are now about 800 cases on record in the US where torture was used to extort from men confessions of guilt, men who are guilty of nothing more than being fathers or husbands (see: Totalitarianism, Terror, Torture and Corruption in America).

   As soon as Hitler got into power, he allowed the German judiciary to construct a parallel system of justice, the People’s Courts. Today’s equivalent are family courts and human rights tribunals. You in the US haven’t got human rights tribunals yet but they will surely come, too; and in the U.K. they are just coming into existence (in Germany as well) - persecution of hate crimes is the first step). Don’t ever forget that judges are first and foremost social engineers, but that they are lawyers, too.

   It took a lot of nations and their efforts to bring Hitler down, but what did that get anyone? Today’s totalitarianism in the “free West” is just about as bad as it was under Hitler, and a lot more lives are being systematically exterminated each year.

   Aside from all of those 45 million to 55 million children killed in the womb each year, close to 40 million people died in military conflicts since the UN brought us eternal peace and Paradise on Earth in 1946. The second world war caused 60 million people to die and far fewer children in the womb to be killed.

Now we come to your feeble efforts for bringing order, freedom and democracy by attempting to put an end to the corruption of the courts through force (whose force, who is strong enough?).

Why do you want to bother? That has been tried in vain a few times already during the last few years. It always ended the same way: the objectors were crushed, incarcerated, tortured, even killed. Whether killed or not, they were defamed. Remember Ruby Ridge, the Freemen - who tried and did exactly what you advocate - and Waco?

I could list at least another fifty such instances in history, but there is little point in that. Maybe the endless repetition of the cycle of democracy, corruption, totalitarianism and demise into chaos at many different levels of details is part of the human condition. It certainly had much to do with the repetitive rise and fall of civilizations. They generally come about with some regularity and then last from about 800 to about 1200 years. The  important thing to remember is that for virtually all of the time in the evolution and history of civilization it was totalitarianism and corruption that ruled.

Freedom and democracy hardly ever grew into more than a gleam in anyone’s eyes.

Perhaps that is why history is no longer being taught under the new world order. To deny the facts of history, to deny history itself, and to substitute social studies for the teaching of history is a totalitarian tactic. Social studies is a tool for indoctrination through focusing on a few selected warts and blemishes of history used to vilify a selected sector of the population (in our case that sector is the men). It is part of totalitarianism.

Who needs to rewrite history (read “1984″ - by George Orwell) as it happened in Nazi Germany and in the USSR when it is so much more efficient to ignore history, to ignore what history teaches us, and to abrogate even the teaching of history as a subject in our schools?

Look at yourself. You already forgot the lessons of Ruby Ridge, of the Freemen and of Waco. Maybe you feel that you can safely forget those lessons, but you cannot forget that our police forces are equipped for urban warfare - and that is for a very good reason.

At any rate,

It is a characteristic of any decaying civilization that the great masses of the people are unaware of the tragedy. Humanity in a crisis is generally insensitive to the gravity of the times in which it lives. Men do not want to believe their own times are wicked, partly because they have no standard outside of themselves by which to measure their times. If there is no fixed concept of justice, how shall men know it is violated? Only those who live by faith really know what is happening in the world; the great masses without faith are unconscious of the destructive processes going on, because they have lost the vision of the heights from which they have fallen.

Attributed to Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen

We are falling. The only reason why few cry out in pain is that our fall isn’t yet hurting the masses that are still falling. Our fall hasn’t yet come to its end, and even religion - a sector of history - is now being prohibited and stymied, eradicated more thoroughly than it was during the French and the Bolshevik revolutions. Religions are history, they are not social studies. The history we get to learn is the one written and published by those in power.

Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

(Attributed to Lord Acton)

Walter

Posted in Censorship, Abortion, Education, Family, Propaganda Exposed, The New World Order | Print | No Comments »

November 18, 2007 by Walter Schneider.

The Washington Times, 2007 11 18

FORUM: Gender pay gap myths and Elections 2008

A headline by Reuters on Nov. 7 was startling and certainly newsworthy: “Female U.S. corporate directors out-earn men: study.” Yet, one full week later there was no newspaper coverage of this politically incorrect report, though the study was based on 25,000 corporate directors at 3,200 companies with female directors being an 8-to-1 minority.

The Reuters report stands in stark contrast to the politically correct — but empirically incorrect — Associated Press story that blanketed the nation on April 23, 2007. The AP story was based on the advocacy press release of the American Association of University Women (AAUW) that claimed after one year out of college women earned 20 percent less than men and that the gap widened 10 years later to 31 percent. The AP did not tell the nation that statistical analyses accompanying the press release reduced the two purported gaps to 5 percent and 12 percent respectively (http://www.aauw.org/research/upload/behindPayGap.pdf)…. (Full Story)
______________
Note by F4L: The report proves that recent national front-page coverage based on the AAUW claim (fully endorsed by Hillary Clinton and a major issue used in her appeal to women voters) is nothing but a big hoax. (See also related information at F4L: Pay equity for women doesn’t exist?)

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

November 18, 2007 by Walter Schneider.

The Heritage Foundation’s familyfacts.org catalogs social science findings on the family, society and religion gleaned from peer-reviewed journals, books and government surveys. Serving policymakers, journalists, scholars and the general public, familyfacts.org makes social science research easily accessible to the non-specialist. (Source: Heritage Foundation: Family Facts)

Thumbs-up to the Heritage Foundation, who with its “Family Facts” established easy accessibility to vital information on families.  It makes finding such information compiled by the Heritage Foundation much, much easier than was formerly the case.  The categories of the various facts published by the Heritage Foundation are accessible through the HF-FF Archive.  The link to that is well worth book-marking.

ARCHIVES

Top Ten Findings  (index page)

»  November 2007: For Love and Money - The Impact of Marriage on Economic Well-Being

»  October 2007: Promoting the Positive - The Link between Individual Religious Practice and Social Outcomes

»  September 2007: Strengthening Children’s Success in School

»  August 2007: A Wise Investment - Benefits from Families Spending Time Together

»  July 2007: Early Childhood Outcomes

»  June 2007: Beyond a Breadwinner - How Fathers Make a Difference in their Children’s Life Prospects

»  May 2007: Teen Sexual Behavior

»  April 2007: Health Matters: How Life Decisions Affect Well-Being

»  March 2007: Protecting Children and Family Against Violence

»  February 2007: Cohabitation vs. Marriage: How Love’s Choices Shape Life Outcomes

»  January 2007: Poverty in American Households

»  December 2006: Family, Religion & Adolescent Well-Being

»  November 2006: Why We’re Thankful for Family

»  October 2006: Civic Engagement

»  September 2006: Back to School

»  August 2006: A Closer Look at Welfare

»  July 2006: Parenting Matters

»  June 2006: The Benefits of Marriage

Posted in Education, Divorce, Men's Issues, Family | Print | No Comments »

November 18, 2007 by Walter Schneider.

entitlement

1 a : the state or condition of being entitled

1 b : a right to benefits specified especially by law or contract

2 : a government program providing benefits to members of a specified group; also : funds supporting or distributed by such a program

entitle; entitled; entitling

1 : to give a title to : designated

2 : to furnish with proper grounds [e. g.: the right — WHS] for seeking or claiming something

The preceding definitions are from Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (10th Edition) and are somewhat more fuzzy than definitions of those terms were in dictionaries from about a hundred years ago or so. Although already then the distinction of the two meanings of the word “title” were becoming somewhat fuzzy, it was quite clear then that the “title” in “entitle” related to rights, to the rights of people but not to the “rights” of things, inanimate objects or even of animals.

Today that distinction is gone. It has not been eradicated or been declared invalid. It has become obfuscated and nebulous. That concerns me and should concern all.

Language is flexible and evolves. Sometimes that evolution reflects and follows real life and usage of words, but when it comes to dictionaries, especially a somewhat politically-correct and feminist-ideology-controlled dictionary like Merriam Webster’s, changes in language do not follow real life, they are used to influence and shape real life. For instance, take the word “misandry”, as opposed to the word “misogyny” (hatred of men and women, respectively)

Although the term misogyny has been around for about 350 years in the English language and has for many years been defined in dictionaries, the definition of misandry has not, even after having been defined for about 20 years or more, made it into a politically-correct dictionary like Merriam Webster’s Dictionary. That is despite of many people having made the feminists at Merriam Webster’s aware of the fact that hatred of men is very real in our society, that it has been around for as long as civilization (and perhaps even before that), and that the term misandry was put into use decades ago to identify that not only women can be object of hatred, but that men can be and are the targets of hatred as well (to a far greater extent, because women and especially feminists do not labour under anything like men’s handicap of Western Chivalry).

That is not a trivial problem. The consequences of Merriam Webster’s persistent refusal to recognize that misandry are a fact of human existence and deadly to men. About 250 million men in the world are dead that would still be alive if misandry and anti-male discrimination did not exist. At least a few million men would not have met their untimely demise if Merriam Webster’s Dictionary would have given recognition for the last 20 or more years that hatred of men exists, that it is deadly and that it should be designated misandry.

Although the misuse of the term “entitled” is by far not as deadly as is the refusal of the fact of misandry, it is the collective consequences of the watering-down and revisioning of definitions of terms in our language (in fact, in the languages of all developed nations) according to and as part of the feminist agenda for stressing women’s plight and of downplaying and denying men’s plight that are exceedingly deadly to men. There can be no argument over the importance of such obfuscation.

For example, a title becomes part of a name if the bearer of the title received the legal right (as in the case of “Lord” in Lord Beaverbrook) to use it or, if the bearer earned the right make the title part of his name, such as in the case of Dr. Albert Schweitzer or anyone else who earned a university degree at that level of education (although since the feminists got to control the curriculum it seems that the term Ph.D. is now no longer worth as much as it once was).

Individuals can therefore be entitled, but inanimate objects cannot be, as inanimate objects are unable to earn rights, to have them assigned or to exercise them.

Although various inanimate things and writings, such as essays, newspaper articles, movies, chapters in book, books themselves, data tables, paintings, and so on… usually have names that are called titles, they cannot have any rights. Therefore they are not and cannot ever become entitled!

The distinction between entitlements and names is clear, but not to all people, not even to people who are renowned for writing lengthy essays and even books that criticize the quality of our education system, not to many university-educated people, and not even to some of the smartest people we have on hand, Nobel-Prize winners.

Those concerns of mine over the many abuses of the term “entitled” are not trivial in connection with all other deliberate re-engineering of our languages. It is time to roll back the tide. It is time for the pendulum to swing the other way. Feminists have had their way with our languages for far too long. Let us begin to change things into the direction of including men’s rights in our languages.

Changes happen a step at a time, just as the language police took many, many steps before they got the power to control and change our languages.

Let’s begin with “entitled”:

• My name is Walter Schneider. That is not my title, but I do have the right to that name and am entitled to carry and use it.
• Men and women are both entitled to the same level of social comfort. To deny men that level of comfort and to give more to women is discriminatory and a violation of men’s rights.
• Men and women are entitled to equal average life spans. It is a violation of men’s rights to shorten their live expectancies by five years (that is the average gender gap in the life expectancies of the two sexes in the whole world, and, contrary to feminist propaganda, there are no controlling biological but only social causes for that discriminatory consequence).
• A man has the constitutional right to be judged by a jury of his peers, but in child-custody and divorce proceeding that right has become abrogated. Nevertheless, men are constitutionally entitled to jury trials. Just because the abrogation of jury trials for men speeds up the dissolution of marriages and the issuing of court orders that deny men their paternal rights does not mean that men lost those constitutional rights and the constitutional right to jury trials. Men are still entitled to paternal rights and to jury trials, even if they are no longer permitted to exercise or to enjoy those rights..

Anyone who reads this commentary can easily come up with hundreds of examples of the abrogation of men’s entitlements to rights. I could go on for hours and many days with listing many more of men’s entitlements that became abrogated by “law”.

The term “entitled” is a very important one for men, but the value of that term has become watered down to the extent that many people, even people in influential positions, no longer can tell the difference between an individual being entitled and a book or newspaper article being named or called by its title.

A man is entitled to many things, but a book is entitled to none. A man may have the right to a title and thus be entitled to make the title part of his name, but a book can only have a title and will not ever be entitled with a name or even be entitled to one. A book’s title is assigned by the book’s author (and often by the author’s publisher, just as there are people amongst newspaper employees who do nothing other than write headlines for articles). He does not entitle the book, he names it. Newspaper articles are not ever “entitled”, they are headlined.

To use phrases like “He concludes his article (to be published in a book entitled Just living together: Implications of cohabitation for children, families, and social policy) is a watering-down of men’s and women’s entitlements, of their rights. It puts the rights of men and women on an equal footing with those of inanimate things. To state in that case “…in a book whose title is…” is a far more adequate differentiation of people’s rights and entitlements to those rights from the name of a book. That prevents the drive towards normalizing men’s rights down to the lowest common denominator and thereby the devaluation of those rights.

Are those concerns trivial to you? Of such little things came the feminists’ rise to control and power. If nothing else, the feminists proved one thing, namely that language determines the way we think, and that the way we think determines how we act, but most importantly, that if we let someone deliberately change our language we will let them change our lives.  That causes us to lose our rights (and, in the case of men, few of our duties).

–Walter

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

November 17, 2007 by Walter Schneider.

Earlier this year the Illinois General Assembly passed a law for schools to enforce a moment of silence to be observed in classrooms at the beginning of the school day, right before the pledge of allegiance.

As to be expected, someone launched a complaint; an atheist’s daughter, who is a student at an Illinois school. It didn’t take long for a federal district court judge to issue an injunction that prohibits the exercise of the Illinois state law for the observation of the moment of silence.

The preliminary injunction is thereby not against the Illinois General Assembly and declaring the Illinois silence law null and void, but against a specific school superintendent. Even the district court judge’s concerns that led to the preliminary injunction do not pertain to the Illinois General Assembly but demand that “the State Board of Education [is] not to enforce the new law while a suit filed by the father of a public school student proceeds” (see USA-Today story).

On Wednesday, the judge issued a preliminary injunction barring the moment of silence in that student’s suburban Chicago school district. The difficulty that now arises is that the school superintendent must decide whether he is to follow the instruction of his employer, the instructions of a federal district court judge or his own conscience.

The question that will undoubtedly arise out of that is whether children’s first teachers, their parents, will ultimately be served with similar injunctions.

The moment of silence was intended to permit a moment of silent reflection or prayer. According to the article in USA Today,

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1962 that school prayer is unconstitutional. In 1985, it ruled that laws allowing a moment of silence in an attempt to restore school prayer are unconstitutional.

The vast majority of American voters in 1962 was of various Christian persuasions and most of them at that time were practicing Christians, going to church and attending various church ceremonies at least a few times each year or throughout their lives. It boggles the mind that a majority of Christian voters permits the US Supreme Court to declare unconstitutional and unlawful a practice that had been general practice in American schools for as long as there had been schools in the America, since long before the US constitution was brought into existence and for all of the time since then.

Nevertheless, in the US, as elsewhere in developed nations, judges — who should be the interpreters and administrators of the law — usurped from the legislators the power of creating the law. The word legislator means lawgiver, a meaning that appears to have been quite clear to the creators of the US Constitution who at the time ensured that God played a role in the existence and the future of the US.

It took the judges a mere two centuries to declare US schools to be godless and to begin working on removing all references to God from other official declarations and manifestations by the State that prove that the State and its people still held God in high esteem when the Constitution came into force.

Once God has been thus removed, it is unavoidable to reach the conclusion that the United States of America no longer have a Constitution. The very same trend, to have judges play an active part in removing God from a large aspect of our daily lives, the schools and other official realms of governments, has been at work simultaneously in all other developed nations in the West, a part of the world that became without a doubt great on account of its Christian cultural heritage.

It certainly is no accident that the greatness of the US and of the West is in rapid decline. The more laws are created to remove God from our lives, the faster the decline.

Atheists are a fairly small minority in our populations. Homosexuals are a far smaller and even minuscule minority (about two percent and even less) of our population, while homosexual activists comprise a fraction of one percent of their number and don’t necessarily represent the opinions of all homosexuals. The proportion of atheist activists in the small atheist population sector is probably much the same.

So, how does it come about that Atheism (a religion) and Homosexualism (an ideology) play such prominent and controlling roles in our lives?

It appears that our judges are political activists who are not impartial at all but are very partial in promoting the interests of Atheist and Homosexual minorities, whereby they ignore and even counter and dismantle the interests of the vast majority of the voters.

The reason for that and the driving force behind it may very well be the recipe for the deconstruction of the West that Antonio Gramsci put together (the then-leader of the Italian Communist Party) while he was jailed under Mussolini.

While studying Marxism and Leninism in the USSR, Antonio Gramsci had become disillusioned with the lack of progress of communism through bloody revolutions and military conquests that nevertheless failed to dismantle societies’ fundamental moral standards. He proposed a more effective alternative, an alternative that was developed simultaneously and put into motion through the Frankfurt School (a.k.a. The Frankfurt Institute for Social Research, a communist think tank), whose members were invited, brought to and installed in the US in the early 1930s.

The Frankfurt School became a very powerful motivating force in the cultural revolution in the West that had its origins in the US. It would not be wrong to state that the cultural revolution was started by and originated with the Frankfurt School. They could not have tried and succeeded in the Germany under Hitler at the time. In the US, the members of the Frankfurt School found fertile ground for their ideas and developed and implemented them without any effective opposition. In fact, they had generous funding and support for their work in the US. (See The New Dark Age: The Frankfurt School and ‘Political Correctness’, by Michael Minnicino, see also links to similar and related discussions)

Antonio Gramsci’s prescription for the cultural revolution is this:

Gramsci conjured up the notion of a “quiet revolution” that could be diffused throughout a culture–over a period of time–to destroy it from within. He was the first to suggest that psychology could be applied culturally to break the traditions, beliefs, morals and will of a people and that this could be accomplished quietly and without the possibility of resistance. He deduced that “The civilized world had been thoroughly saturated with Christianity for 2,000 years…and a culture based on this religion could only be captured from within.”

Gramsci insisted that alliances with non-communist leftist groups would be essential to Communist victory. In our time, these would include radical feminist groups, extremist environmental organizations, so-called civil rights movements, minority led anti-police associations, internationalist-minded groups, liberal church denominations, and others. Working together, these groups could create a united front working for the destructive transformation of Western Christian culture. By winning “cultural hegemony,” Gramsci pointed out that they could control the deepest wellsprings of human thought–through the medium of mass psychology. Indeed, men could be made to “love their servitude.” In Frankfurt School terms, resistance to cultural Marxism could be completely negated by placing the resister in a psychic “iron cage.”

The essential nature of Antonio Gramsci’s revolutionary strategy is reflected in a 1990s book by New Totalitarian author Charle A.Reich entitled The Greening of America: “There is a revolution coming. It will not [b]e like revolutions of the past. It will originate with the individual and the culture, and it will change the political structure as its final act. It will not require violence to succeed, and it cannot be successfully resisted by violence. This is the revolution of the New Generation. Of course this New Generation would be the author’s elite Boomer generation. Indeed, this is the underlying premise of the implementation of cultural Marxism in American society by Frankfurt School “graduates”. This intellectual foundation is the basis of the Boomer elite’s 1992 presidential election mantra, “Have the courage to change.”…. (Full Story)

It appears that much of American (or Canadian, German, British etc.) opposition limits itself to the tacit admission that such cultural subversions brought about by judiciary activists are harmless and benign:

You know, this isn’t really anything new, this chance to think about anything at all while in school. I used to do it myself, and so did- and still do-millions of school kids. It’s called “daydreaming,” and when we were caught at it, we were punished. Now, thanks to the Illinois General Assembly, it’s OK to do, at least at the start of each school day. (Full Story)

However, in reality such expressions are nothing more than manifestations of the fact that “In Frankfurt School terms, resistance to cultural Marxism could be completely negated by placing the resister in a psychic ‘iron cage.’”

Both, the promotion of and the feeble resistance to the communist cultural revolution are products of the strategy for the implementation of the Frankfurt School’s agenda.

If you should doubt that, then consider the fact that no injunction was ever issued against the Day of Silence in American Schools.

DAY OF SILENCE, April 25, 2008: an annual event held to bring attention to anti-LGBT bullying, harassment and discrimination in schools. Students and teachers nationwide will observe the day in silence to echo the silence that LGBT and ally students face everyday. The Day of Silence is one of the largest student-led actions in the country. (Full Story)

Children will be imprinted to a far larger extent through observing an annual complete day of silence held to bring attention to the mythical anti-LGBT bullying, harassment and discrimination in schools (with related lectures, of course) than they can be through an officially sanctioned ten to 15 seconds of “daydreaming” each day. The reality for the victims of bullying, harassment and discrimination in school is that the highlighted group of victims is overwhelmingly outnumbered by everyday children who are not Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual or Transgendered at all. Nevertheless, our new religions of Atheism, sexual freedom and homosexual rights cater to activism promoting their cause, not to the wishes of the vast majority of students and all people.

As Dr. Gerald L. Atkinson, the author of the preceding lengthy quote from WHO PLACED AMERICAN MEN IN A PSYCHIC “IRON CAGE”, stated in his discussion of that topic,

The evidence that psychological techniques for changing personality is intended to ideologically emasculate American men is provided by Abraham Maslow, founder of Third Force Humanist Psychology, and promoter of the psychotherapeutic classroom: “…the next step in personal evolution is a transcendence of both masculinity and femininity to general humanness. The Marxist revolutionaries know exactly what they wanted to do and how to do it. They have accomplished much of their agenda.”

–Walter

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

November 15, 2007 by Walter Schneider.

A great and valuable article:

How the Feminists’ “War against Boys” Paved the Way for Radical Islam
By Fjordman

12 November 2007

….Fjordman is a noted Norwegian blogger who has written for many conservative web sites. He used to have his own Fjordman Blog in the past, but it is no longer active.

http://globalpolitician.com/articleshow.asp?ID=3722&cid=1

The preceding reference is to a fairly long article published in Global Politician. The article is required reading.

It is remarkable that the sentiments and observations relating to population and family politics in the West that the article by Fjordman presents appear like a fairly accurate summary of the themes presented at Fathers for Life.

However, Fjordman’s article contains one misperception that must be corrected.

Barbara Boyle Torrey and Nicholas Eberstadt write about a significant divergence in fertility between Canada and the U.S.: “The levels of Canadian and American long-term trends in age of first marriage, first births, and common-law unions are consistent with the divergence in total fertility rates in the two countries. But the divergence in none of these proximate variables is large enough to explain the much larger divergence in fertility.” “Changing values in the U.S. and Canada may be contributing to the fertility divergence. The stronger notional role of men in U.S. families and the greater religiosity of Americans are positively associated with fertility, and the latter is also a strong predictor of negative attitudes toward abortion. Women in Canada enter common-law unions more often, wait longer than American women to marry, and have children later and less often.”

The significant divergence exists on a national (where it masks its true causes) but not at a detailed demographical level. Moreover, the divergence is between the US and all developed nations, not just the ones in the West, and not just Canada.

The main reason for the national divergence in the US is not, as the quoted excerpt speculates, due to the “stronger notional role of men in U.S. families and the greater religiosity of Americans are positively associated with fertility, and the latter is also a strong predictor of negative attitudes toward abortion.”

The Caucasian population sector in the US experiences the very same deadly decline in total fertility rates experienced in all other developed nations, especially in those that prosper and are more culturally and racially homogeneous than the US is. The deadly decline in total fertility rates of Blacks in the US is even worse than that in the Caucasian population sector in the US.

However, the Hispanic population sector is the major influence on national fertility trends in the US. Hispanics’ fecund birth rates compensate for the deadly decline of total fertility rates in the Caucasian and Black population sectors in the US.

It is therefore not traditional American moral standards that contribute to the US holding its own with respect to maintaining population levels. It is the massive replacement of the declining population in American traditional population sectors with legal and illegal immigrants from Mexico that does so.

Moreover, per capita, the abortion rate in the US differs little from that of other developed nations. For instance, for every Canadian resident there are ten US residents, and for every Canadian abortion there are ten abortions in the US (roughly 120,000 per year in Canada vs. about 1.2 million each year in the US). Of course, nationally, the number of live births per capita exceeds the number of abortions to a far greater extent in the US than it does in other developed nations. On a per capita basis, US abortion rates are as high as those in Canada and in other developed nations. However, the high birthrate of Hispanic residents and immigrants in the US more than compensates for the relatively high abortion rates in the US that prevent 1.2 million much-needed children each year from being allowed to live and to continue the social and moral traditions of their parents.

Perhaps the moral and social traditions of those dead children’s parents are not worth perpetuating, it is just as well that they are not being perpetuated. That is a manifestation of the fact that birth control by choice and through killing is an evolutionary dead-end. To foist the culture of death and infertility on the American population and on the populations in other developed nations does nothing other than create a demographic vacuum that is being invaded by foreign populations and foreign cultural values.

That is what the article by Fjordman more than adequately illustrates, except for indicating that the US is an exception. It would be more accurate to state that the rate of population replacement through foreign cultures is the same in the US, in France, in the Scandinavian countries and in all developed nations, but that the invading culture that dominates all other growing foreign influences in the US is Mexican, not Islam; but even that may only be a matter of time.

Posted in Abortion, Health, Feminism, The New World Order, Women's Violence | Print | No Comments »

November 15, 2007 by Walter Schneider.

The following is a response to a complaint about real case of paternity fraud in the US. The names and locations have been altered to protect the victims of the fraud.

The man who wrote the original complaint is experiencing the whole gamut of the weapons of the divorce industry:

• Paternity fraud;
• Child abduction and move-away by the mother (involving an eight-hour trip - one way - by the father if he wishes to see the child whom he has come to see as his own);
• False allegations of domestic violence, to keep they alleged fathers at bay and away;
• The defrauded man duped into paternity;
• The mother of the child refuses any child access to the alleged father;
• The defrauded father has become very strongly bonded to a child who is not his, for whom he pays child support, but a child whom he no longer gets to see, and more.

If anyone reading about that case here has any good advice or pointers, please post a comment to this blog entry.

Here is my response to the man’s complaint:

Hello Bill,

Sorry for your troubles, but thanks for writing.

Don’t blame your misfortune so much on a miscarriage of justice due to your lawyer’s ineptitude as on a justice system in which the cards are stacked against you.  That is because you are a man.  The family-law system hates men.

That is nothing personal, but the more difficulties men encounter due to the justice system, the more money the players who inhabit the system and make it thrive can extract from men.  Family law grew into a social cancer.

The most important thing you can do is to get in touch with a fathers-rights organization in Flatbush, Tennessee.

It is highly likely, almost certain, that you must file your case in a Tennessee court, as Flatbush is the place of residence of the biological parents of your child.

However, do everything you can to keep the case out of family court. Family courts were a response by the legal system to the large back-log of divorce applications that occurred in the 1960’s as a consequence of the implementation of the concept of “no-fault” divorce (in whom the fault for the divorce is always placed squarely on the shoulders of the man). Family courts are not in existence to help families and to dispense justice for families.  They exist to pursue their original reason for existence: to help speed up the destruction of families.  In family courts the precepts of normal courts — to follow the rules of the courts and the rules of evidence, your right to be judged a jury of your peers, your right to face your accuser, your right to own property, your right the enjoy the earnings of your labour and your right not to be forced into indentured labour and not to have you forced into forking over your earnings to third parties — have all been abrogated and no longer apply.

You need to get in touch with that fathers-rights organization in Flatbush to learn from them what you can do to help your case.  You will most likely learn more from them than you can learn from a lawyer.  More importantly, you can ask them and learn from them how to go about finding a lawyer that can help you the best to win your case.  However, your chances of winning are slim.  That is because you are a man.  The system hates men.

That was in relation to your wish to obtain custody of your daughter.

As to what you must do to get compensation from your lawyer and to get him punished or fined for lack of action, for botching your case, and for being a bad lawyer all around, you will have to file that case in New York.  That case will have to be brought to court in New York, perhaps in New York State.

I do not know who in New York will be able to help you.  I am not aware of a fathers rights activist who may be able to point you into the right direction on that.  It will not hurt you to ask more fathers rights activist about it.

A word on your choice of lawyer in the very specialized field of family law:  Family law is not specialized because lawyers receive much training in family law (at some universities, family law is covered in no more than a day), but because it has become a sector of the justice system that, along with many other government bureaucracies nurtured by and living off it, grew into an enormously large and profitable industry that mainly extracts money from men and pretends that is justice, all under the excuse that it all is “in the best interest of the child.”

The relationship between you and any lawyer working for you is like that with any other contractor you hire. You are the boss and pay the bills and his wages.

A lawyer works for you according to your plan, your schedule, your objectives, your instructions and your supervision.  For you to miss out in any of those aspects is an invitation to disaster and much like giving the lawyer a signed, blank cheque.

Moreover, you must select and choose a lawyer like you would any other contractor.  With a construction or building-renovation project you may engage in a formal and tender and bidding process.  You would receive bids for a given job from more than one contractor.  You would evaluate the bids and pick the most promising contractor.  If you were not to do that, you would have no assurance that the contractor you hired would be the best for the job you want him to do.  If you don’t follow a similar process when hiring a lawyer, then there is no possible way that you can be sure to have hired the best lawyer possible.

As to going by the recommendation of someone who said you should pick that lawyer, “good advice” like that is cheap, and it is worth to you what you pay for it, but it may be worth more to the party offering the “good advice.”  Medical doctors pay a referral fee to other doctors who bring clients their way.  I don’t know whether lawyers operate that way, but I would be surprised if they did not.

As to how to find a fathers-rights organization, go to http://www.dvmen.org/dv-190.htm#help

Some general observations:

Given that your daughter is not your biological child, although you were duped into believing that she was, that will cause some special problems for you.  It appears obvious that you were duped in order to make you become involved in a strong emotional bond with your daughter.

The fact that the bond now exists lays you open to blackmail and extortion by the biological parents of the child.  Moreover, because you openly accepted the child as your own and are now even fighting for her custody and that of her sister, you are legally the father of that child and of her sister.

In all likelihood you will be paying child support until the girl comes of age or until she finishes her education, whichever comes later.  Yet, you may not ever see her again.  The “legal” system will insist that that is in the best interest of the child — not only that, but that your daughter is entitled to the level of comfort she became accustomed to while still in your care.  That means also that the child support amount will be increased over the years as your income increases.  It will be said that that is necessary because she would have the increase in the level of comfort if she were still with you, and that those increases in child support payments, too, are in the best interest of the child.

Moreover, it is relatively easy now to make you the father of not only the girl whom you believed was your daughter, but also of the one that clearly and quite openly was not your child.  That doubles the stakes in the game that you became involved in.

If the biological parents are in the state of existence you described, they will have a very strong interest in having you make those ever-increasing child support payments for as long as possible.  In fact, as far as they are concerned, the best thing that could happen would be for them to have your daughter(s) go to university for as long as possible.  They could well afford that, because you will be paying for it.

Your child support payments will be their major source of income.  It will be far better than receiving a government disability pension, and it is possible for them to use the power of the State to make sure the money you are able to pay will keep coming their way.

That will motivate the parents to refuse to hand the child(ren) over to you.  Against their resistance it will most likely be impossible for you to gain custody of your daughter(s).  The parents will have lawyers beating a path to their door to help them fight your application to gain custody.  You will be paying your lawyer out of your own resources.  Their lawyers will be paid out of the bottomless public purse.  You will therefore fight against an opponent with unlimited financial resources.

Under those circumstances it will be difficult for you to maintain the pretense that the girl is your daughter.  You will have little or no feedback from her to re-enforce your bond with her.  The question now is for how long you can keep up the pretense that the child is your daughter.  When that pretense ends, the child support you are paying will be seen by you for what it is, extortion money that you must pay because you were duped and defrauded.

If you were to consider all of that, you should then not fight for custody but for recognition of what happened.  You were duped and defrauded.  That is a crime.

You are not the father of that child and you should fight to have your status cancelled of having been made the father through fraud.  Your legal paternity is a fraud.

If you were to base your future actions on the fact of that fraud and if you were to attempt to put an end to it, you would have a very small but slightly better chance to have your paternity declared null and void than you have to gain custody of one or both of the girls.

All the best,

Walter Schneider
http://fathersforlife.org

Posted in Paternity Fraud | Print | No Comments »

November 10, 2007 by Walter Schneider.

Excerpt from The War on Women:

Compare the raw numbers. In the same seven-year period when 4,588 U.S. soldiers and police officers were killed by hostiles or by accident, more than 8,000 women – nearly twice as many – were shot, stabbed, strangled, or beaten to death by the intimate males in their lives. In Canada, compared to the 101 Canadian soldiers and police officers killed, more than 500 women – nearly five times as many – met the same fate….

Original article (Toronto Star, Nov. 3, 2007)

It is a common and cheap propaganda trick by feminists to make such comparisons in successful efforts to draw attention to “women’s plight”.

In my mind, but not in the mind of many readers of the article, the comparison of all of the wars is wrong, for as long as the “war on women” is compared to other causes of fatalities that are completely incompatible and even incomparable. If there must be a “war on women”, then let’s compare its consequences to the consequences of the “war on men”.

The whole feminist argument vanishes as soon as one makes the correct comparison, that of comparing the plight of women with that of the plight of men. When that is done, a totally different picture - the true one - is immediately apparent.

Women live on average (in the whole world) five more years than men do, 10 to 12 more years in the member countries of the former communist block, 7 more years in socialistic Canada, and 6 more years in the not yet so socialistic USA.

There is no biological reason at all for that large and still growing gender gap in the life expectancies of the sexes. The reason for men dying sooner than women do is simply the consequence of society’s “war on men”. However, for anyone, including feminists, it is wrong to make use of hyperbole like that. The phrase “war on men” is wrong and the phrase “discrimination against men” must be substituted.

When it comes to the respective sexes losing their lives in the real wars that are being fought right now, the Toronto Star article already fails to make any comparison at all. There is a very good reason for that. The proportions of men and women dying in combat always differed. Let’s face it, there are three major reasons for that. Firstly, men are expendable and women need to be protected. Secondly, no woman in her right mind will want to be equal to men to the extent that she is as likely to die as men are. Thirdly, no man in his right mind will let any woman expose herself to risks such as those he must take.

Not all that long ago virtually no women died in combat. Combat fatalities were comprised almost exclusively of men (e. g.: 58,169 American servicemen and 8 American servicewomen died in Vietnam). That has changed now, but true equality between the sexes in the area of combat in war is far from being reached and probably will never be reached. The latest figures I saw on that indicate that less than one woman died in combat for every ten men who did so.

But let’s go one step farther into an area where affirmative hiring of women has made greater inroads into equality of the sexes. All feminist assertions to the contrary, even though virtually equal numbers of men and women work in the service professions (police, protective services, guards, firefighting ) in the US, in the years from 1992 through 2001, 262 women and 4,774 men had fatal occupational injuries (details).

That is a ratio of one woman for every 18.2 men, not too different from the average of men’s and women’s respective fatalities in the general job market, where the ratio is one women fatality for slightly less than every 19 men fatalities.

Most interestingly, those ratios have seen no change for as long as statistics have been kept. There is absolutely no indication of any change at all, even though one would expect one, especially when having been indoctrinated by feminist propaganda to the contrary throughout most of one’s life.

Now let’s look at murder victims. The proportions differ a little from country to country but have remained virtually unchanged over the years. For example, in the US, for every woman who got murdered there were about 5.8 men who met their demise in that fashion.

The conclusion: “The War on Women” is another feminist hoax. The truth is that anti-male discrimination is extensive and seriously deadly for men, not for women.

–Walter

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