April 30, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

By Marty Nemko

What do the following people have in common: Aristotle, Plato, Jesus, Leonardo da Vinci, Beethoven, Monet, the Wright Brothers, Jonas Salk, Steven Spielberg, 98% of the Nobel Prize Winners for science, the key scientists behind the development of every drug from aspirin to breast cancer breakthrough Herceptin, from anesthetic to heart bypass surgery, from refrigeration to heating, from the electric light bulb to the radio, the television, the computer, and the mapping of human genome? They’re all men.

And in the five decades since the women’s movement began, 97% of science, 92% of literature, and 100% of economic Nobel Laureates still are men….(Full Story)

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

April 30, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

The Canadian Press

April 30, 2008 at 11:15 AM EDT

LONDON, Ont. — A 12 and a 13-year-old are among six girls charged after a woman was swarmed in London, Ont…. (Full Story)

Posted in Women's Violence | Print | No Comments »

April 29, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

From http://marriage.rutgers.edu/Publications/pubtoptenmyths.htm

The Top Ten Myths of Divorce

Discussion of the most common misinformation about divorce

David Popenoe

1 Because people learn from their bad experiences, second marriages tend to be more successful than first marriages.

Although many people who divorce have successful subsequent marriages, the divorce rate of remarriages is in fact higher than that of first marriages.¹ [Sources]

2 Living together before marriage is a good way to reduce the chances of eventually divorcing.

Many studies have found that those who live together before marriage have a considerably higher chance of eventually divorcing. The reasons for this are not well understood. In part, the type of people who are willing to cohabit may also be those who are more willing to divorce. There is some evidence that the act of cohabitation itself generates attitudes in people that are more conducive to divorce, for example the attitude that relationships are temporary and easily can be ended.² [Sources]

3 Divorce may cause problems for many of the children who are affected by it, but by and large these problems are not long lasting and the children recover relatively quickly.

Divorce increases the risk of interpersonal problems in children. There is evidence, both from small qualitative studies and from large-scale, long-term empirical studies, that many of these problems are long lasting. In fact, they may even become worse in adulthood.³ [Sources]

4 Having a child together will help a couple to improve their marital satisfaction and prevent a divorce.

Many studies have shown that the most stressful time in a marriage is after the first child is born. Couples who have a child together have a slightly decreased risk of divorce compared to couples without children, but the decreased risk is far less than it used to be when parents with marital problems were more likely to stay together “for the sake of the children.”⁴[Sources]

5 Following divorce, the woman’s standard of living plummets by seventy three percent while that of the man’s improves by forty two percent.

This dramatic inequity, one of the most widely publicized statistics from the social sciences, was later found to be based on a faulty calculation. A reanalysis of the data determined that the woman’s loss was twenty seven percent while the man’s gain was ten percent. Irrespective of the magnitude of the differences, the gender gap is real and seems not to have narrowed much in recent decades.⁵ [Sources]

6 When parents don’t get along, children are better off if their parents divorce than if they stay together.

A recent large-scale, long-term study suggests otherwise. While it found that parents’ marital unhappiness and discord have a broad negative impact on virtually every dimension of their children’s well-being, so does the fact of going through a divorce. In examining the negative impacts on children more closely, the study discovered that it was only the children in very high conflict homes who benefited from the conflict removal that divorce may bring. In lower-conflict marriages that end in divorce—and the study found that perhaps as many as two thirds of the divorces were of this type—the situation of the children was made much worse following a divorce. Based on the findings of this study, therefore, except in the minority of high-conflict marriages it is better for the children if their parents stay together and work out their problems than if they divorce.⁶ [Sources]

7 Because they are more cautious in entering marital relationships and also have a strong determination to avoid the possibility of divorce, children who grow up in a home broken by divorce tend to have as much success in their own marriages as those from intact homes.

Marriages of the children of divorce actually have a much higher rate of divorce than the marriages of children from intact families. A major reason for this, according to a recent study, is that children learn about marital commitment or permanence by observing their parents. In the children of divorce, the sense of commitment to a lifelong marriage has been undermined.⁷ [Sources]

8 Following divorce, the children involved are better off in stepfamilies than in single-parent families.

The evidence suggests that stepfamilies are no improvement over single-parent families, even though typically income levels are higher and there is a father figure in the home. Stepfamilies tend to have their own set of problems, including interpersonal conflicts with new parent figures and a very high risk of family breakup.⁸ [Sources]

9 Being very unhappy at certain points in a marriage is a good sign that the marriage will eventually end in divorce.

All marriages have their ups and downs. Recent research using a large national sample found that eighty six percent of people who were unhappily married in the late 1980s, and stayed with the marriage, indicated when interviewed five years later that they were happier. Indeed, three fifths of the formerly unhappily married couples rated their marriages as either “very happy” or “quite happy.”⁹ [Sources]

10 It is usually men who initiate divorce proceedings

Two-thirds of all divorces are initiated by women. One recent study found that many of the reasons for this have to do with the nature of our divorce laws. For example, in most states women have a good chance of receiving custody of their children. Because women more strongly want to keep their children with them, in states where there is a presumption of shared custody with the husband the percentage of women who initiate divorces is much lower.¹⁰ [Sources] Also, the higher rate of women initiators is probably due to the fact that men are more likely to be “badly behaved.” Husbands, for example, are more likely than wives to have problems with drinking, drug abuse, and infidelity.

_______________

The information shown above is from The [US] National Marriage Project:

Leadership

The project is co-directed by two nationally prominent marriage experts. David Popenoe, Ph.D., a professor and and former social and behavioral science dean at Rutgers, is the author of Life Without Father, Disturbing the Nest, and many other scholarly and popular publications on marriage and family. Barbara Dafoe Whitehead, Ph.D., an author and social critic, writes extensively on issues of marriage, family and child wellbeing. She is the author of Why There Are No Good Men Left: The Romantic Plight of the New Single Woman (Broadway Books, 2003), The Divorce Culture (Knopf, 1996) and the widely acclaimed Atlantic Monthly article “Dan Quayle Was Right.”

The list of the Top-Ten Myths of Divorce attracted my attention because of the comments provided in Item #10 in the list. Somewhat more comprehensive and to-the-point views of the cited Brinig and Allen report provide more relevant information. For example:

The proportion of divorces initiated by women ranged around 60% for most of the 20th century, and climbed to more than 70% in the late 1960s when no-fault divorce was introduced….The Brinig-Allen study also explodes the myth of the brutish husband, finding, for instance, that cruelty is cited in only 6% of divorce applications in Virginia, one of the few states that still uses fault grounds for divorce….adultery cases are evenly split between men and women…. (”Look who doesn’t want a divorce,” Alberta Report, January 11, 1999, page 30)

Brinig and Allen, the authors of the report “These Boots are Made for Walking: Why Wives File for Divorce,” found that “who gets the children is by far the most important component in deciding who files for divorce, particularly when there is very little quarrel about property, as when the separation is long.” They found that to have or to be assured that they will get the children (and “child-support” payments) “the probability that she’d file increases to .69,” while “if the husband got custody, the probability that the wife files would decrease to .32.” (Table 7. How much do the numbers matter?)

In divorcing families with children, depending on locality, wives file for divorce in between 75 percent to 85 percent of the cases.

Note also the last statement under Item #10 in the list: “Also, the higher rate of women initiators is probably due to the fact that men are more likely to be “badly behaved.” Husbands, for example, are more likely than wives to have problems with drinking, drug abuse, and infidelity.”

That statement is pure speculation and not corroborated by any research nor by any citations of such research. The statement appears to be based on another myth, namely that women always tell the truth. That “truth” is largely debunked in the report by Brinig and Allen and in a variety of similar studies (e. g.: Divorced Dads : Shattering the Myths : The Surprising Truth About Fathers, Children, and Divorce (Hardcover - 288 pages (October 1998) J P Tarcher; ISBN: 087477862X ) Review).

For example, in the vast majority of cases wives file for divorce, and they file not because of adultery by their husbands or because they were being physically abused (the latter is theleast important reason of all stated by wives - alleged in only about six percent of the reasons given for divorce) but because they are bored with their marriages.

The myths and slander of men who are “badly behaved” and “are more likely than wives to have problems with drinking, drug abuse, and infidelity” are most likely founded in the myth that women don’t lie. However, even supposedly objective social researchers are not yet quite ready to examine the true circumstances of that reality. The impact of decades of incessant and all-pervasive indoctrination by feminists is often difficult and sometimes impossible to shed by those who are members of the captive audience of the feminist-controlled and -dominated education system.

Posted in Education, Media Bias, Divorce, Child-Custody Awards, Family, Feminist Jurisprudence | Print | 1 Comment »

April 24, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

Hello Tom (I presume),

Your inquiry, re: Father-custody - outcomes in children of divorce

Thanks for your phone call.

I am not commenting here in a specifically constructive manner, as far as the topic of interest to you is concerned. All I am doing here is to copy-and-paste a few of many relevant references listed or otherwise shown at http://fathersforlife.org. To be more specific would require many hours, even days of work. Sorry, but I cannot do that for you. I only have the time to point you into the general direction for the right information. (However, I am giving you a few items of general advice.)

You can find these and many other related references by using the search input field at the upper right-hand corner of virtually every web page at http://fathersforlife.org. The search string to enter is:

outcome children father-custody

Here goes:

• The case for Father-Custody
  By Daniel Amneus, Ph.D.
  The Case for Father-Custody is a well-researched and valuable source of information and statistics relating to fatherlessness. The book is accessible as a an easily navigable PDF file at Fathering Magazine

[The end notes in that book are an excellent source for citations relating to what you need for your case. The book itself contains many excellent quotes (see end notes for citations) that will provide you with exactly what you are looking for. Although the book is a bit dated, the information it contains is still true. –WHS]

• The following is a collections of links to more articles and study reports that focus on father absence or fatherlessness.

• Effects on children of removing a father from the life of a child., Center for Children’s Justice

• The Consequences of Fatherlessness — The [US] National Center for Fathering

• Effects of Fatherlessness on Children – Social Consequences.
  Statement of Bill Wood and Jay Gell, Children’s Legal Foundation, Charlotte, North Carolina

• National Review: Fatherlessness: The Root Cause: The link between crime and fatherlessness is astonishing, By Dave Kopel, Independence Institute

• Turning the Corner on Father Absence in Black America, A Statement from the Morehouse Conference on African-American Fathers; Washington, June 16,1999

• Fatherlessness is the greatest social problem in Canada, Canadian Children’s Rights Council

• THE FACTS ON FATHERLESSNESS, Prepared for the Fatherhood Foundation by Bill Muehlenberg, Australian Family Association - August 2002

• Transforming the Culture of Fatherlessness, by Rev. Robert A. Sirico, Acton President

• Boston Globe: The black rebellion against fatherlessness, By Eugene F. Rivers III | July 9, 2006

• Townhall.com: Fatherlessness A Problem for Kids, Not Mothers, By Maggie Gallagher
  Tuesday, June 12, 2001

  That is a fairly weighty collection of facts and opinions regarding fatherlessness. It is important to note that even the U.K. lately joined the choir singing praise of fatherhood, sort of, but nevertheless welcome after more than eight years of continuous slander, vilification and demonization of fathers. Here it is, the first pro-father commentary after about ten years in an official party organ in the U.K.:

thisislondon.co.uk: Married parents are best, admits Blairite think tank

That is all nice and good, although it is obvious that the U.K. is a late-comer in the debate on fatherlessness and may need a while longer to catch on to what is going on in that department.

It seems that Maggie Gallagher deserves the last word on what we should be after.

In the early ’80s, Becky Peck was one of a new generation of women experimenting with what optimists dub alternative family forms. She chose to use an anonymous sperm donor to create a deliberately fatherless household. Just her and her cuddly babies. Sixteen years later, she tracked down the DNA provider, David Ross. After making sure her motives were not financial (i.e. meeting his kids wouldn’t cost him any money), David was thrilled. Instant family — no diapers to change, no college to pay for. What’s not to love?

But why would a woman who chose anonymous sperm donation suddenly decide at that late date to attach a face and a name to the DNA? The kids, of course. In spite of all the love a mother could provide, they still longed for Daddy. Becky never planned on that. Too many women still don’t.

The actress Calista Flockhart, Miss Ally McBeal, adopted a baby. She recently confessed to the New York Post, “I want more children. I guess it would be nice to have a husband, too, and if you know where I might find the right one, let me know. But meanwhile, the baby is all I really want.”

Maybe so. But what does her baby want, or what will he want a year from now? Children’s hearts will keep fracturing until more mothers, especially privileged mothers, recognize that giving their baby everything he needs includes giving him a loving father. That’s the old, stubborn idea of marriage, the place where a man and woman pledge themselves in love, not only to each other, but to their future children.

As President Bush said so bravely and truthfully, “a child’s greatest source of security today is not only knowing ‘my mom loves me’ and ‘my dad loves me,’ but also that Mom and Dad love each other. If we are serious about renewing fatherhood, we must be serious about renewing marriage.”

But wait a minute, that means that what the children need comes first, and that mutual love between the two parents, marriage for life, that is, will be a necessary social obligation for parents! Exactly!!

Children’s hearts will keep fracturing until more mothers, especially privileged mothers, recognize that giving their baby everything he needs includes giving him a loving father.

Those quotes are from the Fatherlessness — Main Page at Fathers for Life.

There is more:

• UN survey on what ails the world’s children — The state of …

  Father custody children were higher in all outcomes (academic achievement and adjustment) than those in mother custody families”

The following google-search will provide more specific returns for the whole Internet (159 entries on the search-return list)

Using a search term that fits what you are specifically looking for reduces that to three entries on the search return list:

The search string: “better outcomes” children “father-custody” “when conflict”

The search returns:

[PDF]
The Future of Children

File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML better outcomes. The average for each group of children ….. mother or father custody is. inherently better for children, … www.futureofchildren.org/usr_doc/vol4no1ART9.pdf - Similar pages - Note this

JSTOR: Life-Span Adjustment of Children to Their Parents’ Divorce

When conflict between parents is marked, frequent con- tact with the ….. On a few outcomes, children were better off in father-custody households. … links.jstor.org/sici?sici=1054-8289(199421)4%3A1%3C143%3ALAOCTT%3E2.0.CO%3B2-W - Similar pages - Note this

[PDF]

Managing the impact of separation and divorce on children …

File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML
children’s adjustment improves when conflict declines after divorce (Kitzmann & Emery, …… Advantages of father custody and contact for the psychological …
auseinet.flinders.edu.au/files/resources/auseinet/divorce.pdf - Similar pages - Note this

You sounded as if you are pressed for time, but it also seems that you feel that by presenting facts in your favour you can influence the outcome of your custody hearing in your favour. Being pressed for time is real, but the assumption that you will be able to influence the outcome of a custody hearing is largely an illusion. On average, custody decisions are in about nine out of ten cases in favour of the woman. Facts have little, and endemic anti-male bias of the courts everything, to do with that.

I strongly recommend that you read the following book:

Taken Into Custody: The War Against Fathers, Marriage, and the Family

More and purchase information for “Taken Into Custody” at http://www.stephenbaskerville.net/

There is an important thing that you should consider doing. Get in touch with a local fathers rights organization. Here is a directory that you can use to find such an organization near you.

All the best,

Walter Schneider
http://fathersforlife.org

Posted in Divorce, Men's Issues, Child-Custody Awards, Family | Print | No Comments »

April 23, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

Barbara Kay, writing for the National Post, has done it again. She once more exposed massive pro-female and pro-homosexual bias in the mainstream media.

National Post
Barbara Kay: We’re still ignoring abused straight men

Posted: April 22, 2008, 4:38 PM by Marni Soupcoff

Barbara Kay

Heterosexual men can’t catch a break from the media. When they’re aggressors, they’re condemned. When they’re victims, they’re ignored. Conversely, when women — gay or straight — and gay men are victims, they’re pitied. And when they’re aggressors, they’re …hmm … also pitied.

A new study by Statistics Canada confirms what researchers in the field of domestic violence proved years ago: that partner violence amongst same-sex Canadians is significantly higher than amongst heterosexual couples. According to StatsCan, gays and lesbians experience twice the partner abuse of straight couples….

….All women and gay men represent about 60% of our population, but where domestic violence is concerned, together attract 99% of the media’s sympathy and funded outreach. How long will the mainstream media’s unethical double standard in reportage of domestic violence persist?

(Full Story)

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

April 19, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

News.com.au
April 18, 2008 11:54pm

AN ITALIAN man was given a suspended jail sentence for staring too intensely at a woman sitting in front of him on a train.

What was the evidence?   Apparently nothing more than the woman’s uncorroborated assertion.  Read the whole story.

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

April 19, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

Turning the personal into the political

The other day someone let me view a video on Islamic violence against women. The video contained many instances of gruesome violence against women, amongst them, the murder of a Jordanian girl, an honour killing, happened perhaps about 12 or more years ago.  I wrote about it on Mothers_Day_1998, when a TV program, “Mothers and their Daughters”, mentioning it was broadcast by CTV Edmonton. That CTV program was about as revolting as the video of Islamic violence against women I watched the other day. Who knows, the two videos may even be the same. I can’t tell, too much time has gone by between the two viewings, and I had watched only relatively small portions of each video.

You may wish to read that comment I wrote about “Mothers and their Daughters” and especially the appended excerpt from “Covert Video Recordings of Life-threatening Child Abuse: Lessons for Child Protection” (PEDRIATRICS Vol. 100 No. 5, November 1997, Dr. Southall et al.). That provides for somewhat better balance in the coverage of the issue of violence against and by women.

It cannot be stressed enough that gruesome murders like that in Jordan about a decade or more years ago happen so rarely that feminists mention them for years and probably until the end of time. That is all they have with which to raise sympathy for women in that fashion, but it is enough. The anti-male feminists simply have only a very small base for their claims. That is why they have to repeat their claims over and over, for years and even decades on end. They invent the rest of their claims and false assertions, and they even go back into prehistoric times - although that defies all logic. How can anyone claim anything even remotely correct about anything that is supposed to have happened between the sexes before history was written down? However, the feminists justify their discrimination against men by demanding that today’s men have to atone for the crimes of their fathers, even if those crimes are pure inventions and distortions.

The trouble with the hyped-up, endless repetitions
of falsely alleged and ancient wrongdoings by men is that they are an effective propaganda tactic. Every time people see pictures or a movie of such things, they become affected. In essence, they are being brainwashed in a specific and extremely biased fashion, as the gruesome and far more prevalent murders and mass-slaughters of men are not being mentioned.

However, there is a far more insidious aspect of that sort of feminist propaganda. What is also not being mentioned is that women participate as primary perpetrators and especially as participants who give orders to others to torture and murder, especially when it comes to genital mutilation of girls. Naturally, the feminist propagandists never, ever mention the genital mutilation of boys, circumcision - most often done without anesthesia.

Feminist propagandists learned a lot from Lenin, Hitler and other masters of mass-brainwashing in all totalitarian regimes. Hitler said that if one tells lies, he must tell big lies, and that he only has to repeat the lies incessantly and all-pervasively to have them accepted by the general public as the truth.

Hitler also said that when it comes to successful propaganda it is important to “never underestimate the enormous capacity of the masses to forget”.

There is without a doubt a lot of indoctrination done with the Koran and with the Bible. Many passages in the Bible identify women as instigators of and participants in violence, but in all the illustrations that were ever inserted into any edition or version of the Bible, not one ever showed a woman taking part in an honour-killing of anyone.

The ancient laws in the Bible and in the Koran demand that all adulterers, and not exclusively only women, were to be put to death. Contrary to reality and to the words of the Bible, not one of the illustrations in the Bible or in modern tools of indoctrination ever show a woman doing the killing or a man being the victim of a woman’s violence. The illustrations do show women as loving mothers and as sufferers, even though there are more than enough Passages in the Bible that describe many but not all women as anything but being loving or suffering.

A picture is worth a thousand words. All propagandists, including modern-day feminists, are well aware of that, which is why they use pictures all the time. As far as the effectiveness of feminist propaganda goes, any photo or artistic illustration of a bruised, mutilated or tortured woman will do to raise sympathy for all women, even if it is a dozen or more years old. Propaganda never presents reality in an objective fashion.

The communists in the USSR raised particularly one form of propaganda to a fine art.  Just as they did with the Communist Manifesto, the feminists took those propaganda tactics over and now daily use them to bombard us with them: turning the personal into the political.

The use of the honour killing of the Jordanian girl for propaganda purposes and to imply that such an extremely rare form of a woman’s death is something that is being done to systematically victimize all women is an instant of making the personal politicial. Feminists use such tactics to assert that every woman’s pain is being felt by every other woman. Well, if that were truly so, we would have only horribly bruised and headless women walking around in the whole world.

Logic is feminism’s weakness, hyperbole its strength. If we throw away the genderlens and look objectively at reality, then we find that without a doubt men do far more suffering than women do. Here are a few comparisons.

• Canadian men live on average to only 76 years, but women live on average to 82 years of age.
• Far more men than women become victims of murder. In the USA, men comprise 77% of murder victims 18 years and older. See also Leading Causes of Death, age group 15 - 24 (USA)
• About 80 percent of all suicide victims in Canada are men or boys. (Corresponding suicide figures for the USA)
• Depending on country, between 18 to 19 victims of every 20 job fatalities are men. (Canada, USA)

You will have no trouble adding many other comparisons to the list. It is obvious that for men to be patriarchal male oppressors of women is a tough, even deadly job, but I am just kidding. Except for the fact that there is no male conspiracy to oppress women, men do on average - in the whole world - die five years earlier than women do.

If you wish to find the truth about many feminist distortions and myths, you can find quite a few very surprising truths at The Domain of Patriarchy on the Internet, by Robert Sheaffer - Chief Patriarch and Oppressor-General.

However, if all men truly oppress women, it would be the first time in the history of mankind that the oppressors live shorter lives than do those whom they oppress. In the feminist ideological universe that does not matter: women receive credit for suffering women don’t do, while men receive no credit at all for suffering that men do. In the feminist universe men’s suffering is invisible.

The Independent Women’s Forum debunked ten feminist- and government-promoted facts:

Take Back the Campus
4/17/2001

Are you tired of male-bashing and victimology?
Have you had your fill of feminist “Ms./Information”?
Have you been misled by factually challenged professors?

TAKE THIS TEST:

Campus feminism is a kind of cult: As early as freshman orientation, professors begin spinning theories about how American women are oppressed under “patriarchy.” Here is a list of the most common feminist myths. If you believe two or more of these untruths, you may need deprogramming.

THE TEN MOST COMMON FEMINIST MYTHS:

Full Story

Posted in Propaganda Exposed, Women's Violence | Print | No Comments »

April 17, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

For many people the term divorce industry means absolutely nothing. It does, however, mean something to two minor sectors of the population:

1. Activist and advocates for pro-family rights and pro-fathers-rights consider the terms divorce industry and fatherlessness to be strongly related. They feel that fatherlessness is tearing apart the fabric of our once-functioning society. They have reason to believe that the divorce industry causes fatherlessness, that is: the removal and the consequences of that removal of fathers from the lives of those fathers’ children.
2. For feminists in non-governmental organizations and in government (whether elected or simply employees of the government bureaucracy), the divorce industry and the fatherlessness produced by the divorce industry matter not at all other than that they wish for the epidemic of fatherlessness to escalate and that they feel that the concerns by fathers-rights activists and by pro-family advocates are a nuisance that at the very least needs to be ignored.

Fatherlessness and the consequences of fatherlessness are growing inexorably, year by year. A steadily growing number of children in all developed nations - roughly a third and more of all children - have no fathers in their lives to guide them, to set rules, to be role models and protectors to their children.

Fathers very seldom abscond their families voluntarily. Virtually all fatherlessness of children is caused by the governments’ sponsorship, promotion and enforcement of anti-father and outright father-hostile sentiments and policies that are being actively promoted and put into play by members of the divorce industry.

When children are present in families, women file for divorce in roughly 75-85 percent of the cases (depending upon country), while without children in a family the dissolution of that family is being initiated by a woman in only two instances for every instance of family dissolution by a man.

The chart shown to the right depicts a typical composition of government departments and of government-sponsored private organizations and interest groups that promote and benefit from the government-promoted concept of fatherless families (a.k.a. sole-mother families or single-mother families). The chart illustrates the composition of the divorce industry in the United States (Source: Statement of Bill Wood, and Jay Gell, Children’s Legal Foundation, Charlotte, North Carolina, [US] Ways and Means Committee, 2001 06 28; footnote 69)

Everyone possessing a bit of common sense is likely to have concerns about the escalating trend towards increasing fatherlessness. Those concerns are well-justified and born out by scientifically-valid findings from research studies done by reputable researchers, studies that meet acceptable academic standards, studies like those quoted in the statement by Bill Wood and Jay Gell to the US Ways and Means Committee. Note that those studies are not creations by fathers rights activists, but that fathers rights activists quote from studies by independent and objective researchers.

Nevertheless, the feminists - whose goal it is to destroy the institution of the family, thereby to create massive fatherlessness and the gradual deconstruction of our Christian cultural heritage - dismiss valid social research regarding fatherlessness as myths and substitute unsubstantiated opinions based at best on nothing more than advocacy research done on selective and biased study samples from whom no valid projections to the general population can be made. Nevertheless, they call such opinions “facts” and they call the scientific truth “myths”. (For example: MYTHS AND FACTS About Fatherlessness)

Such feminists apparently feel justified in replacing the scientific truth with a fanciful reality of their own making because they obstinately believe, imply and even assert that feminists never lie, are therefore always right, and that anyone who disagrees with their outlandish and unsubstantiated opinions must quite simply be wrong.

To discern which side in the debate is right - feminists who promote the deconstruction of our society, or people who wish to promote the constructive evolution and growth of the western cultural heritage and society - one should have a look at a few of about 50,000 web pages and articles that address the subject of fatherlessness and not merely buy into the claims regarding fatherlessness promoted by feminists and published by the largely feminist-dominated and -controlled media.

One of the most-important and most-comprehensive compilations of studies of the impact of fatherlessness is the following: Experiments in Living: The Fatherless Family, by Rebecca O’Neill; Sept. 2002, CIVITAS. It wins hands-down in refuting feminist claims that assert positive and constructive consequences of fatherlessness. It is not surprising that such studies do not support feminist claims and are therefore never mentioned by family- and father-hostile feminists.

Posted in Divorce, Education, Censorship, Shared Parenting, Family, Propaganda Exposed, Feminist Jurisprudence, The New World Order | Print | No Comments »

April 15, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

The international networking by English-speaking jurists, judiciary activists, activist judges, and by their adjuncts (non-governmental organizations) is fast and - if not efficient - extremely effective. Therefore it frequently happens that innovative laws and forms of punishment for ostensible criminals make their appearance simultaneously or only separated in time by extremely short intervals in many different English-speaking countries throughout the world.

For instance, in English-speaking countries, drivers-licence removal is a popular and longstanding form of punishment (it has been around for a decade and more) for minor crimes, primarily the “crime” of falling into arrears with child support payments - not necessarily through any personal fault. In English-speaking countries, drivers-licence removals as a form of punishment spread like a wildfire.

Curiously, as Sanford Braver reports in Divorced Dads : Shattering the Myths, where reasonable child access exists for fathers expunged from their families (in the majority of the cases through no fault of their own), child-support payments are voluntarily made in more than 90 percent of cases and often in excess of the specified amounts. About six percent of fathers ordered to pay child-support default on some or all of their payments. At most half of those (about three percent of all divorced dads) are truly “deadbeat dads”. The others are often unable to pay all or pay only part of what they are ordered to pay - because they can’t make ends meet. They have fallen on hard times, such as having become under-employed, unemployed, sick, disabled, hospitalized, incarcerated (very often for outstanding child-support arrears), and even having died (quite often through suicide) and having been buried - as child-support obligations extend in many jurisdictions even beyond the grave.

Germany appears to lag a bit behind in the application of drivers-licence and professional licence removal for the enforcement of compliance with sentences for minor crimes that very often are not crimes at all but nothing other than the inability by idividual (amost exclusively men) to conform to government-imposed financial liabilities.  What will be coming next for a German man so unfortunate will be a life in which he, as a “criminal” (often a debtor with unpaid compulsory child-support obligations), is hobbled by the lack of a drivers licence, by the lack of professional licences and by seriously restricted abilities to earn a living and to pay obligations, instead of having to live a life shackled to the walls of a debtors prison. Is the imposing of the lack of freedom of movement or the freedom to earn a living any more humane than having one’s freedom of movement restricted by the walls of a debtors prison? One so sentenced is always assured good meals and a bed in debtors prison. Moreover, the place is heated and is a lot more comfortable than a cardboard box at -35°C in a back alley.

The appended translation of a German-language news item and of the related introductory comment shows that Germany is in the process of taking the important first step in the removal and denial of the constitutionally guaranteed right of freedom of movement in the cases of perpetrators of minor criminal offences. The step to extend the form of punishment that we have become accustomed to for the so-called crime of having fallen on hard times and defaulting on child-support payments will surely follow soon in Germany, too. Let’s hope that the German people will not experience the escalating oppression by the divorce industry to such an extent that it drives up the suicide rates for men even more, as happened in all English-speaking countries.

The remarkable aspect of such outlandish and illogical forms of punishment is that they are invented by bureaucrats and by judicial activists. There never has been, and is not now, any public clamour by the general public to implement novel punishments for so-called crimes that never were and still aren’t a concern of the public. Those crimes, and especially the “crime” of being guilty of having caused a “no-fault” divorce and its consequences or the “crime” of having fallen into arrears on payments that finance the government-sponsored filching of the children one never wanted to be deprived of, are entirely caused by the crazed ideology that drives our governments. It is not that the public has become so depraved that it now is intent on destroying society, but that our governments create “crimes” by manufacturing the conditions that allow the governments to rationalize that the inevitable “crimes” that are the consequence of government-manufactured conditions need to be fought and punished to make the people comply with undemocratic government edicts. That is not a condition of freedom, it is an escalating spiral of causes and consequences in an increasingly totalitarian society.

In the English-speaking countries there is a growing awareness that idiotic allegations of so-called crimes and even more idiotic forms of punishment, such as the removal of the means to make a living, are being driven by an insane ideology that calls for the world-wide implementation of the agenda for the planned destruction of the family and even of the whole Western cultural heritage and traditions.

German people will have to learn that, too. As the comments identified in the appended translation show, some Germans are well on the way to understand what is going on. Let’s hope that, to fully understand, Germans will not have to go all the way to chaos. One would almost think that people who were not all that long ago ordered to fight to the last bullet - until all would turn to rubble and ashes - would by now have enough of radical ideologies that invariably lead to totalitarianism.

–Walter Schneider
http://fathersforlife.org
____________
Translation of German Text

The drivers licence is for the majority of people the foundation for earning money through a job, thereby to pay for taxes, social insurances and the necessities of life, and through that to be enabled not to become a burden on the pockets of the taxpayers. This “prestige value” is so negative that it is possible to implement drivers-licence removal as a form of punishment, so that those that are sentenced are even less able to participate in an acceptable manner in our society.

When young people experience the removal of the basis of their capability to earn money trough jobs, they will no longer be able to create personal wealth and will be unable to pay fines. Therefore monetary fines will become inappropriate. Furthermore, those children won’t be in a position that enables them to become the necessary role models for their children that will motivate the latter to become productive and self-satisfied adults. Later, those children cannot become good parents. They either will have no children, or their children will become a burden on orphanages and foster homes, with all of the well-known consequences.

Is it then that our ministers lost all touch with reality and with realistic-practical thinking? Is that a sort of declaration of bankruptcy of spirit and morality? How much stupidity and moral turpitude can we accept from our lawmakers (in the majority jurists)?

Greetings,

Herbert Greipl

The German Federal Council [Upper House] intends to implement drivers-licence removal into list of punishments in penal code

Berlin: (hib/BOB) The Bundesrat [Upper House] intends to anchor prohibition to drive as part of the penalties provided in the penal code. It presented a draft of a law to that extent (16/8695). The States Chamber expects from that a noticeable impact, on those sentenced, of the [withholding of the] “definitive prestige value” provided by a drivers licence. The Bundesrat argues that, time and again, it happens that there are cases in which the imposing of a monetary fine will, under the personal and economical circumstances of those sentenced, not result in the desired effects. Alternatively, incarceration would in the circumstances of specific cases be disproportionately hard. Drivers-licence removal could thereby be classified as an independent major punishment, without the necessity to have to impose incarceration or a monetary fine. A further example would be not-so-serious deeds with extremist backgrounds - often with application of violence. A relatively large portion of young offenders are affected, according to the government. For such people the removal of the drivers licence could be “a shot across the bow”. The Federal Government agreed to evaluate the proposal.

Mailinglist papa-info - always well informed
e-mail: papa-info@listserv.shuttle.de
web: http://listserv.shuttle.de/mailman/listinfo/papa-info

Original German text

Der Führerschein ist für die Mehrzahl die Grundlage mit beruflicher Tätigkeit Geld zu verdienen und somit Steuern und Sozialversicherung und auch Unterhalt zu bezahlen und nicht dem Staat auf der Tasche zu liegen. Und dieser “Prestigewert” ist so negativ, dass man ihn als Strafe wegnehmen kann, sodass sie dann noch weniger in der Lage sind, in zumutbarer Weise am Wesen unserer Gesellschaft Teil zu nehmen?

Wenn jungen Menschen schon die Grundlage zum beruflichen Geld verdienen genommen wird, so können sie keinen Besitz schaffen und auch keine Geldstrafen bezahlen. Damit sind Geldstrafen für sie ungeeignet. Aber sie sind so auch nicht in der Lage für ihre Kinder das Vorbild zu sein, das notwendig ist, damit diese sich zu tüchtigen, für die Gesellschaft nützlichen und selbst glücklichen Erwachsenen entwickeln können. Diese Kinder können später selbst keine guten Eltern sein. Entweder sie haben dann selbst keine Kinder oder ihre Kinder werden zu Wirtschaftsobjekten zur Belegung von Heimen und Pflegefamilien mit allen bekannten Folgen.

Haben unsere Minister schon jeden Realitätssinn und realistisch-praktisches Denken verloren? Ist das eine Art Bankrotterklärung für Geist und Moral? Wieviel Blödheit und Schlechtigkeit müssen wir Bürger uns noch von unseren Gesetzesmachern (die Mehrzahl sind Juristen) bieten lassen?

Gruß

Herbert Greipl

Bundesrat will Fahrverbot auf Zeit in das Strafgesetzbuch aufnehmen
Recht/Gesetzentwurf

Berlin: (hib/BOB) Der Bundesrat will ein Fahrverbot auf Zeit im Strafgesetzbuch verankern. Er hat dazu einen Gesetzentwurf vorgelegt (16/8695). Die Länderkammer verspricht sich davon eine deutliche Wirkung auf den Verurteilten wegen des “deutlichen Prestigewerts”, die ein Führerschein mit sich bringe. Der Bundesrat argumentiert, immer wieder kämen in der Praxis Fälle vor, in denen die persönlichen und wirtschaftlichen Verhältnisse des Verurteilten für eine Geldstrafe nicht geeignet seien, die mit ihr verfolgten Zwecke zu erfüllen. Andererseits erscheine eine Freiheitsstrafe nach Lage des Falles oft unangemessen hart. Das Fahrverbot könne hierbei als selbstständige Hauptstrafe aufgewertet werden, ohne Geld- oder Freiheitsstrafe verhängen zu müssen. Ein weiteres Beispiel seien nicht ganz so schwerwiegende Taten mit extremistischem Hintergrund - oft unter Anwendung von Gewalt. Ein verhältnismäßig hoher Anteil gerade junger Täter sei betroffen, so die Regierung. Für solche Menschen könne der Entzug des Führerscheins ein wirkungsvoller “Schuss vor den Bug” sein. Die Bundesregierung hat zugesagt, die Anliegen zu prüfen.

Mailingliste papa-info - immer gut informiert
e-mail: papa-info@listserv.shuttle.de
web: http://listserv.shuttle.de/mailman/listinfo/papa-info

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

April 14, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

This morning I listened to Charles Adler discuss with callers to his radio show the case of the Jamaican woman in Ontario, Ms. Mowatt, who had been jailed for a few days because it looked as if she would not show up as a witness in the domestic violence trial she had launched against the man whom she had alleged abused her, a Mr. Harbin.

Charles Adler and his callers outdid each other on his show in an all-out competition as to who was able to show more sympathy for the (alleged) victim of domestic violence who had been punished twice, once (allegedly) by her abuser (as the alleged victim alleges),  and once more by forcing her to appear as a witness in the trial against the man whom she alleged abused her, but whom she, prior to being jailed, refused to testify against.

Charles Adler and his callers need a dose of reality.  They should, for instance, read Christie Blatchford’s April 12, 2008 article in the Globe and Mail, “A witness in need of a blankie, soother“.  There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that Christie Blatchford’s opinions regarding the sham of the trial in which Ms. Mowatt made her public appearance is many times more valuable and realistic than the media-hype and show of phony outrage that Charles Adler and his supporters could muster during the sympathy orgy on the Charles Adler show this morning.

What’s the moral outrage really all about?  As Christie Blatchford points out, the young woman most certainly lied, either as a witness or as an accuser.  Which of the stories she told is the right one?  Even if she - as per the feminist assertion that women never lie - told the truth, two contradicting stories can’t possibly both be true.  It seems to me that she perhaps did not wish to appear as a witness to her own lies and be exposed as a perjurer and liar.  She is perhaps yet too young (although her handlers aren’t) to understand that as a woman who alleges that she had been abused she is permitted to lie with impunity, even in our courts.

The “accused” Mr. Harbin pleaded “Not guilty.”  As of now he is legally innocent, but even though his accuser and simultaneously lying witness against him or for him, whichever the case may be, and the court process have not yet established his guilt,  Charles Adler and his callers are quite certain that Mr. Harbin is without any doubt and absolutely guilty.  Moreover, Charles Adler implied that there is good reason to believe that all innocent people like Mr. Harbin are “piece[s] of human garbage” and capable and liable of killing their accusers by shooting them in the head.

That is not news reporting or even commenting with any trace of objectivity or truthfulness.  It is propagandistic hype, used to paint all men with the same broad brush.

Odd, Charles Adler is a man, I suppose.  His voice sounds like the voice of a man, although his words don’t.  I wonder whether any woman ever accused him of abusing her.  Perhaps that is still to come.  It is entirely possible, for any man, even for Charles Adler.  The likelihood of that happening is far greater than Charles Adler ever living up to his assuming his share of the guilt that he assigned to all men, namely that if he is ever accused by a woman of abusing her - whether the abuse took place or not - Charles Adler then becomes in his own words “a piece of human garbage” capable of killing his accuser by shooting her in the head.

Charles Adler should consider this: false accusations are as old as humanity - even the Bible tells us so.  It takes collaborators like Charles Adler to make them stick, and they almost invariably cause far more serious harm than the alleged abuse did (allowing in the process for good incomes to be earned by a lot of people in the resulting theater plays (a.k.a. court hearings) and associated industry surrounding them).

False abuse allegations are serious acts of interpersonal (often domestic) violence.  They often destroy the lives of the falsely accused.  It takes people like Charles Adler to have them come out that way or, at the very least, to have them stick to an individual like you-know-what to a blanket.

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