October 26, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

The New York Times

August 18, 2008, 3:16 pm

Lawyer Files Antifeminist Suit Against Columbia

By Corey Kilgannon

Roy Den Hollander is a Manhattan lawyer and a self-described antifeminist. Over the past year, he has sued Manhattan nightclubs for favoring women by offering ladies’ night discounts and has sued the federal government over a law that protects women from violence.

And now Columbia University has come within his sights. On Monday, he filed a lawsuit in United States District Court in Manhattan against Columbia for offering women’s studies courses, which Mr. Den Hollander sees as discriminatory toward men. His class-action suit accuses Columbia of using government aid to preach a “religionist belief system called feminism.”….(Full Story)

Here is a related story:

The Straits Times (Singapore)
25 October 2008

Columbia uni’s ‘parody’ lawsuit

AP - New York - Columbia University urged a judge on Friday to toss out a lawsuit that claims a women’s studies programme is unconstitutional because there is no similar men’s programme, saying the lawsuit ‘reads like a parody’.

In papers filed in US District Court in Manhattan, the school said the judge should reject the demand in an August lawsuit that women’s studies courses be prohibited….(Full Story)

That article mentions that Columbia University noted that “thousands of courses throughout the university teach about the experiences and accomplishments of men in every period of history.”

Yes, it is difficult to deny the fact that there have been some but relatively few notable experiences and accomplishments by women in every period of history, but is that enough reason for Columbia University for rejecting Mr. den Hollander’s demand to establish a men’s studies program?

Columbia University argues that to give in to such a demand “would be like saying the existence of African-American studies courses required the establishment of a white curriculum, or that an institute devoted to gay and lesbian studies should be balanced with an institute that studies heterosexuality”.  That is of course a very objective and accurate point of view, but Columbia University does not see things that way.

It is remarkable that Columbia University does not see the irony in its argument against not only formal men’s studies programs but also against programs that study heterosexuality, unless it truly advocates that being a white, heterosexual man with wife and family is politically incorrect and that therefore not only that state of existence but all knowledge of it must be eradicated.

“Jezebel” emphasizes and illuminates the sort of reasoning used by Columbia University. Read that and become fully informed through feminist rhetoric. If you lean toward her approach that all men need to be “f….d” over (yes, she minces no words), you will be inclined to agree with her.   You will then also be inclined to vote for Barack Obama, so as to give “Jezebel’s” views the necessary clout.

On the other hand, you may rather wish to take in Roy den Hollander’s views, first hand, through his website.

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

October 25, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

WindsorJournal.com

Historian examines witch hunts past and present
By: Susan Corica, Staff Writer
10/23/2008

“Connecticut would have been the leader in witch hunting if it hadn’t been for Salem,” historian John Demos told a full house the Windsor Historical Society.

Demos is the author of the recently published “The Enemy Within: 2,000 Years of Witch-Hunting in the Western World,” and Samuel Knight Professor of History at Yale University. He is considered one of the foremost scholars on witch hunting….

The article states that,

Many parts of Europe were swept up in witch hunts, large and small, he said. It used to be thought that millions were killed, but now the best estimate is 50,000 to 100,000, “still a very large number.”

….(Full Story)

Yes, that is a very large number, but one must consider that it represents the total number of witches executed over a period of 343 years, from 1450 - 1792.  That brings the annual average of executions of witches to about 146 to 292, considerably less than the millions of lives a year that modern-day witch hunts by totalitarian regimes claimed and still claim.

Let there be no mistake.  As many as half or perhaps more of the witches killed during the old witch hunts were men.  During more modern witch hunts, such as those that took place during the Stalinist purges in the USSR, about 96 percent of the tens of millions of victims that had been killed were men.  The killing of those men in the USSR is quite clearly discernible in its impact on the population pyramids for Russia and Ukraine.

That is most certainly not an issue that any self-respecting and self-centered feminist ever complained about and clamored for equal rights.  A more politically-correct view on the role of women in witch hunts then and now is provided in the following quote from the article:

During the question-and-answer period of his talk, he said explained that the accusers in the colonial witch hunts were about 50/50 men and women, but women were always the primary targets, whether in New England, Virginia, Europe, or in other eras or parts of the world…..(Full Story)

From the information provided in the remainder of this footnote is is clear that a statement like that can only be made by someone whose objectivity is perhaps somewhat blurred by looking at history through the feminist gender lens.  Contrary to all such feminists assertions, it was men who were at least at times and in modern times without a doubt always the primary targets of witch hunts.

______________
This posting is a quote of an update made today to The Happy Days Ahead.

Posted in Media Bias, Civil Rights, Judiciary, Education, Men's Issues, Propaganda Exposed, Feminist Jurisprudence, The New World Order | Print | No Comments »

October 25, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

The Documentary Channel will be showing “Indoctrinate U” next week as part of its “Controversy in America” series.

Air times are:

• Monday, October 27th : 09:00 PM - 10:30 PM
• Tuesday, October 28th: Midnight - 01:30 AM (Starts after midnight Monday)
• Saturday, November 1st: 05:00 PM - 06:30 PM
• Sunday, November 2nd: 02:00 AM - 03:30 AM
• Tuesday, November 4th: 03:00 AM - 04:30 AM

(All times Eastern U.S.)

The Documentary Channel is available on satellite and many cable systems nationwide. Check your provider for channel information.

The schedule is subject to change. For the most up-to-date list of airtimes, visit:

http://tinyurl.com/indoctrinate-u-docu-chan

To find out more about “Indoctrinate U,” go to:

http://indoctrinate-u.com/

Here is a short commentary and relevant information identified on this blog September 21, 2008.

–Walter

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

October 22, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

It is a good thing that not all women are violent, but many women are.

It is a good thing that not all men fight back when women attack them, but some men do.  They sometimes live to fight back.  If men do fight back, they will live to regret that they did.

In our society it is alright for a woman to attack a man.  It is never alright for a man to defend himself against an attacking woman.

If it does not sit right with you that there is never an excuse for men to fight back against a woman, you better have a look at the video accessible a bit farther down.

The good thing about that video is that it shows that children are far more often the victims of violent women than most people think.  Children cannot fight back, even if they wanted to, especially not very small children.

So, are all men always bad and violent, as the feminists would have us believe, and are all women always good and innocent?  An answer to that is in the video by Bull Busters:

Related articles:

1. Domestic violence programs in California must open doors to battered men, October 21, 2008
2. Probation in husband’s shooting, October 18, 2008
3. Domestic-Violence equivalent of the Berlin Wall begins to crumble?, October 16, 2008

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

October 21, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

PRESS RELEASE

ATTN: Social Issues / Men’s Editors And Writers

—————————————————————

Battered Men Being Denied Services Is Ruled Unconstitutional By California Appellate Court, Reports National Coalition of Free Men

Domestic violence programs in California must open doors to battered men

For Immediate Release

SAN DIEGO/EWORLDWIRE/Oct. 17, 2008 — On October 14, 2008, the Court of Appeal in Sacramento, Calif., ruled it is unconstitutional to deny state-funded domestic violence shelter services to men.

The case (Woods. v. Shewry) was filed by four men and the daughter of one, against the State of California and its agencies. The lower court dismissed the case on the ground that men and women are “not similarly situated” as victims. The Court of Appeal reversed the decision on October 14, 2008, holding “male victims of domestic violence are similarly situated to female victims for purposes of the statutory programs” and the laws “violate equal protection.”

“This is a big victory for male victims and for gender equality, but the fight is not over,” said the plaintiffs’ attorney, Marc E. Angelucci of the National Coalition of Free Men (NCFM), the oldest and largest men’s rights organization in the U.S. “Many taxpayer-funded programs, especially in Los Angeles, deny men counseling, legal services, shelter or even hotel vouchers, putting their children in danger. Men pay at least half of the taxes that fund these programs, and they should not be denied services when they need them.

“This decision can profoundly affect the equal treatment of victims,” said NCFM’s President Harry Crouch. “All victims need help, and services should be need-based, not gender-based.”

Professors and experts filed sworn declarations supporting the plaintiffs and explaining that this is a serious but hidden problem and that children are being emotionally harmed when their fathers don’t get the necessary help.

Men are less likely than women to report domestic violence, which makes crime-based statistics unreliable. Randomized sociological surveys worldwide, however, consistently show women initiate domestic violence at least as often as men, and men suffer about a third of physical injuries. California State Long Beach Professor Martin Fiebert summarizes over 200 of these studies in an online bibliography. The 50/50 result remains even when self-defense is accounted for.

SOURCES:

Court Decision:
‘http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/C056072.PDF‘

California State Long Beach bibliography
‘http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm‘

Canadian government report
‘http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/ncfv-cnivf/familyviolence/pdfs/Intimate_Partner.pdf‘

American Psychiatric Association
‘http://www.patienteducationcenter.org/aspx/HealthELibrary/HealthETopic.aspx?cid=M0907d‘

University of New Hampshire 32-nation study
‘http://www.unh.edu/news/cj_nr/2006/may/em_060519male.cfm?type=n‘

Prof. Don Dutton, ‘Transforming a flawed policy: A call to revive psychology and science in domestic violence research and practice,’ Aggression and Violent Behavior, (11) 2006, 457 483
‘http://www.nfvlrc.org/docs/DuttonCorvo.policypaper.pdf‘

Contact: Marc E. Angelucci, Esq., National Coalition of Free Men, 626-319-3081; marc@menslegal.com

HTML: http://www.eworldwire.com/pressreleases/19067
MOBILE: http://e4mobile.com/pressreleases/19067
PDF: http://www.eworldwire.com/pdf/19067.pdf
ONLINE NEWSROOM: http://www.eworldwire.com/newsroom/312078.htm
LOGO: http://www.eworldwire.com/newsroom/312078.htm

CONTACT:
Marc E. Angelucci, Esq.
Men’s Legal Center
940 C Street
San Diego, CA 92101
(619) 234-3838 x 20
Mobile (622) 319-3081

KEYWORDS: National Coalition of Free Men, Mens rights, fathers’ rights, gender equality, masculism, domestic violence, battered men, battered women, gender equality, men’s rights, violence against men, abuse, spousal abuse

SOURCE: National Coalition of Free Men

—————–
Copyright 1996-2006 Eworldwire, All rights reserved.

Press Relase Distribution By EWORLDWIRE
http://www.eworldwire.com
(973)252-6800.

For Media Questions:
http://www.eworldwire.com/forthemedia.php

—————————————————————

Related comment by F4L

Posted in Organizational News, Civil Rights, Judiciary, Men's Issues, Family, Propaganda Exposed, Feminist Jurisprudence, Women's Violence | Print | No Comments »

October 19, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

 This is all that needs to be said, the open letter from the Viscount Monckton of Brenchley to Senator John McCain must be read, not so much because the climate alarmists are wrong but because policies based on their errors are deadly to the human race.

There is related discussion paper by the Viscount Monckton of Brenchley that is required reading for anyone who ever spread climate alarmism, for anyone ever taken in by it, and for anyone worried about the consequences of the attempts by the governments of the world to fool-around and interfere with the forces of nature and of the free market system: that is, untold misery, starvation and death for many tens of millions of people:

35 INCONVENIENT TRUTHS
THE ERRORS IN AL GORE’S MOVIE

Posted in Social-Destruction Enterprise, Organizational News, Civil Rights, Media Bias, Health, Propaganda Exposed, Men's Issues, The New World Order | Print | No Comments »

October 18, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

U.S. must stop exporting weapons of family destruction

By Uma Challa
web posted January 29, 2007

Pearl S. Buck once wrote, “The lack of emotional security of our American young people is due…to their isolation from the larger family unit…no mere father and mother…are enough to provide emotional security for a child.  He needs to feel himself one in a world of kinfolk, persons of variety in age and temperament, and yet allied to himself by an indissoluble bond…”

The much envied Indian family structure is, in fact, based on mutual tolerance and coexistence of persons belonging to different generations, and provides safety and security to individuals at all stages of life. The larger family also acts as a buffer to mitigate everyday stress and helps minimize conflicts between inexperienced married couples. This stable and time-tested cultural institution has suffered the most serious assaults due to the export of family-breaking ideologies originating in the Western world. Understanding and tolerance to build harmonious marital relationships, are now being projected as a form of slavery. To make things worse, senseless U.S. anti- family laws, which have literally destroyed trust between American men and women, are now being thrust on India, without any heed to cultural relevance, social consensus, or the presence of a suitable law enforcement system for their proper implementation….(Full Story)

Posted in Social-Destruction Enterprise, Paternal Rights, Judiciary, Health, Family, The New World Order, Feminism, Feminist Jurisprudence, Women's Violence | Print | No Comments »

October 18, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

The Courier News

Wife gets 48 months’ probation in husband’s shooting

October 17, 2008
By DAVID GIALANELLA Staff Writer

ST. CHARLES TOWNSHIP — A Huntley woman who authorities said shot her husband after a day of drunken arguments pleaded guilty Thursday to a felony charge in connection with the January 2007 incident.

Virginia Choromanski, 67, of 12700 block of Woodgrove Drive, agreed with prosecutors to a 48-month probation term in exchange for pleading guilty to one count of aggravated domestic battery….(Full Story)

Posted in Judiciary, Men and Women Work, Feminist Jurisprudence, Women's Violence | Print | No Comments »

October 16, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

The Third District California Appeal Court ruled in a 3-0 decision, October 14, 2008, that to deny support services to men who are victims of domestic violence is unconstitutional.

Regardless of the overall impact, Justice Fred Morrison said in Tuesday’s 3-0 ruling, the state acknowledges that “domestic violence is a serious problem for both women and men.” He noted that the California Constitution forbids sex discrimination, under a 1971 state Supreme Court ruling, and said men and women are entitled to equal treatment, even if one sex is affected more than the other. (San Francisco Chronicle)

With that decision comes the beginning of the end of the corner stone of feminist agitprop: “Women good. Men Bad.”

Domestic Violence or its equivalent expression, family violence, is a misnomer, as that term - as used by feminist activists - excludes violence against children and the elderly in families and almost invariably is used by feminists to point only to violence by men against women and to sweep the vast majority of domestic violence under the carpet.

The largest single group of domestic violence victims is comprised of children in families, of which in the vast majority of cases, 70 percent, mothers are the perpetrators. That does not mean that in the remaining 30 percent of the cases of violence against children only natural fathers are the ones who commit violence against their children. Those remaining 30 percent of the cases involve primarily the mothers’ boyfriends, other relatives, babysitters, and so on. Natural fathers comprise only a small fraction of those remaining 30 percent of the perpetrators of violence against children in families.

The feminist tactic of remaking the public’s perception of the term domestic violence achieved great success. Feminist camp followers, journalists, social services, and other non-governmental but taxpayer-funded organizations, and even judges intent on helping “victims of domestic violence,” direct their help almost exclusively to women who claim, often falsely and as a very effective part of divorce tactics and separation strategies, that they became victims of violence by their husbands or boyfriends.

Even men’s rights activists became indoctrinated by the feminist rhetoric regarding the alleged sole victims of domestic violence, women, in as much as they clamor that men too are often victims of their wives’ violence.

Still, most men’s rights activists at least advocate that domestic violence is not a gender issue but an equal opportunity employer who affects both sexes to equal extents.

Unfortunately, talking about domestic violence as affecting both partners in marriage or in ostensibly similar relationships ignores the largest group of domestic-violence victims, children.

It is fortunate that some men’s rights activists do not fall into that trap set by feminists and their fellow travellers. Marc Angelucci is a California lawyer who could be considered to be one of the more enlightened men’s rights activists. He is the lawyer who clearly identified, in his fight for the monumental California Appeal Court decision to declare favoritism in the provisioning of services to only one class of domestic violence victims as being unconstitutional, that domestic violence victims are not only women and not only men, but, far more importantly, also children who are victims of their mother’s violence.

The decision by the California Appeal Court judges must be seen from that perspective. It provides hope not only for battered husbands but for all victims of domestic violence. That is rightfully so and thus gives full recognition to the fact that, all feminist propaganda to the contrary, domestic violence is a human condition that, fortunately, affects women as victims not all that often, relative to its remaining victims.

Unfortunately, domestic violence affects children as victims far more often than either women or men. Even more unfortunately, domestic violence is most often committed by violent women.

The California Appeal Court decision will now permit us to begin work on finding solutions to a problem that for far too long found public concern only for a relatively small sector of its victims, women, and no concern at all for it primary perpetrators, also women. The decision gives, at least indirectly, legal recognition that services for domestic violence victims must be available to all of its victims.

However, the decision only addresses problem symptoms, the plight of all victims of domestic violence.

The California Appeal Court Decision does absolutely nothing to address the major problem cause of domestic violence, the lack of treatment, education and counselling for the primary perpetrators of domestic violence, violent women.

We have a long way to go before we get from the recognition of all domestic violence victims to the full recognition of all of its perpetrators. Only when we do that can the human problem of domestic violence be solved.

Just as did the judges of the California Appeal Court, all of the journalists who rejoice over the decision failed to address all of the root-causes of domestic violence. Here is what those journalists had to say.

National Post

A big piece of stone just fell out of the Domestic Violence version of the Berlin Wall

Posted: October 15, 2008, 8:43 AM by Jonathan Kay

Barbara Kay

October is Domestic Violence Awareness Month and I am sure that to 99% of readers the two words “domestic violence” means violence against women. Only.

The politically correct view that all domestic violence (DV) can be accounted for either by the inherent aggression and controlling instincts of men or by women’s defensive reactions against those instincts is so deeply entrenched in our culture that it has become the Berlin Wall of the gender wars - or rather the war of feminism against men.

In fact women initiate violence against their partners in an almost equal ratio to men.  And in many cases the violence they inflict is severe (as one woman in a woman’s shelter told the director, “knives make great levellers”).

For all the men who have suffered at the hands of battering women, a chunk of stone just fell out of that huge gendered wall. In a taxpayer lawsuit by four male victims of DV, the Third District appellate court in California reversed a previous ruling holding that because they are not statistically situated with women, men are not entitled to equal protection. The new ruling declares the exclusion of men from Domestic Violence programs unconstitutional….(Full Story)

More information on the California Third District Appeal Court decision is contained in the following articles.

MensNewsdaily

Victory! CA Appellate Court Says Excluding Men from Domestic Violence Programs is Unconstitutional

October 14th, 2008

by Glenn Sacks

California attorney Marc Angelucci scored a tremendous victory today as the Third District Court of Appeal in Sacramento ruled that California’s exclusion of men from domestic violence [victim support programs] violates men’s constitutional equal protection rights….(Full Story)

________________

San Francisco Chronicle

Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer

Thursday, October 16, 2008

Appeals court decision supports battered men

California domestic violence laws violate men’s rights because they provide state funding only for women and their children who use shelters and other programs, a state appeals court has ruled.

The decision by the Third District Court of Appeal in Sacramento requires the programs to be available to male as well as female victims of domestic violence. The court said the services don’t have to be equal - an agency could maintain a battered-women’s shelter while giving men vouchers to stay at hotels, for example - but both sexes must have access to the programs.

The ruling overturned a Sacramento County judge’s decision to uphold the laws on the ground that women are more likely than men to be victims of domestic violence and to suffer more serious injuries….(Full Story)

___________
See also the Domestic Violence Index Page at Fathers for Life.

Posted in Media Bias, Civil Rights, Judiciary, Divorce, Child Murder, Feminist Jurisprudence, Family, Men's Issues, Women's Violence | Print | No Comments »

October 15, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

By ROB GILLIES – 2 hours ago

OTTAWA (AP) — Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper said Wednesday he will reach out to all parties during the global financial meltdown after his Conservative Party won in national elections but fell short of a parliamentary majority.

Harper had called Tuesday’s elections early in hopes of getting his party a majority, and in doing so he became the first major world leader to face voters since the financial crisis….

With nearly all the returns in, Canada’s election agency reported on its Web site that the Conservatives had won or was [sic] leading in races for 143 of Parliament’s 308 seats, an improvement over the 127 seats the party had in the previous Parliament.

The Conservative Party needed to win 155 seats to govern on its own…..

Voter turnout Tuesday about 59 percent [sic], the lowest in Canadian history. It was unclear how much stringent new proof-of-identity requirements affected the turnout….(Full Story)

____________
Comment by F4L: I helped to run the advance polling station in our area, as well as that my wife and I help to run the regular polling station in yesterdays voting in our home town.

As to how the “stringent new proof-of-identity requirements affected the turnout,” that is hard to say.  It depends on a number of things.  To some extent it depends on how well voters will remember at the next elections how seriously they were affected by those “stringent new proof-of-identity requirements.”

• Many people could not find the place at which the advance polls were held.
• Many people who did find the advance polling station had to search for an hour-and-half and more to find the place.  That was not helped by the fact that the address for the place was misleading, mislabelled and plainly wrong.
• Having found the place, a large portion of the voters had to face long waits caused by time-consuming searches for names on the electors’ lists.  Many of those delays (often up to 20 minutes long - in line-ups that contained no more than three or four people) were caused by electors not being listed on electors lists that would have been logical choices for them being listed, while there was no information at all as to what the geographical boundaries of the areas were for which they should have been listed.
• Those problems were compounded by the frequent need for having to register electors or to have to correct their address and contact details.

It seemed that, at the time of the advance poll, those problems were, if not specific to advance-polling procedures, at least aggravated through those procedures.

Having also helped at the regular and final poll, yesterday, it became obvious that the problems arising out of the “stringent new proof-of-identity requirements” were endemic to the election procedure.

• The vast majority (about 70 percent and more) of voters required corrections to their addresses and contact details.  A very large portion of voters required to be registered; even many that were older voters who had been registered many years before and never had changed their addresses.
• Some electors got tired of waiting to make it through the resulting line-ups and left without casting their ballots.
• I heard of some electors who, upon seeing the large line-ups at the polls, did not even join the line-ups and quite simply went home.
• Anyone who joined the line-ups had to wait for a considerable amount of time before they could cast their ballot.
• The average waiting time was about one hour during the last four hours the polling station was open.

The general impression I gained from the ordeal the voters were put through was that if anyone would have wanted to sabotage the voting procedures, the best way to do it and to get away with doing it would have been to design it to be run the way it was run.

After we closed the doors to the polling station, yesterday, it still took over a half hour before the last person waiting to vote then had a chance to cast her ballot.

It would not surprise me at all if the anger expressed by a good number of voters at our polling station, due to the consequences of what can only be described as a giant bureaucratic screw-up, resulted at some of the polling stations in Canada in the eruption of fisticuffs.

Just as many of the voters stated, I agree that never in my life did I experience such long waiting times for anyone who voted, waiting times that were many times longer than what anyone had ever experienced previously.

Neither my wife nor I will ever bother to vote again in federal elections, especially not in view of the fact that the Canadian electoral system and resulting “democratic system” will produce nothing better than an elected dictatorship run by the Prime Minister’s Office, a bureaucratic sector that is far more powerful and costs far more to run than the House of Commons.

After the last ballot had been cast at our polling station (one half hour after the doors to the polling station had been closed), it took us another three hours before all of the counting and associated paper work was done.

It had been a gruelling day that was more than 15 hours long, an experience that neither my wife nor I wish to repeat.  By the way, not a single legitimate scrutineer who represented any of the electoral candidates was present at the counting of the ballots.

It has been that way for decades, but yesterday’s experience underscored it,  democracy in Canada is dead.

The mother (92-years old) of one of our friends had never missed an election for as long as she had been eligible to vote.  Our friend asked her why she did not vote in this federal election.  Our friend’s mother replied, “Why bother?  They all lie!”

Posted in Civil Rights, Social-Destruction Enterprise, The New World Order | Print | No Comments »