October 10, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

By Ulf Andersson, PappaRättsGruppen,
The Father Rights Group, Sweden

Batman and The Joker reported to the police for assaulting and attacking female hairdresser Johanna Toftby, from the TV-show Single Mom Searching on TV3

According to the newspaper Expressen, Ulf Andersson (Batman) says:

Johanna Toftby will be reported to the police for slandering and making a wrongful report to he police by giving false testimony. There will also be legal repercussions for the Newspaper Expressen.

We (Batman, The Joker and the cameraman Rainer) and our evidence on VHS, DVD, MP3 and CD present a completely different picture of the actual event than the picture that Johanna drew in Expressen”.

Posted in Organizational News, Men's Issues, Feminism, Propaganda Exposed, Women's Violence | Print | 2 Comments »

October 10, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

David Warren from the Ottawa Citizen said it best.  See his article, The unprincipled cynic and the honest fool (Sep. 13, 2008).  In that article he explains, amongst many other things describing the state of the non-existence of Canadian democracy, that, “Our parliamentary system degenerated many decades ago into a form of elected dictatorship, ruled from the Prime Minister’s Office.”

As to what the options are in this Canadian federal election, he stated in that article, after providing numerous reasons (with whom I whole-heartedly agree) for reaching it, the following conclusion,

To put it plainly, while I have great respect for many of the “nobodies” on the Conservative back benches (and several in the other parties, too), Mr. Harper disgusts me.

But the alternative is Stéphane Dion. He appeals to me because, natural loser as he appears to be in the game of politics, he is not as cynical. I think he actually believes in his policies, including centrally his ridiculous “Green Shift,” and the climatological buncombe that lies behind it. But how does one choose between an intelligent unprincipled cynic, and a relatively honest fool?

Harper’s and his Conservative’s lead in the opinion polls is evaporating.  It has taken a nose-dive during the past six weeks. There is little doubt in my mind that the drop in the ratings is due to people catching on to the fact that Harper increasingly often shows that political expediency repeatedly caused him to discard promises he had made to his supporters, but don’t just take my word on that.  Here is how many of his former supporters see him and his party with respect to key issues that concern Canadian conservatives:

On the right to life for a child yet in his mother’s womb

Harper Would Have to Personally Kill an Unborn Baby to Avoid the Hidden Agenda Charge (LifeSiteNews, Oct. 8, 2008)

Harper’s bid for the sake of political expediency clashes with reality:

Pro-Abortion UN Petition Falters; Pro-Life Initiative Numbers Surging

By Samantha Singson

NEW YORK October 9, 2008 (C-FAM) - A month after the campaign was first reported in the Friday Fax, pro-abortion group Marie Stopes International has removed the ticker keeping track of names for their web-campaign calling for “Global Safe Abortion.”

The Friday Fax reported last month that after a year of campaigning the Marie Stopes abortion petition had garnered fewer than 600 signers. A month later, a count of campaign signatures reveals that only 50 more people have added their signatures to the Marie Stopes petition.

Conversely, a pro-life initiative that began less than two weeks ago as a counterpoint to the Marie Stopes campaign has yielded more than 26,000 signatures.  The “International Call for the Rights and Dignity of the Human Person and the Family,” launched by the Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute (C-FAM), has generated a massive response from concerned pro-lifers from around the globe….(Full Story)

On movies depicting extreme pornography and violence

Harper Ditches Plans to Pull Tax Credits for Extremely Offensive Films (LifeSiteNews, Oct. 9, 2008)

Again, Harper’s bid for the sake of political expediency clashes with reality:

THE UNITED NATIONS COMMISSION ON THE STATUS OF WOMEN, 2008 (REAL Women of Canada)

On pulling the fangs of Status of Women Canada

The website of Status of Women Canada states on its home page that,

Status of Women Canada (SWC) is a federal government organization that promotes the full participation of women in the economic, social and democratic life of Canada. SWC works to advance equality for women and to remove the barriers to women’s participation in society, putting particular emphasis on increasing women’s economic security and eliminating violence against women.

To advance equality for women, SWC works with federal departments and agencies to ensure that the gender dimensions are taken into account in the development of policies and programs - by conducting gender-based analysis and supporting research.

“Gender-based analysis and supporting research” is a euphemism for outright pro-feminist advocacy and activism.  It becomes increasingly difficult to understand why a taxpayer-funded organization that has done more than any other government organization to create massive discrimination against Canadian men still exists.

The serious discrimination against men is quite literally a question of life and death. Canadian men had life expectancies that were at the beginning of the last century equal to that of women.  Today, the life expectancy of Canadian women is on average seven years larger than that of men.  Still, with taxpayer funding provided largely by men, SWC wants and works hard to achieve that Canadian women be more “equal” yet than Canadian men.  There is no comparable taxpayer-funded organization for the Status of Men.  Yet, it is obviously men who need saving.

Although Leon Benoit (Conservative MP, Vegreville-Wainwright, Alberta) adamantly denied at a Sep. 19, 2008 visit to the Bruderheim Seniors Club that SWC exists, Stephen Harper nevertheless announced with great fanfare on Sep. 25, 2006 that a $5-million budget cut for SWC was amongst those announced on Ottawa’s $2-billion hit list.

That was a step into the right direction and welcome news.  Of course, Canada’s feminist-dominated and -controlled media roared at the perceived outrage that was an affront against everything radical feminists had been working on for so many decades.  Stephen Harper caved in.  He not only nixed the $5-million cut to the budget of SWC but in March of 2007 quietly allocated an extra $5-million for SWC’s 2007-2008 budget.

Status of Women Canada

News Releases

March 7, 2007
Canada’s New Government Increases Funding to the Women’s Program
OTTAWA — On the eve of International Women’s Day, the Honourable Beverley J. Oda, Minister of Canadian Heritage and Status of Women, announced an additional $5 million in new funding for 2007-2008 for Status of Women Canada and a new funding mechanism for the Women’s Program….(Full Story)

Courtesy of our Federal Government, it is easy to determine what that money was spent on.  It appears, just as all along, that a major portion of that tax revenue was spent to promote the causes of radical feminism not only in Canada but throughout the whole world.  The itemized list of expenses spans expenditures for several years, but it may not include (at least I have not been able to find an expense claim like it, as the list does not appear to include a list of all grants that were made) items such as the following.

Edmonton’s Prostitution Awareness and Action Foundation…. received a $600,000 grant from Status of Women last spring to give at least 100 hours of crisis and outreach training to former sex-trade workers. — “Empathy at core of Project Hope“, Edmonton Journal, p. B1, Oct. 8, 2008

Is there anything else to say, other than that one should wonder what the rate of recidivism of those “rescued” prostitutes will be? After all, no matter how much SWC huffs and puffs with our tax dollars that the CPC so lavishly hands to them, prostitution is a goldmine for many of the prostitutes (just check the Yellow Pages for “Escort Agencies”), no matter which way you cut it. Either the Johns or, thanks to the symbiosis of SWC and CPC, the taxpayers (or both) pay.

It would not surprise me if some of those prostitutes to be so rescued will now work two jobs, one of them being paid by SWC. Two gold mines are better than one.  To paraphrase the key message of a popular Country and Western, “They’ve got the mine, and men got the shaft.”

We do not need a “Conservative” government that caves in to every hue and cry by feminists.  After having been discriminated against for years by the Liberals, why should any Canadian man in his right mind vote Conservative, only to have the Conservatives continue - with a vengeance - the all-out and deadly discrimination against men?

Posted in Civil Rights, Abortion, Health, Men's Issues, Feminism | Print | No Comments »

October 8, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

What is more important, attempts to promote equal parenting or to cut the budget of (or even to disband) Status of Women Canada?

Canadian women have an existence that is far more comfortable than, and in many other aspects far superior to, that of Canadian men.  That is born out by the sum total of the effects of all-out discrimination against men: Canadian men live on average seven fewer years than Canadian women do (at the beginning of the previous century, men and women had equal life expectancies).  In view of the great advances made by women, what need do we have to promote concerns about and increased spending on women’s issues?  It is men who need to be saved, far more so than women!

Yet, the CPC has done absolutely nothing to address the great and escalating need of men to be allowed to be equal to women.  However, things are even worse than that.  The following contains some of the pertinent details.

Equal parenting, or the lack of it, is the consequence of a more fundamental problem cause.  That problem cause is the government’s agenda for the planned destruction of the family.  In turn, that is largely but not exclusively a consequence of the dominance and control by the feminist ideology that is all-pervasive in the government bureaucracy.

The bureaucracy is our true government.  The bureaucracy always exists.  It is a juggernaut that exhibits cancerous growth that the politicians are either unwilling or unable to bring under control.

Politicians are just window dressing.  They come and go.  The unelected bureaucracy has its own goals, and those goals are hardly ever influenced through changes in the direction of the political winds.

Does anyone labour under the illusion that the most powerful bureaucratic office in Canada (far more costly to run than is the whole Parliament), the Prime Minister’s Office, is controlled by any prime minister who ostensibly heads it?  (All engines, Full Stop! We’ve got a new prime minister.  Everyone, drop all you are doing!! Wait for new instructions, perhaps to take actions opposite to those you were involved in until now. Ha!)

In that context, it is absolutely and totally wrong to assert that, “As you know, the Conservatives are the only party that explicitly supports “Shared Parenting” in its party platform (para 65).”

The CPC’s efforts in that regard are comprised of nothing more than an insignificant Private Member’s Memorandum.  A PMM does not reflect a party’s platform.  That is its purpose, to permit a private member to promote at least attention to something that is not on a given party’s menu.  To do so absolves his party of any blame for the private member’s views and keeps the media’s attention away from his party.

As I stated at the beginning of this message, the lack of equal parenting is a consequence of the dominance and control by the feminist ideology.  That ideology dominates and controls not only many of our politicians but, far more importantly, our bureaucracy.  Our bureaucracy is autonomic, in essence totalitarian and not influenced by mere elections or changes in political parties.

If you take a Private Members Memorandum as evidence of the CPC’s platform, you commit a serious error and let the wool be pulled over your eyes.  Thereby you let yourself be blinded to the CPC’s inactivity and powerlessness as to doing anything about breaking the stranglehold of the feminist ideology on the Canadian bureaucracy.  It is extremely important to determine how the CPC feels about that feminist stranglehold.  Concern about, or ostensible action in regard to, equal parenting pales in comparison.  That doesn’t mean that the promotion of equitably-shared parenting should not be pursued, but it does mean that it is neither the only nor the most important issue that needs pursuing.

It is wrong to project from the actions of a single CPC MP to the rest of the CPC, but if you do so, then you must also project from the inactions or plain ignorance of other CPC MPs to the whole CPC.

Given that requirement, it becomes extremely important to consider not only the “CPC’s” efforts with respect to equal parenting but, far more importantly, the lack of its efforts with respect to the fundamental problem causes that make worrying about equal parenting or about the lack of it a necessity, such as the unwillingness to set up a government department for the “Status of Men,” or, failing that, the dismantling of Status of Women Canada.

I tried to discuss that issue with Leon Benoit (MP Vegreville-Wainwright) on September 19th, 2008, when he came to attend the monthly supper at the Bruderheim Seniors Club to do a bit of campaigning.  Unfortunately, he was unable (or perhaps unwilling) to engage in a discussion with respect to Status of Women Canada.  He asserted that, “We don’t have such a department.”  I could tell from the look on his face that he had no clue about anything regarding Status of Women Canada.  I spoke to him for quite a while, and neither that look on his face nor his stance on Status of Women changed.  He obviously had his mind made up and no facts could confuse him.

It is obvious, when it comes to the atrocity of the discriminatory and bureaucratic existence of Status of Women Canada, Leon Benoit is of no help.  However, at least the CPC pretended at one time that they were doing something about Status of Women Canada (while they never yet even pretended to do or to have done anything about equal parenting).

With great fanfare, the CPC announced in September of 2006 that $5 million had been cut from the budget of Status of Women Canada.  Subsequently, very quietly and without much or any media fanfare at all, that $5-million budget cut was undone and $5 million were added in March of 2007 to the budget allowances for Status of Women Canada.

Status of Women Canada

News Releases

March 7, 2007
Canada’s New Government Increases Funding to the Women’s Program
OTTAWA — On the eve of International Women’s Day, the Honourable Beverley J. Oda, Minister of Canadian Heritage and Status of Women, announced an additional $5 million in new funding for 2007-2008 for Status of Women Canada and a new funding mechanism for the Women’s Program….(Full Story)

That seems to indicate that not only had the earlier-announced $5-million budget cut not come into effect, but that “an additional $5 million in new funding for 2007-2008 for Status of Women Canada” was put into effect.  Now, tell me, does the CPC control Status of Women Canada, or does Status of Women Canada have the CPC on a leash?

When I mentioned Status of Women Canada to Leon Benoit, he got a look on his face like a kid does who was caught with his hand in the cookie jar.  Why?  Is it perhaps because I forced him to realize that, in a totalitarian system that is run by a cancerously growing bureaucracy out of control, to elect politicians is little more than to appoint elected officials to a parasitic but lavishly comfortable existence?

Have a look at these articles with respect to the CPC’s and Leon Benoit’s stance on Status of Women Canada.

As of now there has been total silence from Leon Benoit on those issues, and the CPC has not only not cut the budget of Status of Women but increased it by at least another $5 million for the year 2007-2008.

That indicates that, all perceptions of Canadian men’s- and fathers’ rights activists who clutch at straws to the contrary, the CPC firmly pursues an agenda of feminist dominance in Canadian politics and society.

Walter Schneider
http://fathersforlife.org
http://blog.fathersforlife.org

Posted in Censorship, Media Bias, Paternal Rights, Civil Rights, Divorce, Health, Feminism, Feminist Jurisprudence, Family, The New World Order | Print | No Comments »

October 5, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

Link to original article (in German)

A translation of the article into English is appended after the following comments.

It is worthwhile checking out the photos relating to the article.  They provide a few ideas for the wording and formats of placards that can be used on placards at other demonstrations elsewhere.

The photo in the main article shows expunged fathers writing (with chalk) the names of their children on the pavement in front of the Fulda Court Building.  Fulda is a German city with a population of about 60,000.

The slogans visible and legible in the photos related to the main article translate as follows:

13 photos in the related photo series:

1. “…and when do I get to see Dad?” (Link)
2. “Children’s Rights on Paper –
   Their Fathers are here today” (Link)
3. “Family-splitting
   instead of
   Splitting of Partners in Marriage”

   “You too have a right to both parents“”Both Parents for all Children” (Link)

4. “…and when do I get to see Dad?” (Link)
5. “Shared Custody”

   “Visitation that happens”
   (Sorry, that doesn’t make much sense to anyone who is not initiated, unless the absence of any other information implies that the visitation that happens is nil.) (Link)

6. The placard shown is of the Frankfurt Branch of the organization “Fathers Decampment [as for an uprising] for Children“. In addition to address details, the placard states “Two Parents for all Children” (Link)
7. “www.AktiveVaeter.de [active fathers] demand now:
   Custody-Right from Birth” (which says nothing about paternal rights after conception, but that exclusion is quite possibly deliberate — after all, would it be wise for anyone to deny mothers the exclusive right to kill unborn children?) Link)
8. “…and when do I get to see Dad?“(Link)
9. “Fathers Decampment [as for an uprising] for Children”

   “Men’s Commissioner”
   That implies that there is none, alluding to the fact that every developed nation has a government department for the “Status of Women” or for women but nothing comparable for men.  Sorry, but a sign like that is not of much help in promoting the causes of men, women and families.A discussion of why that is so would take too much space here.Let’s just say that only some of the initiated-few understand what the sign is getting at.  The philosophical complexity of the placard violates a few of the fundamental requirements for successful propaganda.  Hitler, who without a doubt was an expert when it comes to designing successful and effective propaganda, explained it like this:

   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. … (Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Chapter VI)

   “Shared Custody”

   (Link)

10. “www.AktiveVaeter.de [active fathers] demand now:
    Custody-Right from Birth”

    “Fathers Decampment [as for an uprising] for Children
    Local Chapter [Saar-] Pfalz“(Link)

11. “Men’s Commissioner“”Shared Custody“(Link)
12. Photo (used in the main article) shows expunged fathers writing (with chalk) the names of their children on the pavement in front of the Fulda Court Building.(Link)
13. “Men’s Commissioner”

    “Fathers Decampment [as for an uprising] for Children
    Local Chapter Saar-Pfalz“(Link)

Translation of the article in the Fuldaer Zeitung  (Fulda News):

120 Demonstrators in the Inner City

2008 10 05

FULDA “We are here and quite loud, because they steal our children!” That is how it resounded through the Inner City of Fulda.

With that slogan the organization “Fathers Decampment [as for getting an uprising underway] for Children” demonstrated for the strengthening of the position of fathers who after separations want to take over responsibility for their children.

About 120 demonstrators walked in connection with that through the Inner City.

And because the critique aimed mainly at politics, church and courts, the demonstrators went past the City Palace, the Cathedral and the Fulda District Court.

In front of the main gate of the Court Building, the fathers used chalk to write on the pavement the names of their children with whom they they may not and cannot have any contact.

The demonstration finished with a closing rally on the University Plaza.

The aim of the organization is for the implementation of more equal rights [sic] in child-access and -custody.
___________
Comment by Fathers for Life: Compulsory divorce (ostensibly “no-fault” divorce, almost exclusively imposed on fathers and husbands, almost always against their wishes, in about half of marriages that form) is the primary cause for the escalation of the systematic destruction of the fundamental building block of society, the family.  It is thereby virtually the sole reason why fathers are expunged from the lives of their children.

To restore the respect that society once had for fathers and families and therefore to promote respect and love between fathers and mothers and harmony in families would provide for a stable and productive society; as it once did before the family became deliberately deconstructed.

One gains the strong impression that the aim of demonstrations, such as the one in Fulda, held by expunged fathers is not to promote the reconstruction of families and society, thereby to re-establish the esteem in which society once held fathers, but it is to give complaining fathers an opportunity to promote social changes that will eliminate their being discriminated against when they are forced to live with the consequences of separation and divorce.

It appears that such expunged and complaining fathers want to have rights that are equal to those held by women in sharing the loot that can be gained by scavenging amongst the ruins, rubble and ashes produced by the war against  families and society.

Equally-shared parenting still gives children on average only half of the parenting that they are entitled to.

Only two parents who live for their children and cooperate with one another to raise their children to the best of their abilities while sharing the same roof with their children will produce the best outcomes for their children.

From the perspective of a child of divorce, two parents living apart and equally sharing custody still add up to only one whole parent.  The reality of that is reflected in the results of the measurement of the outcomes in children from families.  In general, children that are not raised by two married parents living under a common roof with their children display more than twice the level of undesired outcomes than do children in married families.

Under the sponsorship of the Heritage Foundation, Patrick Fagan produced a good number of reports that provide irrefutable evidence of the extensive destructiveness of divorce and fatherlessness with respect to outcomes in children of single-mother “families”.

Posted in Abortion, Divorce, Organizational News, Paternal Rights, Judiciary, Civil Rights, Men's Issues, Child-Custody Awards, Propaganda Exposed, The New World Order, Feminism, Feminist Jurisprudence, Family, Women's Violence | Print | No Comments »

October 3, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

RenewAmerica.us

October 2, 2008
Few women in abuse shelters are true victims of violence
By Carey Roberts

Lachrymose tales of battered women abound when representatives of abuse shelters come calling, hat in hand, for taxpayer money. But what is the truth of the matter — are abuse shelters really brimming with hapless victims trying to break free of the cycle of violence?

The answer to that question is a surprising “No.” In the great majority of cases, women at abuse shelters have suffered no physical injury or harm….(Full Story)

_________________
Comments by Fathers for Life: Carey Roberts tells nothing new, but what he tells needs telling, over and over.  He mentions in his article,

And for those women who were physically harmed, many turn out to be just as abusive as the partners they are trying to escape from, according to Erin Pizzey, founder of the first abuse shelter in the world.

The exact words by Erin Pizzey are: “…62 women out of the first hundred women who came to the refuge were as violent or more violent than the men they left.  Also many were prostitutes taking refuge from their violent pimps.” (The Planned Destruction of the Family)

For more revealing and astounding information on the abuse of the taxpayers by the women’s shelter industry check Battered Women’s Shelters — Index.

Posted in Health, Media Bias, Family, Feminism, Propaganda Exposed, Women's Violence | Print | No Comments »

October 2, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

The Capital Times

Grim report shows 67 domestic violence homicides in state in ‘06-07

Jessica VanEgeren  —  10/02/2008 9:23 am

Two years ago in Fond du Lac, a 43-year-old woman was killed by her husband. The weapon of choice: a cinder block. Earlier that year in Marathon County, a 40-year-old woman was beaten and strangled. She died at the hands of her husband after a piece of broken glass from a candy dish was stuffed down her throat….(Full Story)

That first paragraph in the article sets the stage.  After that, it doesn’t matter all that much anymore that the rest of the article is very careful to avoid  breaking down the fatality victims into men, women and children.

Perhaps there is a reason for that.  Maybe it is an interesting bit of truth that peeked through a chink in the armor of obfuscation in the article:

58 children under the age of 18 were left orphaned or without a mother or father as a result of domestic violence. Of the young children who lost a parent, 28 percent lost their mothers.

That means that 16 children lost their mothers and 42 lost their fathers.  The article provides no further clue as to what the proportions were of men and women who became DV murder victims.  Going by the proportion of the children who lost mothers and who lost fathers, the ratio of fathers to mothers killed is 2.6 fathers for every mother. That says nothing about who the perpetrators were.  However, the mothers’ ex-boyfriends or ex-husbands seem to have been the perpetrators in a good number of cases.

Does that mean that Wisconsin has almost three times as many battered men’s shelters as it has battered women’s shelters?  I don’t think so.  As far as I know, all of the Wisconsin shelters for victims of domestic violence are for women only.

Furthermore, the remedy for the victims of domestic violence is as follows:

Patti Seger, the executive director of the Wisconsin Coalition Against Domestic Violence, said getting victims to the point where they are ready to leave their abusers is an ongoing challenge.

The odd thing is that “getting victims to the point where they are ready to leave their abusers” appears to be exactly the trigger that causes much of the serious or deadly violence in the first place.

Given the fact that there is no battered men’s shelter in Wisconsin, the victims Patti Seger spoke about are all women. So, the solution to creating the love and respect necessary between spouses to prevent themselves or their ex-lovers from beating each other to death is to isolate them from one another, to make them separate, to have the victims leave their abusers, to get divorces.

There is a culture of violence that boys and girls are being indoctrinated with from the time before Kindergarten.

It seems to me that girls are no longer being urged to be lady-like but to be more like boys, even to be “as strong” as boys, which is, given that boys hardly ever defend themselves, not all that hard to do when it comes to that.

It happens far more often now that a girl is encouraged to be violent, and every time one slaps a boy in the face, gives him a black eye or two, or kicks him in the genitals, there is little reproach and more likely a resounding “Good for you! There you go, girl!”  That, as the years go by, is then being followed up with other lessons for such violent girls, by which they learn that in the eyes of the law they can do no wrong and that they can even commit murder with impunity.

On the other hand, it is more typical of society to teach boys who are old enough to play in a sandbox, “Boys don’t hit girls!”  That is then being followed up with lessons that teach boys and young men that they never, under any circumstance, may be violent to a woman, that there is never an excuse for them.

The other day, when I asked her whether her son was still single, the mother of a young man told me, “Yup, he is, but that is better than being black and blue all the time.”

Whenever something did not please her, his girlfriend whom he had lived with for a few years beat him black and blue on a regular basis, scratched up his immaculate truck, kicked in the truck’s head- and tail lights and slashed the truck’s tires.

The young man’s mother told me,

He got rid of her and now she is with X [a young man whom we both know and who had a few years ago been the victim of a serious paternity fraud] and is continuing the same violent behaviour with him. Fortunately I taught him [her son] all his life not ever to hit a woman.  At least he did not go to jail and he doesn’t have a criminal record for defending himself, but he is better off single than being constantly black and blue; and, thankfully, there are no children.

At what time in their lives do people learn to give and take respect for one another?  There is one thing that is certain in that regard. At least society tried, until the feminists and their fellow-travellers usurped power and control and began to create the rift between the sexes.

Posted in Censorship, Divorce, Media Bias, Paternal Rights, Judiciary, Health, Men's Issues, The New World Order, Women's Violence, Feminism, Feminist Jurisprudence, Family, Paternity Fraud | Print | No Comments »

October 1, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

Compared to 1875, when women were “oppressed,” are things that bad for US men now?

Woman and the law; a comparison of the rights of men and the rights of women before the law.
By Russell H. Conwell.

Conwell, Russell Herman, 1843-1925.
Boston: H. L. Shapard & co., 1875.

Publication Information: Ann Arbor, Michigan: University of Michigan Library 2005

Excerpt from:

Chapter III

Wives and Husbands

Page  31

Women are found to be endowed with extraordinary powers they ought not to possess, or are subjects of inconsistent enactments which ought to be repealed. But out of this conglomerate pile of good and bad legislation, woman sums up a most decided advantage. It may be, however, no more than most men think she ought to have, but it is much more than she sometimes thinks she has.

Let me pause here, for a moment, to mention a few of the almost numberless rights which our law, as amended by the Statutes of many States, confers upon married women, and which places husbands very much at the mercy of wives, if they are punctilious and exacting.

Marriage is a contract into which no woman need be drawn against her will, or without a full knowledge of the bargain she is making. She gives up none of her rights in property which she holds, but may do with it as she pleases free from his control.

He may agree, before his marriage, to give her a fortune in consideration of the marriage, and he can pay that debt after marriage, although he contracts reckless liabilities in doing so. He may

Page  32

deed property to his wife through a third person, and she may hold it against any of his subsequent creditors. She may be worth a million, and he have nothing but his labor; yet he must support her in good style, and supply the needs of the family from his wages, without assistance from her. If both together commit a trespass, or assault, or any like misdemeanor, he is punished and she excused. Worse than that is the law whereby the husband is punished for any wrongful act of the wife in his presence, although it might have been beyond his power to prevent it. If she strikes a man, the recipient of the blows has no right to strike back unless to save his life, and her husband must pay for the damage by fine or imprisonment.

Whatever wrongs he does at her command do not make her liable to punishment. She is not compelled to support him if he starve, although she may have a competency; neither is she under legal obligation, before or after her husband’s death, to supply the wants of her children.

He may be compelled to pay her debts, contracted before he ever knew her, out of his own

Page  33

capital. She cannot be put in prison for an act less than a felony, unless he is put in confinement, too. She has all her own, all its accumulation, all her wages, and, at his death, one-third of his real estate; and, usually, one-half of his personal property. She may insure his life at his expense, and the payment will go to her, free of any liability on account of his debts; but not so with his policy on her life.

She may commit adultery and live with another man, but he is compelled by law to pay her “pin money.” She is not bound by law either to love, or to honor, or to obey him. She may abuse him all she pleases; but he must not strike her, or return the compliment with any show of force. If he ill-treat her, she can place him under bonds to use her kindly. He has no such remedy. She may be a vicious virago, and drive him from the house; yet he must leave her in possession, if she is strongest, and go to work to provide her a decent living. So long as she does not leave him, he must provide for her.

If he makes an agreement with her to give her a settlement in lieu of her dower, he must pay her, even though her paramour brings the action

Page  34

to compel him. She may act as his agent in some matters against his will. She may run him in debt to a considerable amount, but she is not forced to pay any bills of his contracting. If he is mean, or vicious, or cruel, he must pay for her separate maintenance; while she may be as hateful as a witch, and rich withal, and yet be free of any claim from him for separate maintenance. He is liable for her slanderous talk, even though he tries, on the spot, to prevent her speaking. She can refuse to do any kind of labor. She can waste his goods, and even burn his house before his eyes, and he is powerless. She can do business on her separate account and devote her whole time to it, as much as he does to his occupation, and more; and taking all the profits, leave the home and the children to his sole care and expense. She is responsible for nothing, not even for herself; he is for everything, even for acts and mishaps beyond his control. He cannot sell his real estate without her signature, while in many of the States, she can buy and sell real property, wholly unrestricted by his wishes or his autograph.

If she desires to get a divorce, he must pay

Page  35

her costs and other expenses in advance. She is not constrained to furnish him with any money to carry on a legal quarrel with her, no matter how wealthy she may be. After a divorce, he must support her still, if he was at fault. She pays not one penny to him if she was the offending party.

A step-father is bound to supply the necessities of his wife’s children if he take them to his home. A step-mother incurs no such liability. If husband and wife separate, she has the same right to the custody of the children that he has, notwithstanding he must pay all their bills. She may sell his property to pay her expenses, but he has no such privilege with her possessions.

If a man entice away a married woman, he is imprisoned. She is nearly as often the guilty one, but suffers no penalty. There are scores of reasons which excuse a woman for deserting her husband, but not one pretext or plea which will clear him from his marital duties. As guardian, executrix, or trustee, she has the same rights that he has, and less of the liabilities.

Let me add to this abbreviated rehearsal the words of one of the latest and best authorities on American Common Law.

Page  36

* ” A woman, when she is married, has contracted with a man to furnish her for life - and the children who may be born of her, during their minority -with suitable and proper sustenance; while on the other hand, she is not under obligation to work or do anything.” “There is no obligation upon her; she has no burden of life to carry; her husband is bound to support her, and she has her whole separate income with which to blow up and keep up the alluring and bursting bubble of her follies.” This shows what woman may do lawfully, not what she does as a rule.

Thank God, the number is few of either men or women, who demand all their legal rights. There is too much love, kindness, generosity and forbearance in the world, to test the width of these legal loop-holes very often. Not one married woman in a thousand, and not one man in a hundred, ever care whether women have legal “rights” or not, save as a matter of curiosity; for true matrimony knows no law but kindness, no restraint but such as Christian love imposes. If this were not so, men would be fearfully op-

* Bishop’s Law of Married Women.

Page  37

pressed under the present codes and rules of law. The men know, however, that they can trust their wives with all they ask for, and much more. Hence this strange indulgence by those who have held the reins of power.

But before leaving this part of my subject, I shall venture to give you one more quotation from legal authority, to show you, beyond a doubt, the accuracy of my statements on points of law.

“Of late, statutes have been enacted in the greater part of our States, giving, substantially, the privileges of a separate estate to all married women, where no ante-nuptial contract has been made, yet casting upon them no corresponding burden.

What they bring to the marriage remains theirs, in some of the States; what they earn becomes theirs; they can hoard all and its increase, and thus add wealth upon wealth, out of which nothing can be taken for the maintenance of themselves or their children; while their husbands, if the law is carried out, must, in most instances, be kept poor, and finally driven to cheating, in order to support the rich wife and her family.

Russell H. Conwell was a Baptist minister and the founder and first president of Temple University in Philadelphia Pennsylvania.

If some of those symptoms of women’s “oppression” bother you more than a little, then you better read all of Woman and the Law.

As indicated in a few instances in his book, Russell H. Conwell firmly believed that the goodness of women and the love they had to offer to men would prevent all but fewer than one in a thousand women from such legal exploitations of men.  Given the legal iniquities he described, American men in the 19th century had every reason to fear women and their legal powers to such an extent that any man who went even near a women, let alone marry her, should have had his head examined.  Still, despite its discriminatory laws in favour of women and extremely oppressive of men, the USA thrived and prospered, and so did its families, at least until the 1960s, when radical feminism began its war against the family in earnest and ultimately achieved international power and control of civilization, primarily in all developed nations.

Russell H. Conwell summed up his concerns in that respect in the final paragraphs of his book.

Page  71

….Ah, how little any one of us can do!

I cannot hope to eradicate all this evil, and certain I am that woman’s suffrage will not do it; although there are other means which might and should be applied. The ballot in woman’s hands might do something for the men, in equalizing the now unevenly balanced scale, and in putting order into caucuses and elections; but after a survey of the whole field, I see nothing in it of practical gain to woman. The sum of the whole matter is stated in the proposition that, as our laws now stand in those States which are not behind the age, woman has no reason to demand anything more of man, and man has no good

Page  72

reason for withholding whatever additional boon or privilege she may desire.

Woman will continue to exercise less than her “rights,” and will be willing, as heretofore, to sacrifice herself for those male companions whom she loves; and man can afford to give her all she now has, and far more. Nature, and all our Christian cultivation teaches us to be generous; and a curse black as night, and as fatal as the Simoon ^[*], will rest on that era, when the men and the women demand and expect nothing more from each other than exact justice.

“ Heaven forming each on other to depend,
A master, or a servant, or a friend,
Bids each on other for assistance call,
Till one man’s weakness grows the strength of all.”

-END.

[* Simoon: a hot, dry, dust-laden wind from Asian or African deserts]

Alas, the love and sacrifices of women that Russell H. Conwell praised so much could not even then be taken for granted, or he would not have mentioned them.  Furthermore, his prediction, that “a curse black as night, and as fatal as the Simoon ^[*], will rest on that era, when the men and the women demand and expect nothing more from each other than exact justice,” came to pass with ever-increasing vengeance.

One of the best explanations I ever saw for why that dire prediction came to pass is offered by Marc H. Rudov, in his article, Thou Shalt Not Disappoint Her, Aug. 3, 2008.

Marc Rudov provides example after example of atrocious instances that illustrate how all of the fears that Russell H. Conwell expressed are now the rule, that love is never mentioned in divorce proceedings, and that greed by women is now given the full reign and force that the law grants.  He blames it all on PMS (the princess mentality syndrome) and on spineless men without balls who put women on pedestals.

Absolutely!

–Walter

Posted in Divorce, Paternal Rights, Civil Rights, Men's Issues, Family, Propaganda Exposed, Feminism, Feminist Jurisprudence, The New World Order | Print | No Comments »