November 28, 2010 by Walter Schneider.

Thanks to Stephen Hicks

Articles about men
29.11.2010

Indian Women Assault Innocent Men – and Police Congratulate them

A GROUP of male passengers travelling in a female-only carriage on New Delhi’s new metro system were ordered to do sit-ups on the platform by the furious women, according to reports….(Full Story)

Posted in Battered Men's Shelters, Violence by Proxy, Civil Rights, Men's Issues, Feminist Jurisprudence, Women's Violence | Print | No Comments »

November 28, 2010 by Walter Schneider.

A search facility has been installed at the Family-Violence Index Page of Fathers for Life, courtesy by DVStats.org.

Also by courtesy of DVStats.org, at the end of the links in the left side-bar menu on the Family-Violence Index Page of Fathers for Life, there is now a widget that will let you find out about the latest DV research that has been published.

DVStats.org — a search engine, aggregating research that examines the impact and extent of domestic violence upon male victims.

This search facility equates domestic violence to intimate partner violence between men and women in relationships.  It does not provide information on violence between homosexuals, siblings or violence against family members other than heterosexual partners and spouses, such as infanticide, child abuse or violence against elderly in families.

Posted in Organizational News, Child Abuse, Health, Child Murder, Family, Women's Violence | Print | 1 Comment »

November 28, 2010 by Walter Schneider.

On 27/11/2010 5:06 PM, stephen wrote:

Hello Walter:

Under Google Reader they have listings of 100’s of pages of Church abuses and adult abuses in just the past two weeks.

Stephen

I know you celebrate Thanksgiving on a different day, as I celebrated with a couple from Calgary Salvation Army once.

My response:

Stephen,

I know that Dads & Things is not entirely unbiased in its reporting of child abuse cases, but that is mainly because I focus on reporting things not covered in the main-stream media and look at things a bit beyond the scope of the Google Reader feed you pointed me to.

Description: RELIGIOUS FANATICS ARE AMONG THE MOST VICIOIUS CHILD ABUSERS IN THE WORLD

Subscribers: 54

Posts per week: 77.2

Going by those numbers, I figure that we look at a total of 3,754 reports annually of child abuse by Christians in the world.  That number would be only a small fraction of the annual number of child abuse cases in the world.  I never have seen exact numbers of such cases, but let’s do a few back-of-the-envelope calculations.

First of all, let’s assume the worst, that all of the cases reported at the recommended Google Reader feed are cases of fatal child abuse.

The total number of child murders (not including abortions, of whom there are about 1.1. million a year) in the U.S. in 2009 was 923 (based on the FBI Uniform Crime Report).  That number is probably too low, as women routinely get off with murder and many cases of child murder are being diagnosed as being due to accidental or natural causes, but I’ll let that go for now.

From that, and given that the U.S. population is about 5 percent of the world population, the total number of child murders every year must then be in the order of 18,460 in the world.

Going by that, Christians would perpetrate about 20 percent of all child murders each year, while the remaining population sector (all non-Christians) would perpetrate the remaining 80 percent of child murders.

You may wonder why I discuss fatal child abuse by Christians, when the Google Reader feed you pointed out identifies in its title “RELIGIOUS FANATICS”.  Well, I looked through the first 20 or so headings of the postings the feed identifies and assume that the pattern shown there holds true for the rest.  All of the “RELIGIOUS FANATICS” identified in those first few postings are Christians.

Now, there are about 2.1 billion Christians in the world, out of a total of 6.8 billion people.  That would be about 31 percent of the world population (which means that the Google Reader feed you recommend is enormously biased).  That Christian portion of the world population fatally abuses at most 20 percent of all children who are being fatally abused each year.  Going by that, I fail to see the truth in the premise of the Google Reader feed you recommended, namely that Christians are the most vicious child abusers in the world.  It seems to me that there is only a very small chance of that being true, while, collectively, all other religious denominations are — going by those numbers — substantially more vicious.

The truth is quite possibly that some non-Christian denominations are a lot more vicious than Christian religious fanatics are alleged to be.

I think that I better stick to debunking the wrongfully alleged peacefulness of women rather than to deviate into largely uncharted territory about which there is very little reliable information.  I would no sooner want to go there than I am willing to promote returning to the allegations that Jews habitually engage in the ritual slayings of babies on Easter.  We have had enough pogroms against the Jews and don’t need any against the Christians, there having been more than enough of those sort of persecutions.

Our Thanksgiving Day was on the 11th of October, but we celebrate Veterans Day (our Remembrance Day), Christmas and Easter, of course, on identical days of the calendar.

–Walter

Sent to you by stephen via Google Reader:

Mother killed child

via Christian Child Abuse by MagdaGraham on 11/8/10

Mum killed toddler to ‘expel evil spirits’

Posted November 5, 2010 14:57:00

Rachel Cherie Hadley stood on her son’s chest and mouth to expel evil spirits, court heard (ABC News: Gary Rivett)

A court has found a mother was psychotic when she killed her two-year-old son by standing on him….(Full Story)

________________

F4L:  Let’s not blame religious fanaticism for it, but, yes, there always is an excuse when a woman kills a child.  If it was not her husband or any other man who made her do it, then the next in line are the devil or her inner demons.  If everything else fails, the poor murdering mama can always claim nothing more than that she just could not help herself and just had to do it.

For that reason a special crime category, Infanticide, was created that is accessible only for women who kill children.

For men there is never an excuse.  Men are always considered as being fully responsible for their actions, while women are thought to be so fragile that they must always be treated by the courts as being at least somewhat infantile.

Posted in Religion, Child Abuse, Media Bias, Child Murder, Propaganda Exposed, Women's Violence | Print | 2 Comments »

November 27, 2010 by Walter Schneider.

Mail Online

Rage of the girl rioters: Britain’s students take to the streets again - and this time women are leading the charge

By Rebecca Camber, Nick Fagge, Katherine Faulkner, Nick Mcdermott and Laura Caroe
Last updated at 12:44 PM on 25th November 2010

* 25,000 go on mass nationwide rampage over tuition fees
* Teenage pupils protest alongside university pupils
* Police face fresh questions about handling of riot

Rioting girls became the disturbing new face of violent protest yesterday.

They threatened to overturn a police riot squad van as they smashed windows, looted riot shields, uniforms and helmets and daubed the sides with graffiti.

Police fled the van as the young demonstrators against university tuition fees yelled obscenities only yards from Downing Street….(Full Story)

_____________
The riots were in support of “free education for all”?  First of all, the money that is slotted to subsidize student tuition should now be re-allocated to pay for the damages done by the rioters.  If not, then the majority lets itself be blackmailed into having to pay for the idiocy of a few.

Riots are not cheap, and neither is an education.  However, I guess, the rioting students feel it is alright to riot, as long as someone else pays for the damages.  That is true as well of the clamor over a free education.  It is okay to clamor for one as long as someone else pays for that, too.

There is no such thing as a free lunch.  Someone always pays.  Rightfully, that should be the ones consuming the lunch.  No work, no pay.  No pay, no lunch.

It would be great if all problems in this world could be so easily solved.  Let’s face it.  If we don’t solve the problem of rioting students who cause a lot of damages to blackmail society into giving them a “free” education, then where will things like that lead?

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

November 27, 2010 by Walter Schneider.

National Post
Thursday, November 25, 2010

Canada withdraws from UN celebration of racism

By Lorne Gunter

If you liked the Ground Zero mosque, you’re going to love what the United Nations has planned for the 10^th anniversary of the 9/11 attack in New York next fall….(Full Story)

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

November 24, 2010 by Walter Schneider.

A fathers rights activist wrote to me about the feminists having discovered a meeting of 160 FR activists in Switzerland.  I responded to him:

Unfortunately, the comments on the posting at your blog are closed.  Therefore I will respond directly to you.

It is not as important for you to wonder how the author (Suswati Basu) of the article at thefword.org found out about you having posed as Batman as it is to debunk her assertions of historical factoids that clearly come out of the rummage bag of feminist “herstory”, the re-writing of history as we once knew it, and that the IGAF is addressing exactly those sort of false assertions by feminist propagandists.

Take just a few of the propagandist assertions by Suswati Basu.

1. Now, I am not quite sure how far back IGAF are proposing to go. Perhaps 50 years ago when women were still considered ideal for housework and rearing children or better still, …

That lie is easily refuted, and that has already been done.

Recovering the American Past with Brian C. Robertson

A review by Frank Zepezauer

---

The Liberator (Mar/Apr issue 2000)

Recovering the American Past with Brian C. Robertson

by Frank Zepezauer, resident philosopher

Have you ever heard of the National Congress of Mothers? Until recently I didn’t know about them myself and I’ve spent a lot of time studying women’s organizations. It so happens that the NCM was actually the biggest women’s lobby in American history. Founded during the presidency of Theodore Roosevelt, it had 190,000 members by 1920 and over one million by 1930. The National Organization for Women, even in its heyday, could never claim such numbers.

I learned about the National Congress of Mothers in a short but highly informative book, There’s No Place Like Work by Brian C. Robertson. It has a provocative sub-title: How Business, Government, and Our Obsession with Work Have Driven Parents From Home. [1] The title pretty well tells you what the book is about, an account of how the workplace has replaced the home as the center of our lives.

I found it particularly instructive because Robertson’s account challenges recently formed misperceptions about our gender political history since the founding of the nation. It is in that sense an effort to recover the American past.

Robertson makes it clear who formed the misperceptions of our past 200 years. He writes that – “in order to propagate the notion (central to their ideology of women’s liberation) that before the dawn of modern feminism mothers stayed at home to raise their children only because they had no alternative – feminist writers have been forced into a tortuous and self-contradictory interpretation of the pre-1960s women’s movement, its goals and its guiding principles.”[2] (Full Story)

2. before women obtained the vote, and were voiceless ‘second-class’ citizens.

That is laughable.

• Working on the Railroad — in the Victorian Age

  How much oppression by men could there possibly have been?  The vast majority of men didn’t have the voting franchise (it was tied into assets, of whom most men didn’t have any), and men were generally treated like slaves.  How could history possibly have been re-written so much that the products of our education system became indoctrinated with the belief that men were oppressors of women?  Full Story
  

• The Victorian Age

  As seen through the comments by Michael Crichton in “The Great Train Robbery” (It took place in 1855) (Full Story)

• The Voting Franchise for women, as seen through feminist eyes

Already under Ottilie Baader and Clara Zetkin, the most prominent fighters of the proletarian and later socialistic women’s movement, the original, all-encompassing concerns of the association were reduced to focus on the labour movement.  The Leading principle expressed in the slogan “Woman and Worker have in common that they are oppressed,” identified the political liberation of the proletariat in connection with the political and labour-laws liberation of the woman — although what was meant by that weren’t all women in general, but merely women who were employed.  The main goal of the efforts was the voting franchise for women.

England became the fighting example to be emulated by the German women’s movement.  German women noticed with angry pride the first arrests of women’s right activists in England in the last years of the 19th century.  From 1903 on, under the leadership of Sylvia Prankhurst, the suffragettes became visibly more aggressive.  An external sign was the war of the fashion over the substitution of the more clinging suffragette-silhouette for the traditional crinolines.  Malicious cartoons of goat-faced, skinny women without bosoms and bottoms amused the male world and those women who were excluded from the women’s movement — namely the non-employed housewives.

Lastly the voting franchise for women materialized, although not at first in the England of the suffragette pioneers, and in addition at a different time.

Finland became the herald in 1906.  Germany approached the issue in small steps and introduced in 1908 the Reich Union Law.  That permitted women to participate in political meetings and rallies.  Even though the English women continued to fight vehemently, it was Russia which in 1917 became the first country to introduce the voting franchise for women.^[5]   Germany followed in 1918 at the end of World War I;^[6] the USA joined in 1920.  Great Britain was still a laggard.  Although in  1918 it granted all women over 30 the voting franchise, it wasn’t permitted until 1928 for all English women to vote.  France delayed women’s right to vote until 1944.  Switzerland became the tail light in 1971.  (quoted from The Wife at his Side, by Karin Jaeckel)

Still, remember what Hitler had said about effective propaganda.  Never present the truth in academic fairness.  Although Karin Jaeckel’s writing is largely pro-male and pro-family, even she is not totally immune to the damages caused by feminist propaganda.

The reality of the voting franchise by the masses is that men did not have it much better than women did, once it came to voting.

In essence, it was based on proportional representation based on assets owned by voters — a system that until just a few years ago existed even in Canadian municipal elections, preventing anyone who wasn’t a property owner from voting.  According to The Penguin Atlas of Recent History (by Colin McEvedy),

“One in every eight Englishmen had the vote in the early nineteenth century, a proportion that the Reform Bill of 1832 raised to one in five. ^[1] …only one in 300 Frenchmen had the vote in the 1820s …the Belgians …with a British-style Parliament elected a one-in-fifteen franchise.Note 1.) Things were not so good in the other parts of the United Kingdom: the post-Reform Bill proportion in Scotland was one in eight, in Ireland one in twenty.  (Source)

3. Women’s organisations such as the Fawcett Society are campaigning on issues such as equal pay. In the UK, women get paid, on average, 16.4% less than men….

That is just as wrong and as easily debunked.  For one thing, all developed nations now have very strong laws that make all attempts to pay women less for equal work done illegal, but let’s look at some of the truth about the lie that women are getting paid less.

Pay equity for women doesn’t exist?

All evidence to the contrary, feminist “researchers” continue to claim that women earn less than men do.  It used to be said that “A woman earns 59¢ to a man’s dollar,” or, more recently and today, “Women earn 72¢ for every dollar earned by men.”

As with all feminist “research”, in this area, too, the truth is stranger than fiction.  That the feminist fiction is being maintained as “the truth” is the strangest part of it all.  The evidence that feminist researchers have not been telling the truth about the lack of pay equity for women has been around for decades.

Well, what can one say?  To understand that mystery, one has to go back all the way to what Hitler said about what makes propaganda successful.

…all effective propaganda must be limited to a very few points and must harp on these in slogans until the last member of the public understands what you want him to understand by your slogan.

Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Chapter VI

Hitler made it quite clear that with successful propaganda it will not do to present the truth in academic fairness, but that what needs to be presented is what you wish the masses to accept as the truth.  That is quite obviously what feminist “researchers” have been and are very good at doing.  Moreover, aren’t all feminists women (not true; there are more male than female feminists, and we are likely to call them chivalrous), and are not all women incapable of lying? (Full Story)

4. And the placards held at this year’s Million Women Rise stated “End Male Violence against Women”. 

Yes, that is true, and even the placards held at this year’s Million Women Rise (at which considerably less than a million women rose) are true.  There is violence against women.

However, remember what Hitler had said about effective propaganda.  One should never present the truth in academic fairness.  That is exactly what the feminist propaganda about violence against women does.  It does not present all of the truth and nothing but the truth.  Most of all, it does not present the truth about violence against men, absolutely no truth at all.  It does not even mention violence against men.

Presenting the truth about violence against people of both sexes shows that without a doubt there is far more violence against men than there is against women.  Irrefutable figures on that are relatively easy to come by, and here are just a few.  The preceding link will take you to a list of links to articles on violence against men.  To cut through the chase, look at just one of the articles and sources identified in that list:

REFERENCES EXAMINING ASSAULTS BY WOMEN ON THEIR SPOUSES OR MALE PARTNERS:

AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Martin S. Fiebert
Department of Psychology
California State University, Long Beach
Last updated: September 2008

SUMMARY:  This bibliography examines 275 scholarly investigations: 214 empirical studies and 61 reviews and/or analyses, which demonstrate that women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their relationships with their spouses or male partners.  The aggregate sample size in the reviewed studies exceeds 365,000.

(Full Text)

There is no doubt that more men than women die on account of violence, roughly two men for every woman, but the feminist assertion about violence against women implies that we have an epidemic of violence by men against women.

It may help to give the last word on this to Warren Farrell, Ph.D..  After explaining in Chapter 12 of his book The Myth of Male Power, titled “Women Who Kill Too Much and the Courts That Free Them: “The Twelve “Female-Only” Defenses”, how those 12 female-only defences cloud public perceptions about women’s violence, Warren Farrell stated:

In brief, it is impossible to know the degree to which the sexes kill each other.  The only thing we know for certain is that both sexes kill men more than they kill women. (p. 282)

That leaves the last wrong claim in Suswati Basu’s feminist polemic that caught my eye to be debunked.

5. According to an IGAF member, the feminist message clearly implied here is “male slaughter, female supremacy”.

Well, yes, the IGAF member is right.  There is the slaughter of men, and it is being done to bring about female supremacy, even if that is not exactly what the polemic by Suswati Basu wanted to bring across.  In short:

and as per the words of a somewhat longer comment:

Remembrance : The status of men

By Walter Schneider, 2010, 11, 11

There is absolutely nothing the feminists state that you can or must accept at face value.  Nevertheless, what they say about you means virtually nothing compared to their objectives in their larger scheme of things.

All the best, and keep doing the right things,

Walter

Posted in Media Bias, Social-Destruction Enterprise, Civil Rights, Men and Women Work, Men's Issues, The New World Order, Propaganda Exposed, Feminism, Women's Violence | Print | 1 Comment »

November 24, 2010 by Walter Schneider.

Why not?  She could not help herself.  After all, she had only wanted to “purify” the tip of her husband’s penis.  It is not really her fault that things went so terribly wrong.  He should not have turned his back on her.

Mind you, it is quite difficult to ignore the fact that she had a can with gasoline as well as a lit candle at hand for teaching her husband the lesson he deserved in their bedroom…

Still, that has all been done and looked after as it should be.  So, let the poor woman go!  Has she not suffered enough already?

Here are links to Nov. 24, 2010 articles that provide updates on the case.

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

November 23, 2010 by Walter Schneider.

Thanks to Gord Balik:

Canada.com

By Sharon Kirkey, Postmedia News November 22, 2010 Comments (3)

Divorcing parents usually worry about the long-term emotional impact their split could have on the kids, but new research suggests there may be a physical fallout, too.

The Canadian research suggests the children of divorce may be at a higher risk of stroke in their own adult years.

Based on more than 13,000 adults living in Manitoba and Saskatchewan, the research has found that those whose parents divorced when they were children had twice the odds of having a stroke at some time in their lives, a finding that held after researchers controlled for numerous known risk factors for stroke…..(Full Story)

___________
Note by F4L: For interest’s sake, children of divorce are affected to virtually identical extents by other negative outcomes of divorce.  Here is what StatCan has to say:

WHAT WE KNOW ABOUT CHILDREN FROM SINGLE-MOTHER FAMILIES

Mind you, the issue of negative outcomes in children of divorce it not merely a Canadian, national problem, it is universal.  A variety of negative outcomes affect children wherever their parents separate and divorce:

Children of Divorce & Separation — Statistics

Consequences of father absence

Posted in Child Abuse, Single-Parent, Civil Rights, Social-Destruction Enterprise, Health, Divorce, The New World Order | Print | No Comments »

November 19, 2010 by Walter Schneider.

NineMSM

18:01 AEST Fri Nov 19 2010

Peter Enav

A Hong Kong judge on Friday ordered American Nancy Kissel to stand trial again for the “milkshake” murder of her banker husband, handing a big setback to her defence team in the high profile case….

Her retrial is expected to begin on January 10, with a pretrial hearing on January 4….

While prosecutors portrayed Robert as a loving father, his wife said the former investment banker for Goldman Sachs and Merrill Lynch was a heavy drinker and cocaine user who was frequently sexually abusive. She also acknowledged having an affair with an electrician who worked at the couple’s vacation home in Vermont….(Full Story)

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

November 17, 2010 by Walter Schneider.

Huffington Post
16 November 2010

The New Stigma - Children of Divorce Are No Longer Stigmatized, Until They Start Dating
By Elizabeth Marquardt

A young man says, “When I go out with a woman I can always tell on the
first date if she’s from a divorced family. The women from divorced
families are over-anxious, eager to please. They’re exhausting.”

A young woman says, “My parents have been married thirty-five years and I
want a long marriage like they’ve had. I love my boyfriend, but he’s from a
divorced family and, I don’t know, it just seems like he had to be a lot
more independent growing up than I ever was. Frankly, it worries me.”….(Full Story)

Posted in Marriage, Divorce | Print | No Comments »