January 8, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

From a feminist source of “facts” and “news”:

Get the [feminist] facts on domestic violence and women’s rights, including feminist news on violence against women: Domestic Violence Info Center at the Feminist Majority Foundation.

The vast majority of domestic assaults are committed by men. Even when men are victimized, 10% are assaulted by another man. In contrast, only 2% of women who are victimized are assaulted by another woman.

Let’s assume for a moment that those statistics are correct. In that case, “when men are victimized”, and if “10% are assaulted by another man,” that means that 90% of all violent assaults against men are by women perpetrators of violence against men, and that if “only 2% of women who are victimized are assaulted by another woman,” then the other 98% of women victims of violence are being victimized by men.

That means that men and women get victimized in roughly equal proportion by members of the opposite sex, but that virtually all funding for catering to victims of violence goes only to women. The question that comes out of that is: Why exactly is that a crime against women? Is it that women get all of the funding and men get none?

However, logic has never been a feminist strong-point. Feminists have a name for logic. They call it “patriarchal linear thinking.” Feminists deplore logic and even hold it to be an offence.

Violence against women from a more objective perspective

Annual fatalities by sex

Posted in Anorexia Nervosa, Propaganda Exposed, Women's Violence | Print | 1 Comment »

October 27, 2007 by Walter Schneider.

This may be of interest to anyone who wishes to know about trends of various indicators regarding the consequences of the changes in the politics of sex.

Have you ever used the information provided through alexa.com on traffic volumes and ranking for websites (e. g.: angryharry.com)?

If not, do it, and you will be surprised by the wealth of information you can glean from that. By replacing angryharry.com in the preceding link with the corresponding domain name and suffix for any other website you know, you can make an examination of website “reach” (the percentage of all Internet users who visit a given site) that a given website represents over time. Alexa.com even permits to compare, graphically, up to five different websites on a common chart. Most of the various indicators and terms used for the analysis report are explained here: http://www.alexa.com/site/help/traffic_learn_more

Reach and any other of the indicators provided by alexa.com are relative, not absolute. In the case of “reach”, for example, the indicator shows what percentage of all the website traffic to all Internet websites goes to an individual website, but it does not show the absolute number of visitors going to that individual website. That means that if the growth rate for all Internet traffic is greater than that for the website traffic for an individual website, the “reach” indicator for the given individual website will show a decline that correlates to the difference between the growth rate for all Internet website traffic and the growth rate for the specific website being examined. The important thing here is that although website traffic to a given website traffic steadily increases, its reach or rank can decline. That would be more or less normal. However, if the reach or rank for a website increases, that means that the website receives an extraordinary amount of Internet user interest that is in excess of the rate of traffic volume growth of the Internet.

A website that has a steady or slowly growing traffic volume by its visitors will nevertheless see its reach and rank decline for as long as the traffic volume for all Internet websites growth at a faster rate.

That must be considered when examining the apparently declining popularity of apparently all feminist and most men’s rights websites. However, that can be deceiving. Not unless the total proportion of all Internet traffic that goes to feminist or men’s rights websites is taken into account can it be determined whether the public’s interest in feminism or in men’s rights, with respect to the opposing group of websites, is in decline.

There has been an enormous proliferation of men’s- and men’s-rights websites. It stands to reason, but I don’t know for sure, that feminist websites may have seen a similar proliferation. I believe that may be so, as the trend lines for reach for virtually all pro-men websites show a decline over the last few years. Feminist websites have seen corresponding declines. I speculate that the decline is an indication of the dispersion of the public’s interest in men’s issues, from relatively few websites some time ago, to a much larger number of websites now. The total attention given to men’s issues may well be increasing, even though most men’s rights websites, each, see declining trends for reach.

Statistics reflecting their influence over time should be tracked. That is time-consuming, but an examination of those statistics shows how well fathers’ rights websites reflect aspects of the public opinion.

It must also be considered that more and more people have PCs and Internet access. It is hard to determine what portion of the public (that with Internet access plus the portion without) has an interest in men’s rights issues. The one with PCs and Internet access has a direct impact on policies and a large and perhaps complete presence on the Internet. The portion that doesn’t has nevertheless a very important indirect influence, namely through elections (limited only by fast-growing voter-apathy) and now - ever more so - through public opinion polls directed by the media and the politicians.

Nevertheless, websites do influence voter opinions. For instance, the proportions of the sexes of the visitors to a fairly popular and somewhat liberal FR website (1 male for every 1.14 females) is shown to be in the ten most-often visited general interest websites with similar affinities to be very much the same (1 male for every 1.38 females). That website is neutral in relation to feminism.

On the other hand, the proportions of the sexes of the visitors to a fairly popular and somewhat conservative FR website (1 male for every 0.8 females) is also shown to be in the ten most-often visited general interest websites with similar affinities to be similar (1 male for every 0.94 females). That website opposes feminism.

Both websites will influence voters. The one with the most visitors (the conservative one) will have the most influence on voters when it comes to the influence of the two respective websites.

“Public opinion” drives “democracy” and thereby policy. Ideology drives special interest groups. Special interest groups control the media. The media promote ideological issues dear to the hearts of special interest groups. In effect, that is propaganda in action, mostly agitprop. Propaganda indoctrinates the masses, agitprop incites them. The masses elect “their” representatives who are in reality those individuals whom the special interest groups wish to have elected.

Moreover, elected representatives will cater to “public opinion” to make sure they will get elected. Anyone who is not politically correct will not get elected. In the end our elected representatives (not necessarily those who stand for election) all have virtually identical platforms (regardless of which party they belong to) that all cater to the goals of the special interest groups that have the most influence. What passes for “public opinion” in the media is in fact a mixture of direct and indirect manifestations of the wishes of the special interest groups that dominate and control the media. True public opinion doesn’t matter. Public opinion only matters if it is a proper reflection of “public opinion” in the media, in other words, if it is politically correct and reflects what the special interest groups in power want.

But there is more. Special interest groups control all sectors of society, especially the bureaucracy or administration or government services, over the latter three of whom our elected representatives have absolutely no control. Instead, the bureaucracy controls the elected representatives. That extends to censorship of information sent to constituency offices of elected representatives, especially when the office staff is being supplied by the government administration in whatever nation the office happens to be located. There is no guaranty that information sent to an elected representative through his office will actually reach him. Worse yet, confidential information or information that has the potential of damaging the career of an elected representative can be and has been strategically leaked by administration staff if the information is politically incorrect and counters the ideology that drives the administration. Some elected representatives have had their careers damaged and even destroyed in that fashion.

The leading members of the bureaucracy are in effect appointed for life, with change in the direction of the bureaucracy only happening through attrition and through changes in the relative power of ideologies and of the special interest groups that promote them.

For instance, the German bureaucracy came into existence and had an unbroken history of existence and control since long before there was a modern German nation, since about 400 years ago.

Generally, ideology-driven changes in the German bureaucracy over time happened at a glacial pace: from monarchy, to confederation, to the virtually absolute rule of the Kaisers, to the Weimar Republic, to the Nazi regime, to the liberalism of the sixties and the student revolution of 1968 (brought about, as in all other nations where it happened, through organizational direction by Moscow and funding by Pankow - the capital of the GDR - it happened not just in France but in many nations at the same time - e. g.: 1968 in an international context), and then to the world-wide usurpation of power and control by radical feminism - largely by means of the influence of radical feminism on the UN.

All those changes happened through whatever special interest group’s ideology influenced the bureaucracy, controlled it and then had the bureaucracy promote and enforce it.

Democracy? Not at all! We have degrees of bureaucratic totalitarianism, with the extent varying according to what extent the members of a special interest group manage to ensconce themselves in a bureaucracy. The power and influence of the bureaucracy ranges from being mild and causing some changes, to being in absolute control and causing quick and even large changes and totalitarianism.

I digress, although those thoughts relate to the great influence of the driving forces that steer the characteristics of the shifting and changing foci of “public opinion” on the Internet.

The trend lines for reach of men’s rights websites are almost synchronized (even down to peaks and dips over the space of a few days - and more about those peaks and dips a little later) with corresponding declining trend lines for feminist websites. They reflect media-generated and -promoted “public opinions” that the public made their own through having its interest perked. It cannot be said for sure why the public’s interest got perked. As things are going, that will normally be because the public reacts the way the social engineers that determine what the media’s contents had to be wanted the public to react to (that is in effect the consequence of indoctrination and propaganda). It is somewhat less likely that the public reacted due to politically undesired and unanticipated concern or outrage. Hitler already knew that when he stated in Mein Kampf that one should never underestimate the enormous capacity of the masses to forget and how easy it is to sway the masses with properly designed and successful propaganda.

Today, of course, propaganda is no longer an art. It is an applied science against which the general public has virtually no defence, except for what is passed around on the Internet. That, of course, explains why many governments do their utmost to gain control of the Internet, so that it can be censored.

All of that is an area that should be of interest to men’s rights activists. Although the tools for that exist (e. g.: the selection of a number of the top ranking feminist and pro-men websites through a search engine, based on exactly corresponding search parameters, and then the examination of traffic parameters over time for the two groups of websites), I don’t know of anyone in the men’s rights movement who has been or is doing such an analysis.

However, the examination of Internet traffic data for the marketing sector (that is, the marketing of goods and services, ideas and politics) is a fast-growing business. If you have the time, check the Internet for studies or reports on audience affinity, but don’t get your hopes up that you will find any information that is truly useful to the men’s movement. Useful and detailed audience-affinity survey-results are important, expensive and confidential.

The men’s movement has not commissioned a single audience affinity survey. Being totally without funding, it doesn’t have the money for that. Many government-favored organizations have the money for it, because they are being lavishly funded out of taxpayers’ revenues, but I doubt that they have commissioned any audience affinity surveys. Why should they? Don’t they have their camp-followers in the government to commission those surveys, if not for special interest groups, then at least to make survey results available to government-paid government-funded and politically-correct special interest groups?

Figures on the history of traffic volumes are not readily available for free on the Internet. Manually tracking them (which I did for a few websites and for a few years some years back) is very time-consuming. However, I recently began to record some parameters on the popularity of some issues, such as those that you examine now and then (see trends of the prevalence of studies and study programs for men and women). That takes much less effort and still has some value. Those popularity figures are somewhat misleading in absolute terms but relate fairly well to the public’s relative foci on specific men’s and women’s issues.

As I stated above, I looked at the characteristics of the reach trends for a number of websites, comparing some of them over the years. I found that the short-term variations (especially those for the high-traffic websites) are driven by what is prominent in the media. For instance, the large peaks in both the reach trend-lines of now.org and fathersforlife.org in November 2006 and September 2007 (shown here, but you will have to select the option for reach and enter “now.org” in the appropriate input field to make a website comparison) are quite likely related to two separate media campaigns on anorexia nervosa, designed to create sympathy for women who choose to starve themselves as victims, alleged to be largely due to the fault of men (there is a marked homosexual influence on the fashion industry) of course, men who, ironically, are frequently femme-type homosexuals. Femme types promote the boyish look in women, while butch-types promote the buxom, voluptuous look in women.

It is interesting that when masculinity still counted, butch-homosexual men ruled the fashion industry, while during predominantly liberal periods femme-homosexual men (one could call them feminized homosexuals) ruled (with the fashion ideals that women bought into over the years being the flappers during the roaring twenties and the days of the Weimar republic, and the anorexic models during our “much more enlightened” times).

The key to becoming a controlling influence in social evolution is to be the most influential special interest group. It is not possible to become a dominating special interest group without gaining control of the curriculum and the education system. The feminists did that, and that is why they cannot be dislodged from their position of power unless the control of the curriculum is wrested away from them.

But what difference does it make whether women rule, or the rulers are ruled by women? The result is the same. (Aristotle, in Politics)

Plato, in Republic, has Socrates offer this advice to philosopher kings: Take all the children from their parents and rid the city of adults.

Who owns the youths controls the future. (Slogan used by Napoleon and also by the founders of the Wandervogel (”bird of passage”), the enormously popular youth movement that began in about 1880 in Germany and produced many of the prominent (and often homosexual) Nazi leaders, in German: “Wer die Jugend hat, hat die Zukunft.”)

Give me your 4-year-olds, and within one generation I’ll construct a socialist state. (Lenin)

The power of the Internet, media, bureaucracy, elected politicians, all sectors and institutions of society, including even all religious denominations, firmly rests on the indoctrination that our children and youth receive in the most important sector of the bureaucracy: the public education system (of which TV is without a doubt an important part for a captive audience comprised of children and adults - e. g.: the teaching of homosexuality as a valid and even desirable life-style on Degrassi). That sector of the bureaucracy, too, is centrally controlled. Therefore, in the long run, we live in a totalitarian system driven and controlled by whatever ideology rules.

Dissatisfaction with feminism plays a role in the slowly and barely growing influence of men, but the men’s rights movement is not the driving force for instilling that dissent. The driving force is the opinions of men who were raised in and indoctrinated by a feminist-dominated and -controlled education system. As of now, and probably for some generations to come, social change occurs and will occur, but it is and will be little more than a little bit more influence by feminist-indoctrinated and largely feminized men.

All of what I stated above relates to short- and medium-term variations that are super-imposed on long-term cycles, not trends. History repeats itself, and now we come to a node in the characteristics of short-term, medium-term and long-tern trends.

The social programs, policies and corruption created by feminism are prohibitively expensive. If at all, it will be extremely difficult to eliminate them or to replace them with more constructive and productive programs and policies. Most likely the world economy will collapse before we can halt or reverse social “progress”. A new dark age will descend on us, most likely within this generation.

The ages of civilizations range from about 800 to 1200 years. Our civilization is tottering and will soon fall for many of the same reasons that caused the fall of the Roman empire: invasions by “Barbarians”; total fertility rates that are far, far below required replacement levels; extortion and even torture to collect onerous and destructive taxes (child support enforcement is one of them, and physical torture is frequently being used to enforce that), and wide-spread, all-pervasive and escalating corruption. Not until many centuries had gone by did the West extricate itself from the Dark Age that followed the decline and fall of the Roman empire.

Our sun has already set once more. Dusk is upon us. It seems that all that matters now is how much longer we have before total darkness sets in.

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

August 17, 2007 by Walter Schneider.

Alyssa wrote:

To The Webmaster,

I think that as a site which clearly reaches so many people it is important that you provide more than one perspective on this illness. I am twenty years old, i was raised in a family that put no importance on looks, did not have magazines and nobody ever dieted. However, i developed anorexia at 12 years old. It remained very private as i was both restrictive and purging type anorexic. It got to the point where i had absolutely no control over my behavior and i became anxiety ridden and isolated. i narrowly avoided a heart attack. My recovery has been extremely difficult. I would never put my family through all the ensuing heartache and disruption by choice, and i am offended that you would be spreading your opinion that this is the case.

i have no desire to be thin, i do not find it attractive. I was driven by powerful and irrational thoughts telling me that i was evil and did not deserve to eat, sleep, or be warm. i have spent time in hospital with women who suffer from this, they were wonderful, sensitive and intelligent people, many of whom had been abused, and not at all self indulgent or beauty obsessed.

I hope you can consider my point of view,

Regards,

Alyssa

Hello Alyssa,

As you requested, I considered your point of view and find nothing in it that disproves what the anorexia-nervosa pages at Fathers for Life explain.

No one ever said that as a rule someone whose behaviour is driven by irrational thoughts cannot also be “wonderful, sensitive and intelligent.”

No one twisted your arms and forced you to starve yourself. The choice was yours. Family members are not the only ones who influence our behaviour and world view. No doubt, you must have found a source of incentives for your addiction outside the circle of your family members. In that respect, our anorexia-nervosa pages explain that peer pressure and the advertising industry are very powerful motivators that drive many girls into their addictive obsession with anorexia nervosa.

On the other hand, your statements prove the contention that self-starvation can become powerfully addictive behaviour.

As to your experience of having “narrowly avoided a heart attack”, am I correct in assuming that was caused by depletion of potassium, brought about by your excessively restrictive eating habits?

You should consider yourself lucky for having managed to overcome your addiction and to get it under control. You need to be congratulated for that.

Now forget about all that happened as a result of the addiction that you overcame; get on with your life. The first step for achieving that is to stop feeling sorry for yourself and to stop demanding sympathy from others.

I suggest that you channel your feelings into more constructive actions. You may be able to put your experiences to good use by advising others on what they need to do to avoid the trap that once had ensnared you.

Regards,

Walter Schneider
http://fathersforlife.org

Posted in Anorexia Nervosa | Print | No Comments »

December 21, 2006 by Walter Schneider.

Perciva wrote:

What do you care if anorexia kills a lot or if it dosen’t? What difference does it make to you?

Since you say your site is based on facts, and since you have no idea what makes a person anorexic, why don’t you withhold judgement of the issue until you know the etiology of the disease?

I was an anorexic woman, cured many years ago now. I know why I became anorexic. I came to understand the driving force and dynamic behind the disease. With that in mind, the presumptuous angle of your writings looks rather silly. Take it from me, you are not fit to pass judgement on the personal or social impact of this condition.

Get the facts, Jack. Otherwise, you’ll be hopelessly lost, and will continue to look very foolish.

Perciva….

Hello Perciva,

Thank you for writing.

It appears that the facts presented at the anorexia nervosa pages at Fathers for Life don’t jive with your perception of reality and that that bothers you, but I will not apologize for that. The problem is yours and not mine. Facts are facts, and perceptions are biased.

As you were falling with the door into my house when you came knocking, you asked, “What do you care if anorexia kills a lot or if it dosen’t? What difference does it make to you?”

I won’t tell you why I care. I wouldn’t even tell you if the answer to your question weren’t already contained in the anorexia nervosa pages of F4L. You are just not objective enough a reader and sufficiently perceptive to have recognized the answer, in spite of it being in plain view and staring you in the face. Repeating myself won’t change your cognitive abilities.

From a logical perspective, my answer to your question doesn’t matter. A rational individual would not have asked for it to begin with. A personal opinion may be about reality, but, unless for a good cause, it should never be permitted to influence it. My opinion carries no more weight in relation to the attributes of reality than does yours or anyone else’s. The only thing that matters when measuring and evaluating reality are facts.

If you don’t like the facts, too bad. All that means is that you are in denial. Your denial of reality is totally immaterial, mainly and overwhelmingly because it is not representative of the vast majority of the people who write to Fathers for Life about anorexia nervosa.

Aside from all of that, I am sympathetic to your feeling that your personal experience with anorexia nervosa is the only yardstick by which everyone’s perceptions about anorexia nervosa must be measured. However, my sympathy does not constitute an endorsement of your views. It is nothing more than a personal expression of my condolences. It must have come as a bit of a shocker to you to find out that the affliction from which you were cured was not the dangerous and deadly disease you had imagined it to be, and that you are not as much a victim as you are a dupe.

There is no possible way you can succeed with imposing your biased perceptions as a universal moral standard on the whole world. You are wasting your time by trying to do so. You will be better off to preach your gospel to anorexia-nervosa addicts. As you should well know, those are prone to easily fall prey to distortions of reality. Still, I would like to extend my congratulations to you for having successfully kicked your habit of self-starvation.

Sincerely,

Walter Schneider
http://fathersforlife.org

Posted in Anorexia Nervosa | Print | No Comments »

December 14, 2006 by Walter Schneider.

Athena wrote:

Ouch. Having a close friend affected by anorexia, I understand the reasoning behind wanting to get information out there for people. I just thought you would like provide nothing but legitimate information for people, so much that you would like to be aware of even something as simple as a photo is not what you’re asking people to believe what it is. It is the following image..http://www.fathersforlife.org/images/walkingdeade.jpg

Which is featured on the page http://www.fathersforlife.org/health/anorexia4.htm

With this text referring to it..

Click on the photo on the left if you wish to see a larger version with better resolution.  If that is not enough to convince you of the extents aficionados of anorexia nervosa will go, have a look at the website from which the photo was copied (archived file).

My dad never takes that sort of tone with me, especially when all that I was offering was what I thought was helpful. :/

AML
________________________

Athena,

Let’s concentrate on what you wish to achieve for your friend, not so much on what you assume is the intention of the anorexia-nervosa pages at Fathers for Life.

Let’s assume that there truly is such a friend whom you worry about and that your “friend” is not in reality you.  Let’s further assume that the image that concerns you is truly an altered image.  Let’s also assume that it was altered so as to make the particular anorexic look ugly.

Would an image that makes an anorexic look ugly and that brings out the full horror of the ugliness of anorexia nervosa not help your friend more than an image that makes the impact of anorexia nervosa look more benign?  By my reckoning it would.  Furthermore, with respect to your goal of helping your friend, an image that makes an anorexic look ugly is worth more than an image that doesn’t.  That is applied art that focuses on and emphasizes the truth.  Why are you bothered by the truth?  Don’t you like the truth?

With reference to your friend and the allusion to danger that anorexia nervosa poses to her and to other anorexics like her, anorexia nervosa is not a great danger to those who choose to be afflicted by it.  Perhaps you should also read the text of the anorexia nervosa pages in which the picture of concern to you is contained, so as to understand all of the details regarding the mortality rates of anorexics.

One snow flake doesn’t make a winter, and one picture of an anorexic does not constitute all that was posted at Fathers for Life about anorexia nervosa.  If you accept what has been quoted there from credible and reputable sources, your conclusion will unavoidably be that your friend is not in any danger at all.

Killing oneself through self-starvation in the midst of plenty is somewhat like attempting to kill oneself through holding one’s breath.  In the latter case one may fall unconscious but will commence breathing again as soon as one is unconscious.  Similarly, anorexics will always eat enough to keep themselves alive, otherwise they would die within about seven weeks or less after commencing their diet plan.  That, of course, is true only of the majority of anorexics who became anorexics by choice.  There is a small number of anorexics who are legitimately anorexic on account of specific medical conditions.

If a particular anorexic looks like a walking skeleton, and if she enjoys having that appearance, why not let her do what she wants?  It won’t do her much harm other that she won’t be able to do as much physical work as a normal person can, and that she quite likely will have difficulty thinking clearly and logically (which may be the case with you, as you obviously have problems forming complete. logical and comprehensible sentences).  However, that would be critical only if she holds a job in whose performance she will endanger the lives of others, such as being a nurse, an airplane pilot or a taxi driver.  So, unless she is employed in such a critical job, if she wants to look ugly and offensive to others, is that not her own business and no-one else’s?

The average life expectancy of anorexics is no worse than that of other people.  That means that anorexia nervosa is not a deadly habit, even though it does cause some extent of mental impairment but not likely any lasting brain damage.  Once an anorexic cures herself from her addiction by resuming normal eating habits, her mental aberrations with regard to her self image cease.

Your friend will without a doubt feel comfortable on account of having you worry about her.  Moreover, she will do all she can to keep up the level of concern others have for her.  If it takes excessive dieting or self-starvation to do that, she will keep on doing that or even do it increasingly more intensely in her attempts to earn the emotional rewards she seeks.  Moreover, if her friends become bored with giving her continued attention and expressions and signs of sympathy, your friend will devise strategies whereby she can replace those friends who don’t measure up to her expectations with new ones that pay her the homage she seeks.

Lastly, here is an observation regarding your playing-the-victim card (”My dad never takes that sort of tone with me…”).  If you wish to be treated as a fully capable adult, don’t play the victim card.  Accept full responsibility for what you say and do, and don’t try to evoke sympathy for you in others because they allegedly don’t behave like you say your dad does.  When someone tells you the truth, don’t be offended by it and don’t expect that others will spoil you like your dad does.  If you dad likes spoiling you, that is his business, not mine.

Anorexics look for sympathy.  They hope to create sympathy by making themselves look starved.  You are looking for sympathy by alleging that I don’t treat you like your dad does.  Are you anorexic?

I have grandchildren that are as old or perhaps even older than you are.  None of them pout like you do.  Those that did soon learned to do otherwise.  Are you fully grown up or do you still have a long way to go?

It is primarily teen-aged girls that go out of their way to become anorexics.  Normal adults are far too busy living and enjoying real life to be able to afford wasting any time in their lives by succumbing out of boredom to introversive fads like anorexia nervosa.

Regards,

Walter Schneider
http://fathersforlife.org

Posted in Anorexia Nervosa, Propaganda Exposed | Print | No Comments »

October 19, 2006 by Walter Schneider.

The web pages on the topic of Anorexia Nervosa are by far the most-often visited web pages at Fathers for Life.

This blog category has been set up to give those people who wish to comment on the issue of anorexia nervosa a chance to do so.

It appears that concerns about anorexia nervosa should not target it as being a deadly disease (it isn’t and kills very rarely), as they should target the physical and emotional ugliness it creates for those who chose to acquire the addiction as well as for those who care about anorexia-nervosa addicts.

This blog is moderated. There are conduct rules that must be followed.

Walter Schneider

Posted in Anorexia Nervosa | Print | No Comments »