November 11, 2011 by Walter Schneider.

Let’s have a look at a few facts relating to all of that (from the playlist of man, woman and myth).

Equality — War

Part 1 of 3
Part 2 of 3
Part 3 of 3

Here is another idea that is used over and over to re-write history (the people doing the rewriting call it “herstory”):

Hilary Clinton: “Women have always been the primary victims of war. Women lose their husbands, their fathers, their sons in combat. Women often have to flee from the only homes they have ever known. Women are often the refugees from conflict and sometimes, more frequently in today’s warfare, victims. Women are often left with the responsibility, alone, of raising the children.” — in a speech at the First Ladies’ Conference on Domestic Violence, San Salvador, El Salvador, November 17, 1998

A question arises out of that.  If Hilary Clinton is so terribly concerned about all the poor women who have to raise children all by themselves, how come she does so much to fuel the war against the family, a war that deprives far greater numbers of women and children of husbands and fathers now and each year than any war during the last century ever did?
Well, things could be worse.  Let’s be grateful she’s only a junior senator and not a military justice.

The point made by Hillary Clinton was made even more forcefully by Louise Arbour, former Canadian Surpreme Court Justice, now involved in the persecution of Bosnian war criminals at the International War Crimes Tribunal in The Hague, when she commented on the mass murder of Croatian men:

“My mental image of a mass grave was that it would be more of a trench, where the bodies would be lined up almost in file,” she recalled last week. “But these bodies were thrown together indiscriminately in a hole. Then I noticed their clothes. They were young men, and the first thing I thought about was their mothers.” Arbour is a mother of three herself, although “it would be too corny, too sentimental, to suggest that you go back to work suddenly fired up. But it made the tragedy very human, and that’s not something you get here in the office every day. I watched the bodies come out of the ground and it was like they were coming alive again. They were demanding to be identified. They were demanding,” she said, and there was not even a hint of sentimentality in her voice, “that their mothers be told.” (Full Story)

See how that works?  We must not mourn the men who lost their lives.  We must not have concern about the tortures they experienced and their killing.  We must mourn the pain of the mothers who lost their sons, for the simple reason that the primary victims of that war were the mothers who lost their children.  The children, especially given that they were almost exclusively men who were killed, are not what matters as much as does the pain of their mothers who survived and are therefore the primary victims of the Bosnian War.

More at “The execution of men who show cowardice in the face of the enemy”
____________
Today I went to participate in the Remembrance Day ceremonies at the Bruderheim Community Centre and at the cenotaph at the Bruderheim Moravian Church. A few speeches were given, and the sacrifices of men  and women who gave their lives in two major wars were duly recognized.  Exact statistics were not offered, except for those that were included in a handout, in which the sacrifices made by men were duly normalized down to those made by women.  In doing so, the fact that it was virtually and exclusively only men who made those sacrifices is duly and politically-correct obscured.  That is the purpose of the re-writing of history that began some decades ago and is continuing today.

Of course, if you watched the three video clips identified above, you know how that normalizing-down of men’s sacrifices, down to the level of women’s sacrifices in wars, cheapens the sacrifices and suffering by men. So, for the sake of keeping the correct history alive and not having anyone indoctrinate us into accepting what they wish us to come to believe in, let’s take a look at some of those numbers for the sacrifices made by Canadian men and women.  Let’s take an honest look at their respective contributions.

Quoting from that web page:

Canadian Casualties in World War II

Not only was Canada’s war effort in World War II far more extensive than that in World War I, it also had a much more lasting impact on Canadian society. By the end of the war, more than 1,000,000 Canadians (about 50,000 of whom were women [who were employed exclusively in service positions]) had served in the three services. Casualties were lower than in the previous war, with approximately 42,000 killed or having died in service and 54,400 wounded. [Source: Encyclopaedia Britannica]

The more-than 21,000 women who served in the Canadian army during World War II filled an array of roles, although they were excluded from combat duty. More than 2,000 were posted overseas and at least 25 lost their lives in the line of duty. Source: Toronto Star, Sep. 19, 2004. 01:00 AM “Amid fond memories, army women disband Proud wartime service created lifelong friends“

In contrast, more than a million Canadian men served in the Canadian Armed Forces during Word War II, and about 50,000 of them died in the service of their country, one out of every 20 that served, as opposed to the 25 women that died, one out of every 840 women that served, according to the numbers published in the article by the Toronto Star.

More: http://fathersforlife.org/hist/wwiicas.htm#Canada
_____________
Canada never had military draft or military draft registration for women.

Posted in Censorship, Propaganda Exposed | Print | No Comments »

July 18, 2011 by Walter Schneider.

Daily Telegraph
Attention: Christopher Booker

Re: Child protection system tears two more families apart, by Christopher Booker, 16 Jul 2011
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/family/8642651/Child-protection-system-tears-two-more-families-apart.html

The latest official figures show that the number of children being taken into care by social workers (now averaging more than 800 a month) has soared in the past two years by 41 per cent, to its highest ever level. In many of these cases, it seems that children are torn from their parents for no good reason, to such an extent that this has become one of the most disturbing scandals in our country today.

I read the article again, and it still bothers me. I have a lot of respect for Christopher Booker, the journalist who wrote it. Nevertheless, he is not an objective observer.

It is obvious that Christopher Booker cannot liberate himself from the father-hostile bias that decades of feminist indoctrination and strict adherence to the western chivalry code instilled in many but especially in many journalists whose expressions are constrained and formed by feminist censorship of the media organizations they write for.

The photo accompanying the article shows a mother and child, thereby invoking a subconscious image of the Madonna and Child. That is a deliberate choice, probably an editorial decision.

The article mentions the word “mother” 13 times, the word “father” only once (but only “the father of her youngest child”, not the father or fathers of the older two children of the mother), the word “family” (or families) twice, once in the heading and once in the text of the article, and the word “parents” four times.

The impression that leaves, of course, is that fathers don’t matter, that mothers do, that it is deplorable that the government should dare to violate the bond between a mother and child, and that the paternal feelings of fathers don’t matter, that fathers matter so little that they don’t even need to be mentioned.

Things get no better in the article in relation to what constitutes a family. A family only needs a mother and her child. That completes the Madonna-and-Child image. To introduce fathers into that sacred icon would spoil things, wouldn’t it now? It would diminish the appeal to the emotions over the pain of the mothers the article discusses and downplay their struggle against the excessive totalitarian force exercised against the mothers.

Sorry, Christopher Booker, as objective as you may feel you are, the feminist slip that very much influences your thinking and the way you express yourself is showing. If you don’t believe me, just check a few more of the articles you wrote on family issues. They are more akin to promoting a Madonna cult than objective commentaries that do justice to both sexes. I wonder why you do it; did you ever wonder about that? Did you ever feel the pain of having a child ripped from you? Believe me, if you were a father having that done to you, it would hurt very much, and it would matter not a whit whether it had been done by the government, the mother of the child or both in collusion.

One more thing, in relation to the observation in the article “that children are torn from their parents for no good reason, to such an extent that this has become one of the most disturbing scandals in our country today.” Don’t you find it odd that ever since the divorce epidemic began, children have been ripped from their fathers “on the flimsiest pretexts” and often with no excuses at all, and that that never raised the slightest concern with many, let alone apprehension that it might be scandalous?

Sincerely,

Walter Schneider

Posted in Judiciary, Civil Rights, Violence by Proxy, Child Abuse, Single-Parent, Marriage, Paternal Rights, Social-Destruction Enterprise, Feminist Jurisprudence, The New World Order, Divorce, Censorship, Media Bias, Women's Violence | Print | No Comments »

May 27, 2011 by Walter Schneider.

It puzzles me why Teri C. Stoddard from SAVE insists that we should thank Dr.Phil for running a show on domestic violence against men when that show derives entertainment value by showing battered men as whining idiots and demeans them.

Thank Dr. Phil for “Angry Women, Scared Husbands”

Today, Dr. Phil ran a show on Angry Women, Scared Husbands. Below is the show description from his website — http://drphil.com/   Angry Women, Scared Husbands   You may know that one in four women will become a victim of domestic violence, but did you know that one in nine men will too? Violence against men is rarely talked about and under-reported. Dr. Phil continues his campaign to end the silence on domestic violence with two couples willing to open up about their abusive relationships. Steve says his wife, Monica, punches him and recently pushed him down a flight of stairs. He says he’s not only afraid of her abuse, he’s afraid of how he may retaliate in the heat of anger. The couple has nine children between them — two of whom are severely disabled — and they’re worried about the effect their explosive arguments have on their kids. Then, Charlie worries she’ll get so angry at her new husband, Gary, that she’ll lash out and inadvertently kill him. Gary says that everything he does makes his wife mad, and he just can’t win. Can these women learn to control their tempers and before something tragic happens? Learn more about Dr. Phil’s End the Silence on Domestic Violence campaign and pledge to become a silence breaker!   Please send Dr. Phil an email TODAY to thank him for courageously covering this important topic:

SAVE for Victims and Survivors

Teri Stoddard asserts that the Dr. Phil website states, “You may know that one in four women will become a victim of domestic violence, but did you know that one in nine men will too? Violence against men is rarely talked about and under-reported.” (Original source: http://www.drphil.com/shows/show/1661 )

I see no reason why anyone should thank “Dr. Phil” for that, because it is not true, but I heartily agree that we should thank him for telling the truth about domestic violence (DV) against men as soon as he begins to tell not just some but all of the truth about it and tells it correctly. Aside from that, I am reasonably certain that Teri Stoddard knows of many sources of information that proves beyond any doubt that, when it comes to partner violence, women are as likely and even a bit more likely to be violent against men as men are to be violent against women (e.g.: here is a list of abstracts of hundreds of such sources, at http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm ).

Contrary to what Dr. Phil asserts, when it comes to partner violence, DV is without a doubt an equal opportunity employer. Nevertheless, the website at http://drphil.com/ spares no effort to raise concern about DV against women and most certainly is not silent about the need to “end the silence” about that.

Even that is an erroneous assertion, namely that there is a need to end the silence about violence against women. I wonder which planet Dr. Phil lives on. There is no evidence on the one we live on of anyone being silent anywhere about DV against women. There most certainly is a lot of evidence that Dr. Phil and his employer (HARPO Productions) do all they can to raise awareness about violence against women and that they keep silent about the largest sector of women’s DV victims, children (but they do go on about violence by “parents” and “grandparents” against children, while they do not mention at all that most DV against children occurs in single-mother households).

The DV that causes so many children to become victims of violence is in the majority of the cases (70%) being committed by their mothers, with other women being the perpetrators in the majority of the rest of violence against children in families. Yes, the Dr. Phil Show and HARPO Productions most definitely need to end the silence about that. If they did, we should all thank them for it, but I am not holding my breath waiting for such thanks being deserved any time soon.

Posted in Battered Men's Shelters, Civil Rights, False Allegations, Child Abuse, Single-Parent, Media Bias, Censorship, Feminism, Propaganda Exposed, Family, Men's Issues, Child Murder, Women's Violence | Print | 1 Comment »

May 25, 2011 by Walter Schneider.

Many feminists allege that testosterone is more dangerous.  For that reason they assert that men hurt women more often than the converse, therefore “Men are bad, Women are good.”

Are things really that simple?  The objective reality of inter-personal violence is that women are somewhat more often violent against men than men are violent against women.  All hype aside, domestic or family violence between spouses or “partners” is just a very small portion of interpersonal violence.  Children who are victims of that sort of violence comprise a large sector of that, and most violence against children, by far, is committed by the children’s mothers — an inconvenient fact, which is why feminist propagandists never mention it or at best rarely touch on it.

Still, regardless of whether women or men are more likely to be violent against the other sex, only a minuscule fraction of women or men engage in it.  The vast majority of women and men are quite peaceful, harmless and live in peace with one another, if only the feminist propagandists let them do that, and even though the feminist propagandists do their very best to incite open war between them.

Some feminists go so far that they assert that women can be safe from men’s violence only if the sexes are completely segregated.  To their chagrin, they have difficulties coping with the reality that “domestic partnerships” by lesbians are the ones that experience on average far greater incidence rates of domestic violence than do all others. (Re: Female DV)

Just the other day, a woman insisted that it is a well-known fact that men are more violent than women are, and that men’s violence is caused by testosterone.

I promised that I would provide her with a few facts on what the truth is about that.  The following is from what I sent to her.

What she had asserted reflects the consequences of a considerable extent of feminist indoctrination.  Therefore I can’t resist setting the record straight.

I have no doubt that, someday, the distortion of truth by the radical feminists of our time will be seen to have been the greatest intellectual crime of the second half of the twentieth century. At the present time, however, we still live under the aegis of that crime, and calling attention to it is an act of great moral courage.

— Professor Howard S. Schwartz, of Oakland University in Michigan, USA, 2001

Professor Howard Schwartz once explained to me the difference between objective and subjective reality, between absolute and relative moral standards, with the radical feminists (a.k.a. Marxist- or socialist feminists) using the latter to destroy the truth.

That was about a dozen years ago, when Prof. Schwartz was working on the book that is mentioned in the following.  As profound as the quote I showed above is, it would be better to identify not only brilliant thoughts and sayings but also the context in which such things were expressed or published.

Howard Schwartz’ opinion on the crime of the feminist distortion of the truth in the latter half of the twentieth century was expressed in his book, “The revolt of the primitive: an inquiry into the roots of political correctness,” p. 15 (in the beginning of the fifth full paragraph on that page, accessible via this link).

With respect to the ideas the woman had expressed, here is the truth in relation to that, as reported by Prof. Howard Schwartz; and let me assure you that he is reporting it accurately.  I am fully aware of the details of every one of the incidents he describes, including having been in touch with some of the individuals he mentions (especially Drs. Lupri and Dutton and their respective research mentioned by Dr. Schwartz — for obvious reasons — as their research was done right here in Alberta), but here go the details of the research by Lupri and Dutton and how it was spun by the feminists.

That is as far as the excerpt shown on Google Books goes, but I should receive a copy of the book within a few days.

I told the woman that I will be happy to lend the book to her, whereby she will be enabled to address some of the impact that feminist propaganda has had over the years.  Of course, that will work for her only if she wishes to learn about the absolute truth and not just the edited, feminist version of it.

Here is another item that will interest you.  It is a copy of a draft for an article that the Report Newsmagazine had asked me to write for them (for reasons explained in the introduction to the article — the Report Newsmagazine stopped publishing at that time — the article did not appear in print, although the Internet version that you can access via the preceding link has been read many thousands of times and has been accessed 108 times at my website during the past 30 days alone, while it has also been posted at or linked to from a total of at least 77 web pages on the Internet).

Last, but not least, you may wish to have a look as well at this: “The big list: Female teachers with students: Most comprehensive account on Internet of women predators on campus,” WorldNetDaily Exclusive, May 17, 2011.

I told the woman furthermore that in case she thinks that the people I mentioned and whose work the cited material identifies present just isolated and distorted views, I have a book here that she may wish to read, “When She Was Bad: Violent Women and the Myth of Innocence,” by Patricia Pearson (a feminist, by the way), 1997, Viking.  Here is a book review.

It has happened that some people asked me “Why should I believe you?“.  The commentary at the preceding link explains that no one has to take my word for anything, but that the truth is out there whether I tell it or not.  Unfortunately, feminist sources of information on the sexes and on what they do to one another are most often anything but truthful.

–Walter

Posted in Media Bias, Books & Films, False Allegations, Child Abuse, Censorship, Health, Propaganda Exposed, Feminism, Family, Men's Issues, Women's Violence | Print | 2 Comments »

April 16, 2011 by Walter Schneider.

This relates to a discussion of the principles of the Manifesto of the Communist Party, a.k.a. The Communist Manifesto.

During the last week there has been a large drop in the number of visits brought to Fathers for Life through website searches via google.com.  During the week preceding last week there were 8,905 visits as a result of Google searches.  This week there were only 5,618 visits from google.com, a drop of 34 percent.  That is even though traffic from Bing increased by over seven percent.

It is not due to a drop in traffic volumes (those were on the rise).  It can only be due to Google having arbitrarily lowered either the ranking of, or the ease of finding information at, the website of Fathers for Life. I strongly suspect that the drop in traffic from google.com has something to do with someone complaining to Google about my conservative stance.

Ever since I became a bit more active on Facebook, a month ago, I became astounded about the extent to which many individuals actively promote socialism, especially the sort promoted by Karl Marx and Frederick Engels.  Here is an example, namely a portion of an exchange between me and someone who, along with many others, wishes for nothing but to stop working for money, to abolish the obligation to work, and to establish the right of everyone to have his basic needs provided by the State.

Linda wrote (after I had pointed out to her that her ideas read as if taken straight out of the Manifesto of the Communist Party): “Walter I never read any marx or communist manifesto,…”

It boggles the mind.  Is that an example of “women’s way of knowing”?  If that is so, then why does anyone worry about the doctrines expressed by Marx and Engels?  Let’s just use “women’s way of knowing” to guide us by, and then the whole world will be happy and in eternal bliss.

I told her the following:

That is too bad, because you are doing a lot of needless work.

There is no need for you to re-invent the wheel. Your wish to abolish the obligation to work and to establish the right to be provided basic needs was expressed by Marx: “From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_each_according_to_his_ability,_to_each_according_to_his_need

That is right down your alley.

Here are the main planks of the Communist Manifesto that every modern communist regime was or is built on (from “The Socialist Phenomenon”, by Igor Shafarevich):

1. The Abolition of Private Property

The fundamental nature of this principle is emphasized, for instance, by Marx and Engels: “The theory of Communism may be summed up in a single sentence: ‘Abolition of private property,’” (Communist Manifesto).  (p. 195)

2. The Abolition of The Family

The majority of socialist doctrines proclaim the abolition of the family. In other doctrines, as well as in certain socialist states, this proposition is not proclaimed in such radical form, but the principle appears as a de-emphasis of the role of the family, the weakening of family ties, the abolition of certain functions of the family. (p. 195)

3. The Abolition of Religion

It is especially easy for us to observe socialism’s hostility to religion, for this is inherent, with few exceptions, in all contemporary socialist states and doctrines. Only rarely is the abolition of religion legislated, as it was in Albania. But the actions of other socialist states leave no doubt that they are all governed by this very principle and that only external difficulties have prevented its complete implementation. (p. 195)

4. Communality or Equality

This demand is encountered in almost all socialist doctrines. Its negative form is seen in the striving to destroy the hierarchy of the surrounding society and in calls “to humble the proud, the rich and the powerful,” to abolish privilege.  (p. 196)

____________
The comments that follow each of those quotes are short, one or a few paragraphs each.  Just follow the links I identified.

The complete Manifesto of the Communist Party is here (PDF file, 539kB)

Then there is the context out of which Linda’s wish emerged during the discussion.  It emerged out of the proposal to work only enough to produce what is absolutely essential (without anyone specifying what they consider to be essential) and to do so without any money exchanging hands.  In other words, many of the people in the discussion thread in all seriousness contemplate that to solve the problems that bother many now living in the once-upon-a-time proud and wealthy U.S. of A. requires nothing less than to abolish money as a means of exchange and to substitute a barter system.

Hold on to your seat and consider this:

Allen (many others stated similar things) said: “stand up and stop working for money.”

To which I responded:

Okay, I’ll bite.  So, explain to me how you can exist without money. If you don’t make any mortgage payments, you will be paying rent. You need to pay for food, clothing, utilities, gas for your car, and even for Internet access and the PC or laptop you use, the software to run the applications on your PC, your cell phone, etc.

What about the infrastructure you are using, the roads, the sewer lines, the water for cooking, bathing and doing the laundry, the electricity you use, the fuel that is brought to your home to heat it, the education system that taught you and will teach your kids how to read, write and do arithmetic? How can any of that be supplied to you and anyone else without money?

What will you use as a means of exchange when buying goods and services — peanuts? Even if that were possible, how will you be able to get the peanuts? Did you ever try getting a ride on a bus by offering to pay with peanuts for the ride? Do you know of anyone willing to work for peanuts?

Here is a dose of reality. Even the cavemen had money. They used cowrie shells, flint stones and salt for money.

Kids used to learn about those things, if not before they went to kindergarten, then at least during the first two or three years in school.

At any rate,  it is not worth it to continue participation in that discussion.  As they say, the lights may be on, but no one is home.  The scary thing about it is that there are many people who are like that.  There are far more of them than there are voices of reason, and the clueless majority decides who gets into power to rule us all.

There is little doubt in my mind that this will play out throughout the world until the bitter end that is not all that far off, when everything will be in ruin and chaos.

The cavemen had more sense.  At least they provided the foundation on which our civilization was built, whereas now clueless people are hell-bent on tearing down all of what civilization achieved by voting accordingly and having no shortage of clueless “leaders” to vote for.

When I was younger, I had often thought that it would be nice to live a long life to see how things will turn out.  Now I am just about 75-years old, happy that most likely I won’t live long enough to see the the bitter end of it all and hope that that will hold off until after I meet my maker.

Posted in Men and Women Work, Censorship, Family, The New World Order | Print | No Comments »

February 15, 2011 by Walter Schneider.

Opinion polls not only have much impact, but they also have a great potential to do harm.

The Winnipeg Free Press carried two important stories.

The Canadian Press - ONLINE EDITION
Feb. 13, 2011
Pollster warns politicians: Think for yourself; don’t be slaves to public opinion

By: Joan Bryden, The Canadian Press

[The] blind faith in the authority of polling numbers is increasingly ill-founded as the industry struggles with a methodological crisis that is putting the accuracy of survey results into serious question.

“Anyone who’s done this long enough will tell you that public opinion need not be consistent, need not be permanent to be important or real,” [pollster Allan Gregg, chairman of Harris-Decima which provides political surveys to The Canadian Press]  says.

Full Story

There are more warnings and cautions about the accuracy — or rather lack of it — in Canadian polls in this story:

The Canadian Press - ONLINE EDITION
Feb. 12, 2011
Pollsters advise voters to be wary of polls ahead of possible spring vote

By: Joan Bryden, The Canadian Press

OTTAWA - Canada’s notoriously competitive pollsters have some surprisingly uniform advice about the parade of confusing and conflicting numbers they’re about to toss at voters ahead of a possible spring election: Take political horse race polls with a small boulder of salt….[Andre Turcotte, a pollster and communications professsor at Carleton University.]

“The way it’s working now is a real dog’s breakfast. It’s not working,” says Ekos Research president Frank Graves, who provides bi-weekly surveys to the CBC.

There’s broad consensus among pollsters that proliferating political polls suffer from a combination of methodological problems, commercial pressures and an unhealthy relationship with the media.

Start with the methodological morass.

“The dirty little secret of the polling business . . . is that our ability to yield results accurately from samples that reflect the total population has probably never been worse in the 30 to 35 years that the discipline has been active in Canada,” says veteran pollster Allan Gregg, chairman of Harris-Decima which provides political polling for The Canadian Press….

Full Story

The article explains the meaning of “margin of error”, that it is important, that statements relating to margin of error often have no basis in fact, and that the media regard the numbers provided in polls to be more important than the truth — or the lack of it — that those numbers should represent but no longer can or do.

The media are addicted to the ‘horse race numbers” provided by opinion polls.  As the first story identified above indicates, the politicians are guided by the often false numbers provided by the polls, and if you are addicted to the media, to politicians and to opinion poll results, then all is well.  At least all of the players, including you, have got their story straight.  The trouble with that is that the story line that every player in the game adheres to is a plot out of a bizarre reality and bear little relation to the real world.

The trouble with that is that the story line that every player in the game adheres to is a plot out of a bizarre reality and bears little relation to the real world, other than making the real world more bizarre.

All of that means that Canadian politics are being as firmly controlled and steered by a bizarre story line as, for instance, the USSR was controlled and steered by the aims of the Central Party Committee.

Whether a controlling ideology is used by a Central Party Committee and published through the media, thereby controlling and influencing the people, or whether it is being promoted by the media to influence politicians and the public who vote for them, there is little difference.  The results are the same: central control through an overpowering ideology.

Posted in Civil Rights, Censorship, Propaganda Exposed, The New World Order | Print | No Comments »

January 30, 2011 by Walter Schneider.

I don’t know what is going on, but it seems to me that these cases were not being reported in the US mainstream media, quite possibly because they are an embarassment.

MailOnline
Jan. 30, 2011

Convicted rapist allowed to walk after DNA tests cast doubt on case… after serving all but five months of 25 YEAR sentence

….Sims, who missed the death of his mother as he was in prison, will have to register as a sex offender and is not eligible for any services or funds that the state gives to the wrongly convicted….Full Story)

You think that things cannot get any worse than that with wrongful convictions?  Check this:

MailOnline
Jan. 28, 2011

Wrongfully convicted rapist is freed after 17 years.. and hit with a $110,000 bill for backdated child maintenance

….Northrop was told he owed $111,000 in back child maintenance payments. About half of that sum was owed to the mother of his children and half to the state, which helped support the family while Northrop was incarcerated.

The state’s Department of Social and Health Services has a programme for writing off child support bills in hardship cases, and it waived its share of Northrop’s balance in November.

But Northrop still owes tens of thousands of dollars to his former partner, and the state has now enforced mandatory monthly payments of $100 out of his wages….Northrop’s co-accused has also fallen on hard times, working for just three days since his release….(Full Story)

“Men who are unjustly accused of rape can sometimes gain from the experience.”

— Catherine Comins, Vassar College,
Assistant Dean of Student Life in Time, June 3, 1991, p. 52
— From: Feminism and Society — As seen through feminists’ eyes (and as seen through the eyes of others who still use common sense) A collection of quotes by Bill Wood)

And what exactly is it that these three men gained from their experience?

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

December 25, 2010 by Walter Schneider.

From the website of the Family of Men Support Society:

“NO MEN ALLOWED”
Misandry at the government level (City of Calgary , Province of Alberta , Government of Canada ) and at community level agencies.

No Men Allowed to participate at any meetings, therefore male victims of female-perpetrated domestic violence are denied a voice.

The system is autocratic, exclusive & misandrist.

The system is not democratic, inclusive or open minded.

Posted in Organizational News, Social-Destruction Enterprise, Civil Rights, Battered Men's Shelters, Violence by Proxy, False Allegations, Media Bias, Censorship, Propaganda Exposed, The New World Order, Feminism, Feminist Jurisprudence, Health, Men's Issues, Women's Violence | Print | No Comments »

November 14, 2010 by Walter Schneider.

[The following letter has been posted with the permission of the author, Michael Baleanu.  –WHS, 2010 11 15]

Männerpartei [Men’s Party], Derbystr. 5, D-85276 Pfaffenhofen, [Germany]

Hypo-Vereinsbank Pfaffenhofen, BLZ 721 200 78, Kto: 3849 23194

Dear Sir or Madam,

In my daily work I learned to appreciate Wikipedia and Wiktionary. Especially the untiring work of all the unknown voluntary contributors makes Wikipedia to envy of everyone. We are up to one’s ear in debt to all these authors.

It is a matter of fact, such a project could not be realized without errors and frictions. Corrections and improvements are always necessary.

But, due to my personal engagement in the field of men’s human rights, the following bothered me:

The decisions - at least in the German section of Wikipedia - to cancel contributions, reporting in a fully neutral way about social problems of men were taken in a fully undemocratic way.

For this reason www.wikimannia.org was founded by stout-hearted women and men.

The necessity of such an information site was demonstrated by a recent decision of the European Court of Human Rights, Zaunegger vs. Germany (December 3, 2009):

It demonstrates that fathers (and men) are strongly discriminated in Germany

The censorship of themes addressing mens rights is in our opinion a violation of the freedom of opinion promulgated by Wikipedia.

I would support Wikipedia in the case a democratic structure is implemented. Actually, as shown by the German Wikipedia, this not the case.

The only way to demonstrate that Wikipedia has a democratic culture, would be the public disclosure of decision processes, the obligation to perform a democratic voting for the approbation or cancellation of contributions. That is the only way to guarantee the diversity of opinions. As long as in an article there will be place only for feminist opinions, we do not see any reason to support undemocratic authors.

It would be nice, if Wikipedia subjects the own organisation to a self-critical analysis.

It seems for us, that especially in social, political or cultural themes, a disproportionate onesided opinion get the upper hand, but not the actually diversity of opinions. Such a one-sided orientation is dangerous for the excellent idea behind Wikipedia.

Hence: Either democratic structures, or limitation on pure scientific, informational or other themes free of political interpretations.

Free, democratic citizens do not like censorship.

Sincerely yours

Mit freundlichen Grüßen

Michael Baleanu

Dipl.-Phys./Dipl.-Ing.

Erdinger Str. 30A
85356 Freising
Geschäftsführer der Männerpartei [Manager of the Men’s Party]
www.maennerpartei.eu
0179 - 2356536
089 26213484

_____________________________________________________
Männerpartei, Derbystr. 5, D-85276 Pfaffenhofen
Hypo-Vereinsbank Pfaffenhofen, BLZ 721 200 78, Kto: 3849 23194
Mailingliste papa-info - immer gut informiert
e-mail an die Liste schreiben: papa-info@listen.jpberlin.de
web: https://listen.jpberlin.de/mailman/listinfo/papa-info

Posted in Civil Rights, Media Bias, Censorship, Men's Issues | Print | No Comments »

November 8, 2010 by Walter Schneider.

LifeSiteNews.com
Nov. 8, 2010By Hilary White

Young Pro-Life Father Nearly Lost Son to Abortion: Says Fathers Have No Legal Rights

DUBLIN, November 8, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Joseph Lee, who serves as the development officer for the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children in Scotland, is the father of a four-year-old boy. But he almost lost his son just over four years ago, thanks to the fact that Britain’s abortion laws do not allow men to be taken into account in abortion decisions….(Full Story)

Joseph Lee and his girlfriend are to be congratulated that their son is alive and apparently well, but the story at LifeSiteNews.com states absolutely nothing about whether Joseph Lee is a part of the life of his son or whether his son has been condemned, like millions of other children, to grow up fatherless, without the presence of his father in his life.

The article focuses entirely on the fact that Lee prayed for his unborn son’s life, how it came about that the expecting mother decided not to go through with “her” abortion, and that the boy is now alive.  The story does not even let us know whether the boy is in the custody of his mother.

It could be that both Joseph Lee and his girlfriend live happily together, raising the son they conceived through their act of love.  It could be that the boy was given up for adoption.  The article doesn’t say.

Mind you, after having stated that Joseph Lee “pointed out that “it’s very rare” to see anything written about the rights of the father in the abortion debate.” he is quoted as having said,

“Even in pro-life circles … abortion lobbyists are focused on women’s rights,” he said. “Pro-lifers tend to rightly focus on the child. Most counselors focus on the woman, but there’s nothing really that focuses on the father.”

Ironically, even in a pro-life article by LifeSiteNews.com that highlights that curiously blinkered view of fathers’ rights and how even pro-lifers cannot force themselves to remove their blinkers, the vital bond between a boy and his father is being ignored.  One cannot help but feel that such ignorance is no accident but either a powerful compulsion or perhaps and quite possibly deliberate.

Sorry to have to say it to LifeSiteNews.com, “You will not have much success with having those who wish to abort children about to be born stop their actions and instead respect the life they are about to snuff, unless you also respect and promote the rights of fathers to be within and not without their families and children.

Do that, or else the lives you help save will only find themselves in the fatherless society you help to create.”

A copy of this comment was sent to LifeSiteNews.com as a letter to the editor.  Stay tuned to see what happens next.

Posted in Abortion, Social-Destruction Enterprise, Paternal Rights, Civil Rights, Censorship, Men's Issues, The New World Order, Feminism, Feminist Jurisprudence, Women's Violence | Print | 6 Comments »