May 8, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

Found at http://antimisandry.com:

Men are more visually aroused than women? Fact or fiction?

Research Shows Men And Women Look At Sexual Photographs Differently

[Original source: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/67705.php, 17 Apr 2007 - 8:00 PDT]

A study funded by the Atlanta-based Center for Behavioral Neuroscience (CBN) analyzed the viewing patterns of men and women looking at sexual photographs, and the result was not what one typically might expect.

Researchers hypothesized women would look at faces and men at genitals, but, surprisingly, they found men are more likely than women to first look at a woman’s face before other parts of the body, and women focused longer on photographs of men performing sexual acts with women than did the males. These types of results could play a key role in helping researchers to understand human sexual desires and its ultimate effect on public health.

The finding, reported in Hormones and Behavior, confirmed the hypothesis of a previous study (Stephen Hamann and Kim Wallen, et al., 2004) that reported men and women showed different patterns of brain activity when viewing sexual stimuli. The present study examined sex differences in attention by employing eye-tracking technology that pinpoints individual attention to different elements of each picture such as the face or body parts.

“Men looked at the female face much more than women, and both looked at the genitals comparably,” said lead author Heather Rupp, Ph.D., a fellow at The Kinsey Institute for Research in Sex, Gender and Reproduction at Indiana University, who conducted the study in partnership with Kim Wallen, Ph.D., a Dobbs Professor of Psychology and Behavioral Neuroendocrinology at Emory University and the Yerkes National Primate Research Center.

“The eye-tracking data suggested what women paid most attention to was dependent upon their hormonal state. Women using hormonal contraceptives looked more at the genitals, while women who were not using hormonal contraceptives paid more attention to contextual elements of the photographs,” Rupp said. Although it is commonly assumed males have more interest in visual sexual stimuli, researchers are working to figure out what characteristics are important to men and women in their evaluations of sexual stimuli.

The answer may lie within a small section of the brain called the amygdala, which is important in the processing of emotional information. In Dr. Hamann and Wallen’s previous fMRI study, men showed more activation in the amygdala in response to sexual vs. neutral stimuli than did women. From the fMRI study alone, the cause of the increased activity was unclear, but Rupp and Wallen’s study suggests the possibility that higher amygdala activation in men may be related to their increased attention to faces in sexual photographs.

—————————-
Article adapted by Medical News Today from original press release.
—————————-

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

April 17, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

For many people the term divorce industry means absolutely nothing. It does, however, mean something to two minor sectors of the population:

1. Activist and advocates for pro-family rights and pro-fathers-rights consider the terms divorce industry and fatherlessness to be strongly related. They feel that fatherlessness is tearing apart the fabric of our once-functioning society. They have reason to believe that the divorce industry causes fatherlessness, that is: the removal and the consequences of that removal of fathers from the lives of those fathers’ children.
2. For feminists in non-governmental organizations and in government (whether elected or simply employees of the government bureaucracy), the divorce industry and the fatherlessness produced by the divorce industry matter not at all other than that they wish for the epidemic of fatherlessness to escalate and that they feel that the concerns by fathers-rights activists and by pro-family advocates are a nuisance that at the very least needs to be ignored.

Fatherlessness and the consequences of fatherlessness are growing inexorably, year by year. A steadily growing number of children in all developed nations - roughly a third and more of all children - have no fathers in their lives to guide them, to set rules, to be role models and protectors to their children.

Fathers very seldom abscond their families voluntarily. Virtually all fatherlessness of children is caused by the governments’ sponsorship, promotion and enforcement of anti-father and outright father-hostile sentiments and policies that are being actively promoted and put into play by members of the divorce industry.

When children are present in families, women file for divorce in roughly 75-85 percent of the cases (depending upon country), while without children in a family the dissolution of that family is being initiated by a woman in only two instances for every instance of family dissolution by a man.

The chart shown to the right depicts a typical composition of government departments and of government-sponsored private organizations and interest groups that promote and benefit from the government-promoted concept of fatherless families (a.k.a. sole-mother families or single-mother families). The chart illustrates the composition of the divorce industry in the United States (Source: Statement of Bill Wood, and Jay Gell, Children’s Legal Foundation, Charlotte, North Carolina, [US] Ways and Means Committee, 2001 06 28; footnote 69)

Everyone possessing a bit of common sense is likely to have concerns about the escalating trend towards increasing fatherlessness. Those concerns are well-justified and born out by scientifically-valid findings from research studies done by reputable researchers, studies that meet acceptable academic standards, studies like those quoted in the statement by Bill Wood and Jay Gell to the US Ways and Means Committee. Note that those studies are not creations by fathers rights activists, but that fathers rights activists quote from studies by independent and objective researchers.

Nevertheless, the feminists - whose goal it is to destroy the institution of the family, thereby to create massive fatherlessness and the gradual deconstruction of our Christian cultural heritage - dismiss valid social research regarding fatherlessness as myths and substitute unsubstantiated opinions based at best on nothing more than advocacy research done on selective and biased study samples from whom no valid projections to the general population can be made. Nevertheless, they call such opinions “facts” and they call the scientific truth “myths”. (For example: MYTHS AND FACTS About Fatherlessness)

Such feminists apparently feel justified in replacing the scientific truth with a fanciful reality of their own making because they obstinately believe, imply and even assert that feminists never lie, are therefore always right, and that anyone who disagrees with their outlandish and unsubstantiated opinions must quite simply be wrong.

To discern which side in the debate is right - feminists who promote the deconstruction of our society, or people who wish to promote the constructive evolution and growth of the western cultural heritage and society - one should have a look at a few of about 50,000 web pages and articles that address the subject of fatherlessness and not merely buy into the claims regarding fatherlessness promoted by feminists and published by the largely feminist-dominated and -controlled media.

One of the most-important and most-comprehensive compilations of studies of the impact of fatherlessness is the following: Experiments in Living: The Fatherless Family, by Rebecca O’Neill; Sept. 2002, CIVITAS. It wins hands-down in refuting feminist claims that assert positive and constructive consequences of fatherlessness. It is not surprising that such studies do not support feminist claims and are therefore never mentioned by family- and father-hostile feminists.

Posted in Divorce, Education, Censorship, Shared Parenting, Family, Propaganda Exposed, Feminist Jurisprudence, The New World Order | Print | No Comments »

April 1, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

The Reality Check
23 March 2008

The Intellectual Perversion of the VAWA Mafia

By Carey Roberts

This article by Carey Roberts is an excellent account of government-sponsored intellectual perversion in the government-driven propaganda war, called VAWA (US Violence against Women Act), against men and families.

It shows that without a doubt the government-policy that government policies need to be based on lies instead of the truth (critiqued by Professors Reece Walters and Tim Hope in Critical thinking about the uses of research) is endemic not only in the U.K. but in the U.S. as well, as it is in all developed nations.

Posted in Family, Censorship, Feminist Jurisprudence, Feminism, Propaganda Exposed, Women's Violence | Print | 1 Comment »

April 1, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

A March 31, 2008 press release by the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies annnounces a study report (a monograph titled “Critical thinking about the uses of research“, by Reece Walters and Tim Hope).  The monograph is critical of the issue of government research data reflecting government policy rather than government policy being based on research data that reflect facts, the latter approach requiring honesty as promised by David Blunket in the year 2000.

The press release states:

The government is reluctant to use the learning from critical, independent evidence based analysis and research to inform criminal justice policy making according to a new report published today by the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies at King’s College London.

The authors of the report argue that the government does not want learn from academics or entertain the kind of serious debate that independent academic research can generate.

The author of one essay in the report, Professor Reece Walters, argues, `Home Office suppression of criminological research that contradicts ministerial policy and opinion is a feature of this arm of government. The Home Office remains silent on all those topics that have the potential to reflect poorly on government and is not an institution that represents the British public’. Professor Walters calls for an academic boycott of any Home Office sponsored research.

In his essay, Professor Tim Hope, reflecting on his experience of working on Home Office research, argues that `having placed such a premium on evidence based policy the government has failed to live up to that promise and has resorted to fixing both the process and publication of Home Office research publication to meet the political needs of the time.’ Professor Hope is worried that officials and politicians can be tempted to be selective in their choice of the evidence used to illustrate success of programmes thus resulting in the exclusion of some data and the simplification or misrepresentation of others.

Will McMahon, Policy Director of the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies said:

`The publication of Critical thinking about the uses of research raises important questions about the transparency of government funded crime research and the need for mechanisms to ensure that research funded by the tax payer is open to proper scrutiny.’

Contact:

Will McMahon, Policy Director, Centre for Crime and Justice Studies: 020 7848 1695 or 07968 950223.

Notes to editors:

1. Reece Walters is Professor in Criminology at the Open University. He has published widely on the ways that criminological knowledge is constructed including his book Deviant Knowledge, Criminology, Policy and Practice. With over 70 authored works on issues such as youth justice, state and corporate crime and more recently on environmental crime, Professor Walters is an internationally reputed scholar. In 2007 he was awarded the Radzinowicz Prize inCriminology.
2. Tim Hope has been Professor of Criminology at Keele University since 1997. He is also Senior Visiting Research Fellow, Scottish Centre for Crime and Justice Research, School of Law, University of Edinburgh. He co-leads Work-package 6 (Public Policies and Crime) of the CRIMPREV Co-ordination Action of the EU Sixth Framework Programme. Please note that Professor Hope will not be available for interviews.
3. The Centre for Crime and Justice Studies is an independent charity based at King’s College London. It was established in 1931 and aims to inform and educate about all aspects of crime and the criminal justice system from an objective standpoint. It encourages and facilitates healthy debate and understanding of the complex nature of issues concerning crime. The views expressed in Critical thinking about the uses of research are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies.
4. In November 2006 the Science and Technology committee of the House of Commons published a report Scientific Advice, Risk and Evidence Based Policy Making Seventh Report of Session 2005-06. The Government published a response, Scientific Advice, Risk and Evidence Based Policy Making: Government Response to the Committee’s Seventh Report of Session 2005-06, in February 2007.

ENDS

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

March 28, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

On Thursday, Geert Wilders, Member of the Parliament in Holland, posted his movie “Fitna”, a short film of about 12 minute duration, on YouTube.

Geert Wilders’ movie and his action of posting it on the Internet received of course much criticism from moderate and politically correct individuals and even from extremist left-wing radicals.  The criticism is directed at what his opponents consider to be an anti-Islamic stance.  That sort of criticism is misdirected, but we have not yet seen the last of it.

There is little in the movie that is critical of all of Islam, but there is much in the movie that is extremely critical of Islamic terrorist acts, of which Fitna contains many graphic examples.

Fitna is also critical of portions of the Koran that are clear and open incitements to extremist hatred and to deadly acts of terrorism against all world views and religions that are non-Islamic.  Fitna quotes those portion of the Koran and urges the vast majority of Islamists that adheres to moderation to remove the pages containing them.

There appears to be little doubt that Islamic extremists will become upset with the sound of a page torn out of a book, even though Fitna explains, after the fact, that the sound is that of a page being torn out of a telephone book.  Whatever may happen in that respect, Geert Wilders will be proven right or wrong.  The Islamic demographic sector will either be irrational and violent, or it will be rational, moderate and ignore the movie.  Mind you, moderation is what Geert Wilders calls for in the Islamic demographic sector.  Moderation is somewhat hard to come by in the face of Islamic terrorism, especially given the fact that Geert Wilders has been and still is under continuous protection already for more than three years to guard him and against attacks by Islamic extremists.

Fitna illustrates opposition to unchecked and uncontrolled immigration from Islamic nations to the Netherlands, and opposition especially to the openly expressed view (declaration of war would be a more fitting description) by some Islamic leaders that “mosque will become part of the law” in Holland and eventually replace all laws presently in use in all of the democracies of the world, indeed, replace even the democracies themselves.

Some of the criticism voiced in some of the interviews I watched is motivated by the fear that Geert Wilders’ movie will result in violent reactions in some Islamic nations and thereby put Dutch nationals in harm’s way.  It is clearly wrong to have such fears suppress the exercise of free speech, but it would be even far more seriously wrong for anyone in any nation to react with extreme and even deadly violence to Fitna.  There is an expression that puts such violence and departure from civilized behaviour into its place: “If you can’t win with words, you won’t win an argument with your fists.”

Links to Fitna on YouTube are accessible at the top of the web page of Fitna the Movie.

The motives of anyone are suspect who is opposed to having Geert Wilders express his opposition to Islamic extremism and terrorism or even to his opposition of the Islamization of Holland, of Europe and of the rest of the world. In our part of the world we fought long and hard to eliminate all forms of extremist violence and oppression.

If anyone should feel that criticism of opposition to extremist violence and oppression is proper and called for, that violence and oppression should be promoted or permitted to prosper, perhaps that will then provide an explanation of why there never was much opposition to the extremist violence and oppression expressed in the following.

Life in this society being, at best, an utter bore and no aspect of society being at all relevant to women, there remains to civic-minded, responsible, thrill-seeking females only to overthrow the government,  eliminate the money system, institute complete automation, and destroy the male sex.

— The opening paragraph in her SCUM Manifesto
(SCUM: Society for Cutting Up Men)
by Valerie Solanas (1967)

That sort of violence, too, is driven by an irrational, radical and extremist ideology.  The result of the violence called for is the same: oppression, blood, gore and death.  One way or the other, be it radical extremism of the Islamic or of the feminist sort, once it controls society, civilization as we once knew it will no longer exist.

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

March 26, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

There is no doubt that some women excel in the hard sciences (e. g.: math, physics, computer science, and engineering) to the same extent as do men.  However, it is a fact that the hard sciences are being dominated by men, by far.

That irks feminist social engineers.  They assert that sexism against women is the cause of that disparity, and they intend to do something about it.  The solution to the “problem” that they intend to bring about is Title IX equalization in the whole field of education, so as to adjust education in the hard sciences to bring about educational achievement for the sexes in a fashion that will match the progress and achievement of the better learners (predominantly male students) to that of the slower or less adept learners (predominantly female students).

In that manner, they hope, there will eventually and in short order be as many female graduates in the hard sciences as there are male graduates.  The reality of that will of course be that, just as it happened in sports, that the number of male achievers will be adjusted downward to match the number of the few female graduates that chose subjects in the hard sciences.

It seems to me that just as we have seen over the years the elimination of male sports teams at universities and colleges, so we will get to see the elimination of courses in the hard sciences that presently are being dominated or exclusively attended by male students.

Of course, the consequence of that will be, just as it has been experienced in the field of sports, that any country that in that fashion downgrades its progress and achievements in the hard sciences will lose whatever advantages it may hold or may have held in scientific achievements.

Christina Hoff Sommers discusses the circumstances of these latest suicidal goals of the American feminist social engineers in “Why Can’t a Woman Be More Like a Man?” (The American, March-April 2008 issue).

Here are a few excerpts from that article.

While Title IX has been effective in promoting women’s participation in sports, it has also caused serious damage, in part because it has led to the adoption of a quota system. Over the years, judges, Department of Education officials, and college administrators have interpreted Title IX to mean that women are entitled to “statistical proportionality.” That is to say, if a college’s student body is 60 percent female, then 60 percent of the athletes should be female—even if far fewer women than men are interested in playing sports at that college. But many athletic directors have been unable to attract the same proportion of women as men. To avoid government harassment, loss of fund­ing, and lawsuits, they have simply eliminated men’s teams. Although there are many factors affecting the evolution of men’s and women’s college sports, there is no question that Title IX has led to men’s participation being calibrated to the level of women’s interest. That kind of calibration could devastate academic science.

Harvard’s legendary Math 55 class does not look like America. The class roster at semester’s end? ‘45 percent Jewish, 18 percent Asian, 100 percent male.’

Women comprise 19 percent of tenure-track professors in math, 11 percent in physics, and 10 percent in electrical engineering. The pipeline does not promise statistical parity.

‘Our goal,’ says the deputy director of the National Science Foundation, ‘is to transform…the entire culture of science and engineering in America, and to be inclusive of all.’

Baron-Cohen believes that men are, on average, wired to be better systematizers and women better empathizers. It’s a daring claim, but he has the data to back it up.

If numerical inferiority were sufficient grounds for charges of discrimination, Congress would be holding hearings on the underrepresentation of men in higher education.

Professor Emanuel said that although the discrimination report was ‘widely praised in public, it was privately deplored and disparaged in the hallways of MIT.’

It is odd that a single study of postgraduate fellowships at a Swedish university should play such a prominent role in a campaign to eliminate ‘hidden bias’ in American universities.

‘We don’t accept biology as destiny,’ says Valian. ‘We vaccinate, we inoculate, we medicate…I propose we adopt the same attitude toward biological sex differences.’

‘At bias-awareness workshops, physicists and engineers watch skits where overbearing male faculty ride roughshod over hapless but intellectually superior female colleagues.

Most scientists have no idea of the power and scope of the equity crusade. The business community and citizens at large are completely in the dark. This is a quiet revolution.

It is a very long article, but it argues unfailingly that the application of Title IX equalization in the hard sciences will be deadly to the nation’s economy.  One would do well to memorize Christina Hoff Sommers’ concluding paragraph:

American scientific excellence is a precious national resource. It is the foundation of our economy and of the nation’s health and safety. Norman Augustine, retired CEO of Lockheed Martin, and Burton Richter, Nobel laureate in physics, once pointed out that MIT alone—its faculty, alumni, and staff—started more than 5,000 companies in the past 50 years. Will an academic science that is quota-driven, gender-balanced, cooperative rather than competitive, and less time-consuming produce anything like these results? So far, no one in Congress has even thought to ask.

Full Story

With increasing frequency we hear that women’s studies programs are dying and even being eliminated in some countries due to lack of student enrolment.  To conclude from that circumstance that feminism is dead or dying is surely as false and dangerous as it would have been to conclude that Marxist communism was not the dominating and driving ideology of the USSR.

Posted in Censorship, Men and Women Work, Education, Men's Issues, Propaganda Exposed, Feminism, The New World Order | Print | No Comments »

March 22, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

For some years now it has been customary in the media to designate pederasts as pedophiles.

Some of the reasons for that would be:

1. A pederast is definitely someone interested in homosexual activities with children, something that society abhors more than heterosexual child abuse by adults. A homosexual who abuses children of his own sex, what could be worse than that?
2. A pederast would have as victim a child of a specific sex, a child of his own sex. Given that women and girls are, according to the feminist-dominated media, the primary victims in our society, it would not serve the goals of the anti-male and pro-homosexual media propaganda war to identify boys as the primary victims of sexual child abuse.

For those reasons it should not surprise anyone to see articles like the following, in which a man who sexually abused boys — a pederast — is being depicted as a pedophile.

Convicted paedophile kicked out of Australia arrives in Britain as experts warn: ‘He’ll strike again’ (Daily Mail, 2008 03 08)

Convicted serial paedophile Raymond Horne landed in London today to a tide of protest after he was deported from Australia for abusing
children, sparking fears that British children are now at risk.

His head covered by a blanket and his distinctive white beard still visible, the 61-year-old was met by police at Heathrow before 6am.

He was deported to the UK after serving a 12-year jail sentence in Australia for 14 sex offences after he lured two homeless boys to his
apartment while volunteering for a charity….

In spite of the high incidence rate of pederasty (e.g.: in social work, Boy Scouts, sports teams, etc.), it is curious that it receives so little mention in specific terms in the media.

That is not so when one contemplates the respective volumes of explanations and descriptions (especially when it comes to illustrations) of pederasty and pedophilia in something like Wikipedia. It is is hard to comprehend why the Wikipedia entry for pedophilia shows not a single illustration, while Wikipedia deemed the entry for pederast to be in need of eleven of them.

Obviously there are some people whose interest in pederasty is enormously greater than their concern about pedophilia. However, the differences between the Wikipedia entries for pederasty and pedophilia extend beyond the presence of illustrations in one and the absence of illustrations in the other.

As with homosexuality itself, so pederasty (homosexual child abuse) is sought be be made acceptable, while the situation is somewhat different with respect to the Wikipedia entry for pedophilia.

From the Wikipedia entry for pederasty:

Today, while there is greater public acceptance of homosexuality in many countries, adult erotic relations with boys are generally viewed with disapproval, even when the youths are of legal age.

And the comparable quote from the Wikipedia entry for pedophilia:

The ICD-10 and DSM IV, which are standard medical diagnosis manuals, describe pedophilia as a paraphilia and mental disorder of adults or older adolescents, if it causes clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning.^[2]

Curiously, the entry for pedophilia contains 12 instances of the term “child sexual abuse”, while the entry for pederasty contains not a single instance of that term.

It appears that, going by “public opinion” as reflected in the general media and in Wikipedia, pederasty — a homosexual form of child sexual abuse — is morally acceptable, if not desirable, while pedophilia is a mental aberration that is as a matter of course an offence only if it causes discomfort for the perpetrator.

As our social and moral evolution in the context of the sexual revolution progresses, it remains to be seen whether pederasty can be successfully excluded from the category of child sexual abuse and whether all forms of pedophilia (its promoters more commonly call it “intergenerational sex”) can eventually be decriminalized and even be made to be generally desired. That appears to be the plan, does it not, the legalization of statutory rape, right?

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

January 10, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

Focus on the Family

January 9, 2008

Dads may be participating more than ever with moms in helping raise their children, but they are still not included in most studies of children and their families, Dalhousie University doctoral student Erin Moon has concluded.

“The research has not kept up with the changes in society, with fathers being more and more involved in children’s lives,” Moon, a clinical psychologist, told CanWest News Service. “Almost all the previous research has been conducted with mothers.”

Moon is researching the parental response to a child’s pain, specifically if fathers react differently based on whether a son or a daughter is suffering. She discovered that the questionnaires and tests previous researchers conducted all excluded the responses of fathers, presumably because it was thought that mothers were the primary caregivers….(Full Story)

_________
Comments:

The full article is well worth reading, as it uncovers much of the silence in Academe regarding the vital involvement of fathers in being part of the parenting that children receive. Yet, many or even most of the sentiments expressed in the article bring to light not much more than that fathers are parents, too, parents that are almost as good as mothers. In other words, “mothering” is an important thing, and fathers are almost as good at it as mothers are.

The reality is that the proportions of parenting done by fathers and mothers are equally important but different. They augment one another, and their combined effect becomes in the system of parenting in the traditional nuclear family greater than the sum of the parts contributed individually by mothers and fathers. The principle of synergy comes into play. That is far more prevalent in families in a general sense than it is within the narrow focus of the study done by Erin Moon, namely the comparable reactions of fathers and mothers to their children’s pain.

Two articles address the benefits of parenting by fathers and mothers within the family in a much wider sense.

1. Shacking UP and Breaking DOWN
   Common-law marriage and break-up are booming, and so is a host of related social ills. By Candis Mclean (Alberta Report, June 22, 1998, page 28)

   The Alberta Report is no longer being published, but a condensed version of the article is available at the website of Fathers for Life.The AR article concludes with a quote by columnist Charles Moore from an article in the Western Catholic Reporter:

   “Marriage is more than a private relationship between two individuals. The reason it has traditionally benefited from positive discrimination [special benefits, subsidies and rights] is recognition of the contribution to the common good by stable family units — specifically, the procreation and healthy upbringing of children….All other domestic arrangements — heterosexual or homosexual — must be deemed purely private relationships that society has no interest in subsidizing. It may take a political or even constitutional revolution to accomplish this, but the alternative is continued disintegration of our civilization.”

2. The sorry facts behind common-law marriage
   By Lorne Gunter, Edmonton Journal, 28.6.98 (that article is available in the same web page at the website of Fathers for Life)

But there is more yet behind the invisibility of fathers as far as the perspective of social researchers goes. For all intents and purposes, social research is a feminist-dominated and -controlled academic field in which it is not politically correct to illuminate the role of fathers in families or, for that matter, the constructive role of men in society. The invisibility of fathers and men in feminist social studies is not accidental, it is deliberate.

Feminist social “research” is advocacy research and does not live up to the standards against which respectable and reputable scientific inquiries must measure up to become objectively acceptable.
Advocacy research does not stand up to scientific standards, although many people make a good living doing it. Advocacy research could more accurately be called science fiction on account of collecting or manufacturing data that support a hypothesis, discarding or altering those data that do not support or do contradict the hypothesis the advocacy researchers set out to prove and then presenting its conclusions disguised in the cloak of science. Feminist “research” is almost entirely comprised of advocacy research.

Advocacy research uses selective study samples that are likely to produce the desired results. It does not use randomly selected study samples, as those are far more likely to produce objective answers that are contrary to the point the advocacy researcher wishes to promote. There is no objectivity in the reporting done by advocacy research. Without exception, advocacy research is seriously flawed.

Posted in Censorship, Health, Family, Feminism, Propaganda Exposed | Print | No Comments »

December 24, 2007 by Walter Schneider.

In making the required updates to finish the reformating of the website of Fathers for Life, I discovered an important omission.  The Table of Contents for Media Issues was missing.  I added that ToC now to cover,

The media, media giants, media industry, media prostitution and other media issues

Thousands of media messages bombard the mind of every individual each day throughout his life.  No one can avoid being indoctrinated, even brainwashed by them, by what he reads on bill boards and in the newspapers or sees and hears in programs and advertisements on radio and TV.  That process goes on from cradle to grave, every day, incessantly and intrusively — so much so that the vast majority of people no longer even notices that is going on.

Media issues pervade the web pages of Fathers for Life.  That cannot be avoided.  The news-, newspaper-, broadcast- and publishing media are the vehicle by means of which the war against families and fathers is brought to where it counts and is made to work, in our minds.

Of course, the media could also be used to promote family values and respect for men and fathers.  That would give us once more a healthy and productive society, but that is not what the family-hostile ideology that controls our media wants.

–Walter

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

November 25, 2007 by Walter Schneider.

The following excerpt is from “Feminism - Terms defined“

Many of the terms used by feminists come straight from communist dialectics, and many of the slogans and ideas promoted by women’s studies lecturers are being quoted almost verbatim, and in many cases are exact quotes, from communist text books.

The major cause for the overwhelming public interest in women’s issues is the feminist doctrine of women’s victimhood. The imbalance in attention given to women’s issues existed for at least the last 200 years of modern history, but it received an enormous boost through the activities of the radical feminist activists that made their appearance in the mid-1960s.

Men’s rights will not be given an amount of public concerns equal to that given to women’s issues until at the very least an equal amount of concern is given to men’s studies as is given to women’s studies.

The following statistics compiled from search results using http://google.com illustrate how far the feminist ideology has spread and overwhelms academic thinking, the media and all of society:

An encouraging trend reflected in the statistics shown above is that the interest in women’s studies is on the decline and fell by 90 percent during the 2006-2007 interval. That is in spite of the ease with which someone sufficiently interested can become a certified feminist. Check this course outline at the website of the Women’s Studies Program at the Northern Illinois University’s College of Liberal Arts and Sciences (note that you could also learn how to cook like a feminist, although it is not quite obvious from the list of courses offered whether three hours of instruction in FCNS 406, Global Food and Nutrition Issues will provide the necessary skills to be able to operate a kitchen stove or to make a cup of coffee):

The Women’s Studies Program is an interdisciplinary academic program housed in Northern Illinois University’s College of Liberal Arts and Sciences. Any undergraduate student in the university may earn a minor in Women’s Studies by taking 3 core courses and 3 additional courses selected from related electives offered for credit towards a minor (18 hours total). The College of Liberal Arts & Sciences also offers students the opportunity to construct an individualized major in Women’s Studies (B.A. or B.S.). At the graduate, master’s and doctoral level, students may earn a graduate certificate in Women’s Studies, which requires two core courses and two approved graduate-level elective courses (12 hours total).

Find out more about us: About our Program

On the other hand, the interest in men’s studies has not seen a comparable increase in attention given. Moreover, when one examines the search returns for men’s studies programs it appears that those programs are permeated with a strong pro-homosexual bias by new-age men (a product of ongoing feminist indoctrination). It appears hardly possible that pro-homosexual activists acting on behalf of a population sector that comprises no more than about two percent of the adult male population will either have the interest or the necessary influence to revert the systematic deconstruction of the traditional nuclear family and the vital role of the father in it. However, there is a far more disturbing aspect of the lack of men’s studies programs. Many of those programs on offer are being run by anti-male feminists (of the male and the female variety).

An anti-male campus?

Nearly every large college campus and many smaller ones have a Women’s Studies department. There are over five hundred women’s studies departments and over one hundred colleges that offer a degree program in women’s studies. There is not a single degree program or department in men’s studies in the U.S. It is difficult to get exact numbers, but it appears that there are fewer than a dozen classes labeled men’s studies being offered in colleges anywhere. Some that are labeled men’s studies are in fact anti-male. Kenyon College, for example, has a Men’s Studies program that in the words of one professor is in opposition to, “The white, male, heterosexual, able-bodied, Christian, middle-class norm.” (Source: Mysterious Decline-Where Are the Men on Campus?” April 29, 2003, by Philip W. Cook and Glenn Sacks; ifeminists.com)

Far more than enough resources are being used up to assist the feminists in their search for problems befitting the solutions they devised. No wonder men are being made the scapegoats for every imaginable social ill. As the statistics in the preceding table show, men don’t talk back much. After all, scapegoats don’t talk….(Full Story)

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