August 16, 2011 by Walter Schneider.

 Prison Planet.com » Police Were Ordered To Stand Down As London Burnedwww.prisonplanet.com

Precisely as we reported yesterday on the back of numerous eyewitness reports, it has now emerged that police were ordered to stand down and let London burn during the first few nights of rioting, an action that quickly led to a frightened public to demand troops on the streets, rubber bullets, …

Marcus Simon’s commentary in relation to the causes of the London riots makes sense. It fits something I read a long time ago. I’ll quote that in the first comment after the pointer to Marcus Simon’s commentary.

ConservativeHome’s Platform: Simon Marcus: Listen to the children

conservativehome.blogs.com

Simon founded the Boxing Academy in 2006 which is based in Tottenham and Hackney. He was also the Conservative Candidate in Barking in 2010, beating the BNP into 3rd place. Before this Simon was involved in small business management and…

Children in Quebec

SOS Quebec - A children’s gulag. Corruption and collusion in the Quebec Youth Justice System and DPJ

www.sosquebec.com

In 2006 over 30,000 children were seized from Quebec families by youth authorities (DPJ)in 2006, processed in secret trials, and placed in institututions or forced adoption programs. Years of secrecy and a total lack of accountability have created a culture of impunity …

Harriet Harman, Lord of the Flies, fatherlessness, lone-mother households, looting by kids and adults, total breakdown of moral order, … take your pick or any combination of any and all of the causes and consequences.

UK riots 2011: Britain’s liberal intelligentsia has smashed virtually every social value

www.dailymail.co.uk

Those of us who warned over the years that they were playing with fire were sneered at and smeared as Right-wing nutters.

People are waking up to the consequences of fatherlessness.

What lies beneath the social unrest in Britain?

networkedblogs.com

A surprising range of people (from British Prime Minister David Cameron to reporters and social commentators) are all pointing at the same fundamental problems in the wake of the riots in the UK–the loss of foundational morality and self-restraint, the breakdown of the family, and fatherlessness. He….

When there are not enough men…

Armenia’s villages of women

www.bbc.co.uk

The Armenian tradition of men going away to work in Russia is leaving whole villages almost entirely populated by women, the BBC’s Damien McGuinness reports.
_______________
A few comments about that:

It begins with men being slandered and vilified. Then they are being discriminated against and marginalized. They leave their families or shy away from wanting families and will go to where the jobs are and more security for men can be found. But that is not all.

Take a look at the consequence of socialism with respect to the life expectancies of the sexes in countries where socialism and “equal” rights for women have made the biggest advances:

________

Differences in the life expectancies of the sexes (2009)

fathersforlife.org

Life expectancy of the sexes as per data collected in the year 2009
________

Mind you, Armenian men are still relatively well off. Their average lifeexpectancy (66 years) is only eight years less than that of Armenian women (74 years)

It follows that the lack of men in Armenia is not only due to many of them having gone to work in Russia, but that many of the absent men quite simply died in far greater numbers than did Armenian women. That provides women with a great advantage. It is much easier to blame dead men for the hardships that must be endured by women.

The fact that Armenian men die in much greater numbers than do Armenian women is of course not worth or smart to mention when raising sympathy for women. It is alright to say that “women’s work is never done” or “never seen”, but sacrifices made by men must *NEVER* be mentioned! We do not wish to destroy the illusion that women are the targets of society’s deliberate neglect and abuse.

Justice for judges — we need more of that.

Pa. judge gets 28 years in ‘kids for cash’ case - USATODAY.com

www.usatoday.com

Pa. judge gets 28 years in ‘kids for cash’ case…

More on the London riots:

World Blog - The sad truth behind London riot

worldblog.msnbc.msn.com

Posted in Judiciary, Civil Rights, Economy, Child Abuse, Corruption, Single-Parent, Paternal Rights, Social-Destruction Enterprise, Family, The New World Order, Men's Issues, Divorce, Education, Child Abduction | Print | 1 Comment »

August 13, 2011 by Walter Schneider.

Collapse of Social Order — Causes, Consequences and Culprits

MailOnline
2011 08 11
Britain’s liberal intelligentsia has smashed virtually every social value

By Melanie Phillips

So now the chickens have well and truly come home terrifyingly to roost. The violent anarchy that has taken hold of British cities is the all-too-predictable outcome of a three-decade liberal experiment which tore up virtually every basic social value.

The married two-parent family, educational meritocracy, punishment of criminals, national identity, enforcement of the drugs laws and many more fundamental conventions were all smashed by a liberal intelligentsia hell-bent on a revolutionary transformation of society.

Those of us who warned over the years that they were playing with fire were sneered at and smeared as Right-wing nutters who wanted to turn the clock back to some mythical golden age….(Full Story)

Posted in Social-Destruction Enterprise, Civil Rights, Religion, Child Abuse, Divorce, Men's Issues, Feminism, Feminist Jurisprudence, Family, Child-Custody Awards, The New World Order | Print | No Comments »

August 12, 2011 by Walter Schneider.

USA Today
2011 08 11
Pa. judge gets 28 years in ‘kids for cash’ case

SCRANTON, Pa. (AP) — A longtime northeastern Pennsylvania judge was ordered to spend nearly three decades in prison for his role in a massive juvenile justice bribery scandal that prompted the state’s high court to toss thousands of convictions.

Former Luzerne County Judge Mark Ciavarella Jr. was sentenced Thursday to 28 years in federal prison for taking $1 million in bribes from the builder of a pair of juvenile detention centers in a case that became known as “kids for cash.”….(Full Story)

Posted in Child Abuse, Corruption, Judiciary, Civil Rights, Family, Social-Destruction Enterprise, The New World Order | 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 »

June 17, 2011 by Walter Schneider.

International Business Times US
June 17, 2011 11:55 AM EDT

American Father Self-Immolates To Protest Against Family Courts

On June 15 around 5:30 pm, a 58-year-old New Hampshire father named Thomas Ball self-immolated in front of the Cheshire County Court House.  Ball was pronounced dead at the scene.

Before he died, he sent a letter [to] The Keene Sentinel to explanation his actions.  The full text of the letter can be found here. (Also in PDF format: Tom Ball’s Last Statement; 133 kB)

Ball said he set himself on fire in front of the courthouse because he was “done being bullied for being a man” by the US family court system.

Ball’s troubled started in April 2011.

He said he slapped his then four-year-old daughter, giving her a cut on the lip, when she refused to obey him after three verbal warnings.

His wife then called the child’s mental health provider.  Ball claimed the health provider told his wife that if she did not call the police, both she and Ball would be arrested….(Full Story)
_______________
Note by F4L: That article is full of errors.

• Tom Ball’s problems did not start in April 2011.  They started in April 2001, when the incident with his daughter occurred and he was arrested for the first time in his life, a Vietnam veteran and 48 years old at the time.

• Tom Ball did say that he was “done being bullied for being a man,” but he did not say that he was being bullied just by the family court system.  He did not even single out the family court system, but he felt that his rights were being violated ever since 2001, by the police, mental health providers (not necessarily the mental health provider of the daughter whom he had disciplined, but one for another daughter), the State of New Hampshire, the State Attorney General, the Legislature, the State Governor’s Office, the U.S. Department of Justice, his Congressmen, Senators, the Federal Treasury Department, the Federal Reserve, The U.S. Attorney General’s Task Force on Domestic Violence, the Police department in the nation (at least the 93% of them who are actively engaged in the persecution of men), the police, prosecutors and judges in general, the NH police department, the Jaffrey NH police department, Monadnock Family Services, their lawyer Byron, Judge Sullivan, guardian ad litems, and more, but also the federal government for waging war against men since about 1975 and for running an Office on Violence against Women, even though when the government program for the persecution of men started there were equal numbers of female and male perpetrators of domestic violence.

Tom Ball did his research, and he was no crank. He was a man wronged, wronged like millions of other men (and like some women, as well).

His observations regarding the legal system that put the squeeze on him are right on the mark, and especially his remarks regarding the circumstances, origins and workings of the domestic-violence industry are on target.  Still, I should not have to summarize any of the key point that concerned him.  He wrote a very lucid statement, but obviously not just on the day he killed himself.  That statement is 12 to 15 pages long (depending on the font-size your printer uses).  Read it, you will not regret it.

For instance, did you know that 72 million Americans have been made homeless at one time or another during the 25 years or more that the U.S. Government has been waging its war against men and their families?  As I said, Tom Ball did his work, and he did it well.  Read what he wrote.  I included him in the list of men who broke, at Fathers for Life.  He broke, alright, but he did not crack.  I wish he were still with us.

Tom Ball died for you, for me and for all of our children and grandchildren.

Posted in Judiciary, Civil Rights, Child Support, Economy, Child Abuse, Paternal Rights, Social-Destruction Enterprise, Family, Men's Issues, Media Bias, Suicides, Feminist Jurisprudence | Print | 1 Comment »

June 8, 2011 by Walter Schneider.

Avoiceformen.com
2011 06 07

It is now seriously suggested that women’s prison close

By Paul Elam

Great Britain is about to lend new meaning to the pussy pass.

At least, that is the recommendation in a report issued by the Women’s Justice Task Force which has concluded that offering healthcare services, housing and drug abuse treatment to female criminals is better than holding them to the same standards of punishment to which they hold men….(Full Story)
_________________
Comment by F4L:

If women with children should be at home and not in jail, then the question remains why that should be so. Perhaps the report justified the recommendation by arguing, based on the evidence the authors selected, that it is better for such women’s children to be brought up by women criminals than by the government or by the children’s fathers.

How will that play out in a court of law, in a hearing in which it will be settled what is “in the best interest of the children”?

Millions of anti-father decisions in child-custody cases were rationalized by asserting that they were in the best interest of the children. Still, although there is plenty of evidence that father-custody is almost always better and in the best interest of the children, it has not ever been established in any court of law that obligatorily awarding child custody to mothers is in the best interest of the children.

The reality of the recommendation is that it comes after the fact and only establishes as a rule what is already being done with women criminals. Virtually all women criminals that should be serving time (94% in the US and 99% in Canada) are on the loose. All that will happen when the recommendation of the report is accepted (and that will most surely be not only in the U.K. but in all developed nations) is that the remaining small proportion of women criminals who had the misfortune of being incarcerated will be let loose, too.

Sex ratios of incarcerated prisoners

Unites States: 16 Men for every woman (Note 1)
Canada: 99 Men for every woman (Note 2)
_______
Notes:

1. About 12 years ago, the ratio for federal prisoners in the U.S. was 17.6 men for every woman. I don’t know what it is now, but it is quite likely larger now.
2. That was the sex ratio of prisoners in the Canadian federal prison system about 12 years ago.  The total capacity of all six Canadian women’s prisons then was 258 inmates, while the women’s prisons housed only 150 women criminals, men’s prisons held 13,500 prisoners who were double-bunked.

Those ratios take into account only convicted and incarcerated criminals. The disparity of the ratios exists because, compared to men, women are,

• Far less likely to be suspected of having committed a crime, and, if suspected,
• Far less likely to be indicted, and, if indicted,
• Far more likely to have their crime plea-bargained down to a less severe category of crime, and, when having successfully done that,
• Far less likely to be brought to trial, and, if brought to trial,
• Far less likely to be judged guilty, and, once found guilty of crimes of equal severity to those committed by men,
• Far less likely to be sentenced to being incarcerated, and once incarcerated,
• Far more likely to be serving a shorter sentence for a crime of equal severity, and, once serving a sentence,
• Far more likely to be released early on parole.

We don’t know how many women criminals there are. All we know is that women are as human as are men and are as likely as men are to commit crimes and that vastly fewer women criminals are serving time in jails or prisons.

Judicial crime statistics are the worst possible source of criminal statistics, as they indicate only one of the consequences of judicial bias, namely how many prisoners of either sex were caught, brought to trial, convicted, found guilty and sentenced to serve time in incarceration. Judicial crimes statistics pertaining to both sexes are a good indicator of judicial gender bias.

It is not practical to make judicial bias applicable to an identical extent to men criminals, because then we would have a catastrophic number of job losses in the judiciary, in its adjuncts and in its support and service industries.

There is an aggravating factor that makes it necessary to be absolutely lenient with women criminals. To keep a woman incarcerated costs approximately 2.5 times as much money than to keep a man incarcerated for an equal length of time.

All of those are arguments in support of letting women go free if they have committed crimes.

Of course that promotes chaos and anarchy, and of course it is damaging to all of society and to the well-being of the children by such women criminals, but is it reasonable to argue that the comfort of some women should be sacrificed, so that society can be protected against them and to deter other women from committing crimes? Is that not looking at things the wrong way when it comes to promoting women’s rights?  Should women’s rights and privileges not trump the welfare of society, even the future of civilization?

Those are age-old questions, and the answers to them were expressed and written down more than 2,400 years ago.

For, a husband and wife being each a part of every family, the state may be considered as about equally divided into men and women; and, therefore, in those states in which the condition of the women is bad, half the city may be regarded as having no laws. And this is what has actually happened at Sparta; the legislator wanted to make the whole state hardy and temperate, and he has carried out his intention in the case of the men, but he has neglected the women, who live in every sort of intemperance and luxury.
–Aristotle, in Politics

Posted in Civil Rights, Judiciary, Child Abuse, Single-Parent, Paternal Rights, Child Murder, The New World Order, Feminist Jurisprudence, Child-Custody Awards, Men's Issues, Women's Violence | Print | 3 Comments »

May 28, 2011 by Walter Schneider.

Orphans in the USSR

Do not be surprised at the prevalence of abortions in communist- vs. feminist-dominated nations. Both live by the same doctrines, the planned destruction of the family and women’s liberation as to the burden of child bearing and child raising.

What that means with respect to abortions is that if unwanted children will be aborted, then through that deadly process of elimination, ostensibly, every child carried to term is a wanted child.

That goes one step farther, and the solution to the perceived problem applies equally in feminist as in communist regimes. If children are born outside of wedlock, they are illegitimate children. We cannot have illegitimate children in either a class-less or egalitarian society, because their very existence would be discriminatory. It is not the fault of the children that they are born with that label. It is the fault of a system that labels anything outside of moral norms or standards either illegal, objectionable or illegitimate. The solution to that is to abolish the moral or social standards that cause such illegitimacy to come about.

Therefore, in the minds of communist and feminist social engineers alike (remember that both use the same “bible”) it is merely necessary to eliminate all families, and all illegitimate children will have vanished. That is what both promptly called for and set out to bring about.

That had unintended consequences in the USSR, under Lenin.

It also had unintended consequences in the “free” West, under feminism.  More about that at the end of this posting.

I do not have statistics that summarize the orphan problem in the USSR, either in total or as a trend over time. There were millions of orphans.

Already under Lenin, the USSR suffered serious consequences on account of the policies of “free love” (a.k.a. “sexual freedom”) that Marx and Engels had called for. While later, under the quota system of eliminating unwanted sectors of the population, orphans were sent in large numbers to Siberia; and they were even executed by the tens of thousands (provided they were of the age of 14 or older). [You can find more about that in “The Soviet Story”, a DVD obtainable through amazon.com.]

Igor Shafarevich states in “The Socialist Phenomenon”:

At the end of the preceding chapter we sketched the “ideal” socialist society as it appears in the classical writings of socialism. Of the features enumerated, we shall consider only one: state upbringing of children from infancy so that they do not know their parents. It is natural to begin with this aspect of the socialist ideal, if only because it would be the first thing that an individual born into this society would face. This measure is suggested with striking consistency from Plato to Liadov, a leading Soviet theoretician of the 1920s. In the 1970s, the Japanese police arrested members of the “Red Army,” a Trotskyite organization, which was responsible for a number of murders. Although this group numbered only a few dozen people, it had all the attributes of a real socialist party–theoreticians, a split on the question of whether revolution should occur in one country or in the entire world at once, terror against dissidents. The group established itself in a lonely mountain region. And the same trait surfaced here: they took newborn children away from their mothers, entrusted them to other women for upbringing and fed them on powdered milk, despite difficulties in obtaining it.

Let us quote from a book by the modern ethologist Eibl-Eibesfeldt, which will help us evaluate the biological significance of this measure:

“It is especially in the second half of the first year of life that a child establishes personal ties with its mother or a person substituting for her (a nurse, a matron). This contact is the precondition for the development of “primary trust” (E. H. Erikson), the basis for the attitude toward oneself and the world. The child learns to trust his partner, and this positive basic orientation is the foundation of a healthy personality. If these contacts are broken, “primary distrust” develops. A prolonged stay in the hospital during the child’s second year may, for example, lead to such results. Though the child will try even there to establish close contact with a mother substitute, no nurse will be able to devote herself intensively enough to an infant for a close personal tie to be established. Nurses constantly change, and so the contacts that arise are constantly broken. The child, deceived in his expectations of contact, falls into a state of apathy after a brief outburst of protest. During the first month of his stay in the hospital he whines and clings to anyone available. During the second month he usually cries and loses weight. During the third month such children only weep quietly and finally become thoroughly apathetic. If after three to four months’ separation they are taken home, they return to normal. But if they stay in the hospital longer, the trauma becomes irreversible.. ..In one orphanage where R. Spitz studied ninety-one children who had been separated from their mothers in the third month of their lives, thirty-four died before they reached the age of two. The level of development of the survivors was only 45 percent of normal and the children were almost like idiots. Many of them could neither walk nor stand nor speak at age four. (148: p.234) “

[Source: “The Socialist Phenomenon”, by Igor Shafarevich, pp. 270, 271, http://robertlstephens.com/essays/shafarevich/001SocialistPhenomenon.html ]

The following contains more information on orphans in the USSR, but that document is not in text form and cannot be searched. Quoting text from it is too laborious.

“Victims of the Soviet Penal System in the Pre-War Years:
A First Approach on the Basis of Archival Evidence”
By J. Arch Getty, Gabor T. Rittersporn and Victor N. Zemskow
http://sovietinfo.tripod.com/GTY-Penal_System.pdf (4.2 MB, PDF file)

No spectacle in Soviet cities more troubled Russian and foreign observers during the first postrevolutionary decade than the millions of orphaned and abandoned children known as besprizornye.[1] Whether portrayed as pitiable victims of war and famine or as devious wolf-children preying on the surrounding population to support cocaine and gambling habits, they haunted the works of journalists, travelers, and Party members alike. “Every visitor sees it first,” noted an American correspondent, “and is so shocked by the sight that the most widely known Russian youth are the…homeless children flapping along the main streets of cities and the main routes of travel like ragged flocks of animated scarecrows.”[2] Averell Harriman recalled them as “a particular tragedy of the time…, begging or stealing and living as wild animals unconnected with the normal community life.”[3] The very fact that no one could remain indifferent to their travail made them tempting ammunition in the ideological charges and countercharges exchanged in these years. On one side of the battle lines, critics of the Bolsheviks featured the children as “proof” that the new regime had failed even to care for its own young. In reply, Soviet officials pointed to the problem’s origin in disasters largely beyond their control and insisted that the Party had assigned far higher priority to rehabilitating homeless juveniles than “bourgeois” governments allocated to the care of their own downtrodden….

We will focus primarily on youths who spent all, or at least most, of their time in the street. Our gaze thus takes in juveniles who drifted out of families, as well as the more obvious millions orphaned, discarded, or otherwise separated involuntarily from parents. Those who remained at home will not be included, regardless of the abuse or neglect they may have experienced there….

The homeless wave crested during the famine of 1921–1922, with estimates ranging typically from four to seven and a half million orphaned and forsaken youths.[69]

Source: Ball, Alan M. And Now My Soul Is Hardened: Abandoned Children in Soviet Russia, 1918-1930. Berkeley: University of California Press, c1994 1994. http://ark.cdlib.org/ark:/13030/ft700007p9/

Do a “Find in Page” at that URL for terms such as “orphan”, “children”, “deported” or “execution”.
There is another source of information on orphans in the USSR, that is “The Gulag Archipelago” by Aleksandr I Solzhenitsyn, http://www.amazon.ca/s?_encoding=UTF8&search-alias=books-ca&field-author=Aleksandr+I+Solzhenitsyn

I read the volumes of “The Gulag Archipelago” and and should have copies but can’t find them. I do recall orphans being mentioned. I don’t know where those books went. Maybe they got lent out, but I seem to recall some numbers and a subject index relating to orphans.

In one of the volumes there was a chapter that described the problem of orphans in the labour camps. If I remember right, Solzhenitsyn considered the orphans to be one of the biggest problems faced by the other inmates, as the orphans had no rules or standards to live by. They had no civility.
Free love, as the early communists called it, is today called sexual freedom.
See The Russian Effort to Abolish Marriage, The Atlantic Monthly, July 1926   (See also a more exhaustive history of the evolution and destructive social impact of Soviet divorce laws) [More at http://blog.fathersforlife.org/2010/09/06/dont-marry ]

Semi-orphans, a big part of the absurd legacy of feminism

Experiments in Living: The Fatherless Family
By Rebecca O’Neill; Sept. 2002, CIVITAS

For the best part of thirty years we have been conducting a vast experiment with the family, and now the results are in: the decline of the two-parent, married-couple family has resulted in poverty, ill-health, educational failure, unhappiness, anti-social behaviour, isolation and social exclusion for thousands of women, men and children.

— Rebecca O’Neill

Posted in Social-Destruction Enterprise, Civil Rights, Books & Films, Child Abuse, Abortion, Health, Feminism, Family, Child Murder, The New World Order | 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 »

March 13, 2011 by Walter Schneider.

Planned Parenthood Aids Pimp’s Underage Sex Ring

www.youtube.com

Read more: http://liveaction.org/blog/planned-parenthood-aids-sex-ring/ New Jersey AG Asks the Division of Criminal Justice to Investigate Whether the Manager Broke Any Laws http://liveaction.org/blog/new-jersey-ag-investigate-manager/ Planned Parenthood Fails to Discredit Live Action Video

Posted in Child Abuse, Social-Destruction Enterprise, Health, Family | Print | No Comments »