September 28, 2011 by Walter Schneider.

Huffington Post, 2011, 09 23Catherine Kieu Becker Pleads Not Guilty In Penis Slicing

WESTMINSTER, Calif. — A California woman has pleaded not guilty to cutting off her estranged husband’s penis and running it through a garbage disposal….(Full Story)

Here is a bit of background to the case.

2011 07 12: In an undisclosed location in California, according to ABC News: “Nightengale said the couple is going through a divorce, but could not confirm why [Catherine Kieu] Becker wanted to cut off her husband’s manhood.” ….(Full Story)

Comments:

Walter Schneider,  July 12, 2011: Just like kids in a candy store, except that those would be less likely to get away with things. See, they have not yet managed to find an excuse in this case that will work, but rest assured that they will keep considering alternatives until they find a good one.

Here is a tip. When everything else fails, one of these always works, “The devil (or her inner demons) made her do it,” or just simply, “She could not help herself,” will do fine.

The excuse need not be announced right now. There is time enough to think of a whopper until the case goes to trial. http://abcnews.go.com/m/story?id=14055080

Walter Schneider,  July 12, 2011: The search for an excuse is just window dressing for letting her go, eventually. It is ludicrous for anyone to insist they they don’t know why she did it. Of course they know, as surely as Catherine Kieu Becker did. She did it because she could, and because she knows damn well that she will get away with it!

“Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” (Full Quote)

Posted in Divorce, Marriage, Men's Issues, Feminist Jurisprudence, The New World Order, Feminism, Women's Violence | Print | 1 Comment »

September 26, 2011 by Walter Schneider.

The indicated article contains one of the best summaries of the circumstances of “no-fault” divorce I have come across in many years. Still, it would have been better if “no-fault” divorce would be called what it really is: *no-choice* divorce, because marriage is an unenforceable contract. The presence or absence of “fault” has nothing to do with it.

New York Post

‘No fault’ nuttiness

Why modern divorce is lunacy

By BEVERLY WILLETT

September 18, 2011

‘Have we lost our mind?” the editors of divorcemagazine.com asked last week, of a video headlined “Woman attacks judge in court during divorce proceedings.” The woman lunges over a bench, grabs the judge, then resists arrest; we see a mug shot that plays into our stereotypical vision of someone who probably resides in a trailer park.

Sorry. My sympathy is still with the woman — because no-fault divorce seems designed to make us lose our minds….(Full Story)

Here is the link to the YouTube video clip (32 seconds)>

The woman attacked the judge instantly after the judge sentenced her to “ten days for contempt of court”, after the women did nothing more than assert that she had done nothing wrong in her marriage or in court. Of course, the time she will have to spend being incarcerated will now be considerable longer than ten days…

As the lead article in the NY Post states, justice and a fair trial is not what divorce court is all about. “Dissents and other attempts to hold up the process get slapped down: This is a divorce factory, not an effort to produce justice.”

Posted in Judiciary, Social-Destruction Enterprise, Divorce | Print | No Comments »

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 3, 2011 by Walter Schneider.

It is difficult to find a better introduction to the issues addressed in this Facebook album on Justice for Men than the following YouTube video (7 minutes, 37,468 views as of 2011 08 03) http://www.youtube.com/wat​ch?v=57EWApOypIQ&feature=p​layer_embedded

Regardless of whether you are a woman or a man, whether you have or are a husband, father, brother, son, uncle or granddad, you need to watch the video.

From the introduction to the YouTube video: “…Societal forces like chivalry, misandry and the onerous male sex role of provide and protect have been having the unfortunate consequence of obscuring the needs of men. This short video will give you an introductory glimpse of some men’s issues.”

Men’s Issues

www.youtube.com

What are men’s issues? Watch this short flash video to get a beginning idea. Societal forces like chivalry, misandry and the onerous male sex role of provide…

Posted in Paternal Rights, Social-Destruction Enterprise, Suicides, Media Bias, Civil Rights, Judiciary, Single-Parent, Marriage, Books & Films, Men and Women Work, Abortion, Feminism, Propaganda Exposed, Child Abduction, Feminist Jurisprudence, Child-Custody Awards, Divorce, Health, Men's Issues, Paternity Fraud | 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 11, 2011 by Walter Schneider.

Another book that should be on your book shelf is Stephen Baskerville’s “Taken Into Custody: The WarAgainst Fathers, Marriage and the Family“.

The book covers considerably more than just family law. It is primarily about the systematic deconstruction of our society, but it does show the consequences of using family law to achieve that through the criminalization of fatherhood.

I have known Stephen Baskerville for many years. since he first made contact with fathers rights activists. He differed then already substantially from many other FR activists, in as much that right from the start he was not just angry about what had been done to him and to other fathers who had been expunged from their families.  He asked not only what had happened but why it had happened.

That soon led to the question of whether it was by accident or design that it was happening. Stephen Baskerville at first thought that the criminalization of fatherhood had to be an error in judgment, even though it was real, because no nation in its right mind would deliberately destroy what made it function well, namely to have fathers within families, rather than having families without fathers. However that was only a fleeting thought, and he did not dwell on it.

Many FR activists helped with the book over the years, even though there was at first not even a thought of producing one, but there were discussions, identification of facts and sources, suggestions for clarifications on many of the articles by Stephen Baskerville that were published over the years, and eventually Stephen Baskerville did more than just thank people “too numerous to mention” in the Acknowledgments of his book when it got published, by listing the names of all who had contributed over the years. I am proud of the fact that my name is on the list and that it is in good company.

Years ago, many of the people mentioned in the Acknowledgments of “Taken Into Custody” actively networked. If there was ever a moment in modern times during which a functioning FR movement was in the process of emerging, it was then, during the years “Taken Into Custody” was in the making. I am not proud of the fact that that was only for a moment and that a functioning FR movement did not come into existence, to pursue a common goal in a systematic, effective and organized fashion. However, not all is lost and there is reason for great hopes.

Feminism has fallen into disrepute, and a renewed, much more massive movement for the restoration of traditional moral standards is growing from the grass roots, to compete for a place in the sun of public respect and appreciation, if not admiration.  Feminism fell victim to its success.  People have become bored with it.  After all, feminism’s success is built on the myths that women are not equal and that they are victims of oppression by men.  Outrageous claims like that cannot be maintained for very long in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, after which only one possible conclusion is possible, namely that feminism is not about equal or equitable rights.  It is about something else. perhaps to make women “more” equal than others.

“Taken Into Custody” was published in 2007. Feminism’s popularity steeply increased from the 1960s until 1970, maintained itself (even declined a little) from 1970 to 1988 and rose steeply once more in 1992, declined somewhat and steeply rose once more in 1998 (link), after which it began to decline in earnest. The decline of the popularity of feminism took on serious proportions during 2008 (link), and that is even though in 2008 the media doubled its efforts to promote the ideology of feminism (link).  Mind you, along with the escalation of the media effort to praise feminism there came also increasingly more articles critical of feminism.  That helped to accelerate feminism’s decline, because all along it was clear that the giantess, feminism, had clay feet whenever she engaged herself or was forced to participate in open debate.  There is no effective defence against the truth:

Posted in Civil Rights, Paternal Rights, Judiciary, Books & Films, False Allegations, Maternal Rights, Social-Destruction Enterprise, Divorce, Feminism, Propaganda Exposed, Feminist Jurisprudence, Family, Men's Issues, The New World Order | Print | No Comments »

April 27, 2011 by Walter Schneider.

In the early days of the Internet, when web browsers first came on the market, I found that I had problems finding information about advice for fathers who are being put through the wringer.  There were then few websites, but there were bulletin boards.

The first time I looked for whether there  was a fathers rights organization in or near Edmonton, Alberta, it took me about six months for someone to put me on the right track.  The lead came to me in a round-about way, in the from of advice from someone in the USA.

That experience led me to start the website for Fathers for Life.  I figured that it was wrong that any man in need of help and advice would have to look for months to find it.

Now I get help requests from all over the world, but mostly from the USA and from Canada.  Most of those come through e-mail, but some of them come by phone.

Early this morning I had a call from a man in Michigan whose boys had been placed in foster care because of a drug charge.  He is holding a good job now and his life is on the straight and narrow, while he had the misfortune to be a passenger in a vehicle the driver of which was charged with possession and transporting drugs.  Of course, he got charged and now mentioned that he had been advised to plead guilty, so as to get off easy.  Well, for one thing, getting off easy involves having another offence added to his criminal record.  Guilty or not, the charges he faces are at least legally warranted.  That is not the case with the woman who called me last night.

The woman called because she wanted to know whether there is any way by which her son can protect himself against false allegations of domestic violence.  He apparently went through a separation and divorce, and his ex got custody of his boy, of course, while he has standard visitation rights.  Now his ex is charging him again with domestic violence in connection with an assault she alleges he committed when he came to pick up his son.

It appears that there were witnesses who will testify that no assault took place at the time of the exchange of the boy, but now the mother of the father asked what he can do to protect himself against further wrongful allegations of violence by her son, and how an end can be put to that apparently widespread practice of women making such allegations against men and fathers whom they want out of their lives for good, except for the child-support money they will be forced to fork over.

We got into a little bit of a discussion on that, during which I provided a run-down of the causes and history of the evolution of Canadian feminist jurisprudence.  She still wanted to know what can be done to put an end to the widespread practice of making false allegations of violence and the associated injustices perpetrated by the courts.

I told her that there is no protection against that, no magic bullet, no remedy but to abolish feminism as the driving political force for the policies that make false abuse allegations so exceedingly effective and so often used effectively by women.

I explained to the woman that we live in a country that is becoming ever more socialistic, and that the evolution of Canadian feminist jurisprudence has the same Marxist roots that brought about increasingly oppressive feminist jurisprudence in the USSR.  Her response was that she came from [one of the nations] in the former USSR, but that terrible injustices such as those we have here now in relation to false abuse allegations never were a problem in the area of the USSR she came from.

I disagreed with her on that, but I will let you be the judge.  Have a look at Matriarchy in USSR.

See also:

• The Russian Effort to Abolish Marriage, The Atlantic Monthly, July 1926, and
• History of the evolution and destructive social impact of Soviet divorce laws

Posted in Divorce, Civil Rights, False Allegations, Men's Issues, Child-Custody Awards, The New World Order, Feminist Jurisprudence, Women's Violence | Print | No Comments »

April 18, 2011 by Walter Schneider.

Mail Online

My wife was sweet and demure - then the fashion industry made her a monster

By Zoe Brennan
Last updated at 11:48 AM on 17th April 2011

More

Quotes from the article, with comments by Dads & Things:

‘When I met my wife, she was sweet and demure. I believe she’s become egotistical and self-centred. The fashion world has turned her into something of a monster.’

If I read this right, she was a model already when she decided to have him for a husband, whereupon she could legally and without complications use him as a sperm donor — quite possibly on the advice of her handlers or her peers in the modelling industry.  Without a doubt, having a child is an asset for a model.  That sort of asset does not peter out as fast as her looks will.

Her campaigns have included Ungaro, Cavalli, Gucci and Paul Smith.

Those were not her campaigns.  The were campaigns designed and launched by advertising agencies that used her modelling agencies to supply a key ingredient for successful advertising, namely the image of Ujjwala Raut.

‘It has broken my heart to be apart from my daughter.’

Welcome to the world of the expunged fathers.  There are hundreds of millions of them.  If misery seeks company, he’s got more than enough of it now.

She, …has accused him of threatening behaviour.

Allegations of violent behaviour are standard fare in such cases.  He should consider himself lucky that as of now she has not accused him of sexually abusing his daughter. As far as false allegations are concerned, child-sexual-abuse allegations are the ultimate silver bullet, because they always get their man.

He blames the fashion world for turning his wife’s head…

That is an unjustified allegation, no matter how correct it may seem.  He, having been a part of that world, should know better.  She sold her soul the moment she decided to become a model.  He had rocks in his head for falling for her.

Sterry states that he still loves his wife. ‘If she said, “I made a mistake,” I would accept her back, even though she has done some really nasty things.’

Of course he would.  That is how men are made.  That is how they get suckered, time and again.

‘Her judgements have been wrong, but she is not inherently bad.’

Of course she is not inherently bad, no more so than a gun is, not until it is aimed and someone pulls its trigger.  “Wrong” is a relative concept, flexible, and always relates to someone’s standards.  From her perspective, everything she has done works out well and produces the desired results.  Don’t knock success.

For her part, Ujjwala has flatly denied both her husband’s claims of assault and the allegation that she has influenced the deportation proceedings in an improper way.

She has said: ‘If Maxwell is alleging abuse and intimidation, why is he not resorting to court procedures, which is how things should be?

‘This matter is sub judice [before a court, not yet judicially decided]. I don’t wish to comment on it. When the time comes, I myself will make an announcement.’

Smart move on her part.  He should have had advice like that a long time ago and followed it.  He should not have publicly commented on the collapse of his marriage, because what he told the Mail Online is more than enough to allow them to have constructed a long article.  Moreover, even though he is most likely correct with everyone of his observations, everything he said can and will be used against him in the courts.

He should now concentrate on what he will do during the rest of his life to be able to cope with the handicap of having to pay his daughter’s mother for a child he will most likely never get to see anymore, commensurate with the life-style his soon-to-be-ex has become accustomed to.

Posted in Civil Rights, Maternal Rights, False Allegations, Paternal Rights, Men and Women Work, Feminist Jurisprudence, Men's Issues, Divorce, The New World Order | Print | 1 Comment »

April 6, 2011 by Walter Schneider.

What is the men’s movement (MM) trying to achieve?  That is a bit hard for anyone to determine.  It seems that after decades of the existence of the men’s movement, no unified aim or objective for the men’s movement has emerged.  There is nothing the main stream media (MSM) has picked up and consistently presents to the public as the major goal of the men’s movement.

The MSM had no trouble picking up and popularizing women’s causes when the long-simmering radical feminism came to the fore in he 1960s and became the dominant and controlling force not only of feminism but of politics.  Then it was that one could not avoid images (real or mental) of bra-burners, sex-discrimination that allegedly kept women down, pay-discrimination that had women do men’s work for half the pay men were allegedly earning for similar work, and so on.  The MSM had no trouble to present such images on the tapestry it wove according to the feminist design:

• “The dreaded patriarchy oppressed women throughout the millennia.”
• “Women are good.  Men are bad.”
• “The family is a patriarchal tool for the oppression of women.”
• “Logic is patriarchal linear thinking.”
• “There is no job that a man does that a woman cannot do better.”
• “A woman’s body — A woman’s right”

Lapel buttons displaying the slogan “WHY NOT?” became very popular.  The MSM, aided from within by increasing numbers of women journalists indoctrinated through women’s studies programs taught by feminist lecturers who openly declared themselves to be Marxist-feminists, helped things along, while politicians fell over themselves to give “women” most of what they wanted as soon as women’s groups asked for it.

Women’s studies programs emerged in virtually all colleges and universities of the developed nations and usurped much of the funding formerly lavished on male-dominated sports programs.  More and more all-male institutions, even locker rooms, were invaded by women and even abolished, if so demanded, while women’s institutions and clubs remained pristine, if not necessarily feminine, unspoiled by the presence of any man — unless he was someone like a plumber needed to get a toilet going.

Government women’s departments sprouted up like mushrooms after a warm rain in summer in all developed nations. In some countries (e. g.: Canada) they were given names that brazenly declared their Marxist origin: Status of Women.  Still, whether or not they gave away their ideological roots through their names, the feminists that ran them and whom they employed had no problem with openly declaring their Marxist intentions.

New family legislation hostile to fathers emerged and was soon applied through a novel branch of the judiciary, the family-court system, and civilization soon had to cope with the fall-out from that: men and fathers expunged in unprecedented, escalating numbers from their families, losing contact with their children  Lawyers and judges experienced a boom of cases where men tried to regain (quite often unsuccessfully) some of the contact with and influence over their children, and where women tried (almost invariably successfully) to get men to pay for the sin of having dared to be fathers –with the aim to keep women in the style they had become accustomed to while their marriages were still intact.

Incredibly, the excesses of the feminist revolution in relation to expunged fathers were invariably justified by liberal doses of the application of the slogan: “In the best interest of child.”

The rout of the dreaded patriarchy was complete.

Right from the start of the feminist revolution a so-called men’s movement made itself known, but also right from the start it became obvious that men, the patriarchal oppressors of women, would never be able to gain as much sympathy and compassion as women did.  The MM floundered and many attempts to launch it successfully foundered. Quite simply, men were bowled over because women make more appealing victims.

Men, divorced men, and especially fathers expunged from their families, have well-justified grievances, but the well-deserved respect and appreciation that western civilization once had for men appears to be gone for good.  Feminist logic and women’s way of knowing have done their work, but, as the saying goes, women’s work is never done, and the persecution of men continues.

The persecution of men that started with the radical-feminist revolution in the West is alive and well and is being spread through feminist missionary work into developing and underdeveloped nations throughout the world.

__________
Part 2 will follow.

Posted in Education, Men and Women Work, Paternal Rights, Civil Rights, Divorce, Men's Issues, Feminism, Feminist Jurisprudence, Family, The New World Order | Print | 2 Comments »