April 29, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

From http://marriage.rutgers.edu/Publications/pubtoptenmyths.htm

The Top Ten Myths of Divorce

Discussion of the most common misinformation about divorce

David Popenoe

1 Because people learn from their bad experiences, second marriages tend to be more successful than first marriages.

Although many people who divorce have successful subsequent marriages, the divorce rate of remarriages is in fact higher than that of first marriages.¹ [Sources]

2 Living together before marriage is a good way to reduce the chances of eventually divorcing.

Many studies have found that those who live together before marriage have a considerably higher chance of eventually divorcing. The reasons for this are not well understood. In part, the type of people who are willing to cohabit may also be those who are more willing to divorce. There is some evidence that the act of cohabitation itself generates attitudes in people that are more conducive to divorce, for example the attitude that relationships are temporary and easily can be ended.² [Sources]

3 Divorce may cause problems for many of the children who are affected by it, but by and large these problems are not long lasting and the children recover relatively quickly.

Divorce increases the risk of interpersonal problems in children. There is evidence, both from small qualitative studies and from large-scale, long-term empirical studies, that many of these problems are long lasting. In fact, they may even become worse in adulthood.³ [Sources]

4 Having a child together will help a couple to improve their marital satisfaction and prevent a divorce.

Many studies have shown that the most stressful time in a marriage is after the first child is born. Couples who have a child together have a slightly decreased risk of divorce compared to couples without children, but the decreased risk is far less than it used to be when parents with marital problems were more likely to stay together “for the sake of the children.”⁴[Sources]

5 Following divorce, the woman’s standard of living plummets by seventy three percent while that of the man’s improves by forty two percent.

This dramatic inequity, one of the most widely publicized statistics from the social sciences, was later found to be based on a faulty calculation. A reanalysis of the data determined that the woman’s loss was twenty seven percent while the man’s gain was ten percent. Irrespective of the magnitude of the differences, the gender gap is real and seems not to have narrowed much in recent decades.⁵ [Sources]

6 When parents don’t get along, children are better off if their parents divorce than if they stay together.

A recent large-scale, long-term study suggests otherwise. While it found that parents’ marital unhappiness and discord have a broad negative impact on virtually every dimension of their children’s well-being, so does the fact of going through a divorce. In examining the negative impacts on children more closely, the study discovered that it was only the children in very high conflict homes who benefited from the conflict removal that divorce may bring. In lower-conflict marriages that end in divorce—and the study found that perhaps as many as two thirds of the divorces were of this type—the situation of the children was made much worse following a divorce. Based on the findings of this study, therefore, except in the minority of high-conflict marriages it is better for the children if their parents stay together and work out their problems than if they divorce.⁶ [Sources]

7 Because they are more cautious in entering marital relationships and also have a strong determination to avoid the possibility of divorce, children who grow up in a home broken by divorce tend to have as much success in their own marriages as those from intact homes.

Marriages of the children of divorce actually have a much higher rate of divorce than the marriages of children from intact families. A major reason for this, according to a recent study, is that children learn about marital commitment or permanence by observing their parents. In the children of divorce, the sense of commitment to a lifelong marriage has been undermined.⁷ [Sources]

8 Following divorce, the children involved are better off in stepfamilies than in single-parent families.

The evidence suggests that stepfamilies are no improvement over single-parent families, even though typically income levels are higher and there is a father figure in the home. Stepfamilies tend to have their own set of problems, including interpersonal conflicts with new parent figures and a very high risk of family breakup.⁸ [Sources]

9 Being very unhappy at certain points in a marriage is a good sign that the marriage will eventually end in divorce.

All marriages have their ups and downs. Recent research using a large national sample found that eighty six percent of people who were unhappily married in the late 1980s, and stayed with the marriage, indicated when interviewed five years later that they were happier. Indeed, three fifths of the formerly unhappily married couples rated their marriages as either “very happy” or “quite happy.”⁹ [Sources]

10 It is usually men who initiate divorce proceedings

Two-thirds of all divorces are initiated by women. One recent study found that many of the reasons for this have to do with the nature of our divorce laws. For example, in most states women have a good chance of receiving custody of their children. Because women more strongly want to keep their children with them, in states where there is a presumption of shared custody with the husband the percentage of women who initiate divorces is much lower.¹⁰ [Sources] Also, the higher rate of women initiators is probably due to the fact that men are more likely to be “badly behaved.” Husbands, for example, are more likely than wives to have problems with drinking, drug abuse, and infidelity.

_______________

The information shown above is from The [US] National Marriage Project:

Leadership

The project is co-directed by two nationally prominent marriage experts. David Popenoe, Ph.D., a professor and and former social and behavioral science dean at Rutgers, is the author of Life Without Father, Disturbing the Nest, and many other scholarly and popular publications on marriage and family. Barbara Dafoe Whitehead, Ph.D., an author and social critic, writes extensively on issues of marriage, family and child wellbeing. She is the author of Why There Are No Good Men Left: The Romantic Plight of the New Single Woman (Broadway Books, 2003), The Divorce Culture (Knopf, 1996) and the widely acclaimed Atlantic Monthly article “Dan Quayle Was Right.”

The list of the Top-Ten Myths of Divorce attracted my attention because of the comments provided in Item #10 in the list. Somewhat more comprehensive and to-the-point views of the cited Brinig and Allen report provide more relevant information. For example:

The proportion of divorces initiated by women ranged around 60% for most of the 20th century, and climbed to more than 70% in the late 1960s when no-fault divorce was introduced….The Brinig-Allen study also explodes the myth of the brutish husband, finding, for instance, that cruelty is cited in only 6% of divorce applications in Virginia, one of the few states that still uses fault grounds for divorce….adultery cases are evenly split between men and women…. (”Look who doesn’t want a divorce,” Alberta Report, January 11, 1999, page 30)

Brinig and Allen, the authors of the report “These Boots are Made for Walking: Why Wives File for Divorce,” found that “who gets the children is by far the most important component in deciding who files for divorce, particularly when there is very little quarrel about property, as when the separation is long.” They found that to have or to be assured that they will get the children (and “child-support” payments) “the probability that she’d file increases to .69,” while “if the husband got custody, the probability that the wife files would decrease to .32.” (Table 7. How much do the numbers matter?)

In divorcing families with children, depending on locality, wives file for divorce in between 75 percent to 85 percent of the cases.

Note also the last statement under Item #10 in the list: “Also, the higher rate of women initiators is probably due to the fact that men are more likely to be “badly behaved.” Husbands, for example, are more likely than wives to have problems with drinking, drug abuse, and infidelity.”

That statement is pure speculation and not corroborated by any research nor by any citations of such research. The statement appears to be based on another myth, namely that women always tell the truth. That “truth” is largely debunked in the report by Brinig and Allen and in a variety of similar studies (e. g.: Divorced Dads : Shattering the Myths : The Surprising Truth About Fathers, Children, and Divorce (Hardcover - 288 pages (October 1998) J P Tarcher; ISBN: 087477862X ) Review).

For example, in the vast majority of cases wives file for divorce, and they file not because of adultery by their husbands or because they were being physically abused (the latter is theleast important reason of all stated by wives - alleged in only about six percent of the reasons given for divorce) but because they are bored with their marriages.

The myths and slander of men who are “badly behaved” and “are more likely than wives to have problems with drinking, drug abuse, and infidelity” are most likely founded in the myth that women don’t lie. However, even supposedly objective social researchers are not yet quite ready to examine the true circumstances of that reality. The impact of decades of incessant and all-pervasive indoctrination by feminists is often difficult and sometimes impossible to shed by those who are members of the captive audience of the feminist-controlled and -dominated education system.

Posted in Education, Media Bias, Divorce, Child-Custody Awards, Family, Feminist Jurisprudence | Print | 1 Comment »

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.

This is an interesting article, not so much because of another woman catching on to the damages that feminism caused and is causing to the relationships between the sexes, but because of how even women who catch n to that have a hard time casting off the stereotypes that feminism indoctrinated us with.

Detroit Free Press
28 March 2008

Feminism may go too far in girls vs. boys
By Holly Browne

I recognize that U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton has the ability and as much
right as any man to run for president. I firmly believe in equal pay for
equal work, and that women can do any job they set their minds to doing. I
grew up witnessing the many positive changes feminism has brought about -
including economic and political gains for women, as well as changes in the
way we live, dress, make a living and dream of a future.

But as I sat in the stands of my local indoor soccer facility, watching my
son’s under-12 boys team being physically abused by a girls team, I
couldn’t help but wonder if perhaps feminism has finally gone too far….

The article concludes with:

We are raising our boys to be men in a world that increasingly disrespects
men in a variety of venues. If we truly believe in equal rights, then we
women need to speak up and stop allowing TV programs, clothing, and even
children’s sports to get away with the male bashing that is going on. We
need to build up our boys instead of tearing them down. We need to teach
them how to be men. Men who are intelligent, sensitive and strong.

Men who know how to treat a lady….(Full Story)

It seems to me that  Holly Browne got it wrong.  Even though she is right, in as much that we need to build boys up, there is little use in building boys up to learn to be “men who know how to treat a lady”, if girls don’t learn how to be ladies.

However, as the saying goes, if a woman (or a girl) needs to be told what it means to be a lady, she isn’t one.  That is a lesson that the parents of girls Holly Browne is talking about need to learn, but feminism is getting in the way of that.

The teaching of Western Chivalry always was a one-sided affair.  There never was a female counterpart of that.  However, if there was, what was it called when it still existed?

Posted in Education, Men's Issues, Feminism, Women's Violence | Print | No Comments »

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 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 »

February 12, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

Telegraph.co.uk

The death of feminism at British universities

By Harry Mount

Quietly, without much fanfare, women’s studies has disappeared from British universities.

In the 70s, 80s and 90s, thousands of students across the country took the subject.

Over the last five years, numbers have dropped by 75 per cent and only 35 students are doing it this year. This summer, the last place offering the course, London Metropolitan University, is stopping women’s studies altogether…(Full Story)

______________
Fathers for Life:  Unfortunately, the trend indicating that women’s studies vanishes into oblivion is not quite as pronounced in the rest of the world and on the Internet.

Posted in Education, Men's Issues, Feminism | Print | No Comments »

January 8, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

The big list: Female teachers with students
Most comprehensive account on Internet of women predators on campus, by WorldNetDailyNews

Posted in Education, Family, Women's Violence | Print | No Comments »

January 6, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

Everyone must borrow money now or then.  If so, he should use a mortgage and loan calculator to help him make the right decisions.

Here is a link to the FOXbusiness mortgage calculator.

The FOXBusiness mortgage calculator requires Java to be enabled on your PC, but is very easy to use.

Amongst the things it can do for you, the FOXBusiness mortgage calculator lets you calculate by how much the term of your mortgage or loan will be reduced if you make an extra payment of any desired amount at any given time, or if you wish to increase the amount of your monthly loan payment.

Of course, none of that will matter if you like contributing to the record profits our banks are making each year, or if you don’t mind if your government is squandering the taxes you pay.

Isn’t it odd that many people complain about the ever-increasing taxes they must pay to the government, but that very few people ever mention the far higher interest payments they make to the banks?

I suppose that if governments were as adept at public relations work as the banks are, we could even get to like paying taxes.

Some people quit working or don’t work overtime because they wrongly feel that paying the taxes for that makes that work unprofitable.  The reality of that is that as long as one pays taxes he is making it worth-while for him to go to work.

On the other hand, few people will quit working because they must make interest payments to the banks.  I suppose that is because the possession of personal things (that are in reality owned by the banks for the duration of the loans the banks provided for them) is deemed to be more important than to enjoy the goods and services provided through the government out of our tax contributions — goods and services that we ostensibly own and get to share equitably.

–Walter

Posted in Men and Women Work, Education | 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 »