Praising gender inequity raises feminist ire

November 5, 2009 by Walter Schneider.

Student won’t be punished for satirical posters

A University of Alberta student [of women’s studies] whose satirical posters had him facing probation or expulsion learned Wednesday he won’t be punished after all.

Derek Warwick, a fourth-year women’s studies student, said the posters were supposed to be a humorous way to get people talking about comments from the university president about a decline in male enrolment. (Full Story and comments)

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

A “fare-well” of sorts

October 10, 2009 by Walter Schneider.

This blog entry is intended only for the serious reader and student of human history and evolution.  Do not bother to read the rest of this entry if you do not like reading or if you merely seek judicial solutions to the damages caused by your divorce and child-custody issues.

Almost three months have gone by since I last posted an entry to dads & things, the blog of the popular website of Fathers for Life. Related to that, I also reduced the frequency of postings to the mailing list of Fathers for Life.

To keep up the frequency of the postings and updates, at the levels to which people had become accustomed to, as well as staying on top of the hundreds of e-mail messages that arrived daily in our inbox, required between 16 to 20 hours of work each day. Obviously and ultimately, that was more than I could cope with.

Little harm is done by me not answering requests for help and information.  Virtually all of the answers I can give are available at the website of Fathers for Life.  Surely, anyone who seeks answers can find them at that website.  Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and so, as the home page of that website clearly states, is Fathers for Life.  No one expects to be led by the hand to explore Wikipedia….

If anyone wishes to get in touch with me, I still answer my telephone.  People frequently do get in touch by phone.  I gladly sit down at my PC to illustrate to them how to navigate the website of Fathers for Life, explaining to them over the phone which links to follow, while I also offer some common-sense advice to those who appear to be in need of it.

That sort of help is much more and better than what was available to me when I went through my separation and divorce, close to 35 years ago — when it took me about six months to find out that there was an organization in Edmonton that could or should have helped to provide some of the answers I sought but did not, even after I found it.

All of that does not mean that my life stopped.  I still seek answers.  The serious heart attack I experienced in February 2009 was a warning that I had to slow down.  I slowed down but did not entirely stop my efforts to find and understand the driving forces of the motivations for the planned destruction of the family within the context of the program for the re-engineering of humanity, of all of civilization, that is.

Quite some years ago, I posted an on-line edition of a book to Fathers for Life, The  Head of the Medusa. by Perseus.  The book was read by few fathers-rights activists, even then, and is being read by virtually no fathers-rights activists now. Yet, the book clearly identifies the forces that drive the planned destruction of the family within the context of the systematic re-engineering of humanity.

The Trinity of Humanicide — the destruction of the existing form of the human race — is formed by combining three such isms and let’s be honest, didn’t they all sound good when we first heard them? Let’s rip off the shining raiment and see what lies underneath.

• Environmentalism — the war between people and the planet.
• Multiculturalism — the war between the world and its component nations.
• Feminism — the war between the two component human genders.

Unmasked, we can see these three imposters for what they are. They are not a Trinity to bring us together at all. They are three weird sisters met to tear us apart and create disharmony and destruction.

Here we have a witches brew, an all encompassing global ‘ethic’ that is the most powerful mechanism for human destruction in the history of the world. Anyone who cannot see, or understand this — and that is the vast majority of us — must believe that the three components of this spell are basically benign, altruistic aims. But, we have been fooled into biting into a poisoned apple. That is the true heart of this terrible human catastrophe.

In our lack of vision and understanding, we have ourselves become components in the most toxic and most powerful force for evil that has ever been unleashed in the history of human existence.

– The Toxic Trinity of Humanicide, by Perseus

A few days ago I ran across a statement that, with very few words, sums up the fundamental, primary problem cause for what Perseus addressed in The  Head of the Medusa, “Communists are socialists who are in a hurry”.

Communism is socialism, but whether socialism is being put into place through a bloody revolution or through a slow death of a thousand cuts, once socialism is in place, whether its implementation took a hundred years or more or just a couple of years, it will have the nature of a centralized, totalitarian regime.

The Socialist Phenomenon, by Igor Shafarevich (English edition 1980, with a foreword by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, and now accessible in full and for free at the indicated link) is required reading.

I came across that book as a result of reading Solzhenitsyn’s 1978 Commencement Address at Harvard.  He stated in that,

….The mathematician Igor Shafarevich, a member of the Soviet Academy of Science, has written a brilliantly argued book entitled Socialism; this is a penetrating historical analysis demonstrating that socialism of any type and shade leads to a total destruction of the human spirit and to a leveling of mankind into death. Shafarevich’s book was published in France almost two years ago [1976, in Russian] and so far no one has been found to refute it.

Igor Shafarevich is a world-renowned mathematician.  I read substantial portions of his book [2008 12 02 — all of it by now], and I must fully agree with what Solzhenitsyn stated about it.

Solzhenitsyn did not mention feminism as a form of socialism, and neither did Shafarevich in his book, where feminism is not mentioned at all.  Perhaps neither author deemed it necessary to state the obvious, namely that socialism favours the female of the human species as much as anthills and beehives favour the females of their respective insect species.  That favoritism is illusory, as it means nothing more than that females do all of the work, and males serve only a single purpose, to diversify the gene pool….(Full Story: Search-engine censorship, socialism, ant hills and female supremacy)

The Socialist Phenomenon makes for chilling reading and is without a doubt true.  It is even more chilling to consider the extent of censorship that is at work in the West, given that it took a world-renowned mathematician during the existence of the former USSR to provide a clear and concise summary of the pertinent issues, while no one in the West, not even the Pope, did anything comparable.  (–The Communist Manifesto, by Walter Schneider)

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn explained in his 1978 commencement address at Harvard that The Socialist Phenomenon,

is a penetrating historical analysis demonstrating that socialism of any type and shade leads to a total destruction of the human spirit and to a leveling of mankind into death.

Yes, socialism does that and nothing else.  Igor Shafarevich hammers the point home by describing the four major aspects of socialism:

It would seem that socialist ideology has the ability to stamp widely separated or even historically unlinked socialist currents with indelible and stereotyped markings.

It seems to us quite legitimate to conclude that socialism does exist as a unified historical phenomenon. Its basic principles have been indicated above. They are:

• Abolition of private property.
• Abolition of the family.
• Abolition of religion.
• Equality, abolition of hierarchies in society.

The manifold embodiments of these principles are linked organically by a common spirit, by an identity of specific details and, frequently, by a clearly discernible overall thrust.

Our perspective on socialism takes into account only one of the dimensions in which this phenomenon unfolds. Socialism is not only an abstract ideological system but also the embodiment of that system in time and space. Therefore, having sketched in its outlines as an ideology, we now ought to be able to explain in what periods and within what civilization socialism arises, whether in the form of doctrine, popular movement or state structure. But here the answer turns out to be far less clear. While the ideology of socialism is sharply defined, the occurrence of socialism can hardly be linked to any definite time or civilization. If we consider the period in the history of mankind which followed the rise of the state as an institution, we find the manifestations of socialism, practically speaking, in all epochs and in all civilizations. It is possible, however, to identify epochs when socialist ideology manifests itself with particular intensity. This is usually at a turning point in history, a crisis such as the period of the Reformation or our own age. We could simply note that socialist states arise only in definite historical situations, or we could attempt to explain why it was that the socialist ideology appeared in virtually finished and complete form in Plato’s time. We shall return to these questions later. But in European history, we cannot point to a single period when socialist teachings were not extant in one form or another. It seems that socialism is a constant factor in human history, at least in the period following the rise of the state. Without attempting to evaluate it for the time being, we must recognize socialism as one of the most powerful and universal forces active in a field where history is played out.

Igor Shafarevich
The Socialist Phenomenon, p. 200

_________
See also: Abolition of the family (at Fathers for Life)

Above, I mentioned that Igor Shafarevich’s The Socialist Phenomenon does not once mention feminism as an outcome or expression of socialism, but neither does it mention environmentalism.  That brings me to the motivation for posting this commentary.

MUST READ: What happened to global warming?
By Paul Hudson, BBC Climate Correspondent

This headline may come as a bit of a surprise, so too might that fact that the warmest year recorded globally was not in 2008 or 2007, but in 1998.

But it is true. For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures.

And our climate models did not forecast it, even though man-made carbon dioxide, the gas thought [instead of “thought”, a better term would have been “falsely-alleged” –WHS] to be responsible for warming our planet, has continued to rise.

So what on Earth is going on?  ….

(Full Story)

And this:

From The Times (UK)
October 10, 2009
Power cuts forecast to hit UK in four years
Robin Pagnamenta, Energy Editor

Britain faces a return to 1970s-style power blackouts and disruption to its electricity supplies within four years, the energy regulator warned yesterday.

Ofgem raised the spectre of a return to the three-day week for British industry as the country scrambles to renovate its crumbling power infrastructure ahead of new EU pollution rules that will force the closure of a quarter of UK power stations by 2015….

(Full Story)

That is environmentalism gone insane, and so are comparable efforts, wherever they are being undertaken, such as in the case of the Alberta Government intending to spend billions of dollars for Carbon Capture and Sequestration while it cuts back on health-care spending for seniors and the disabled.  The reality of that sort of thing is that it is absolutely unnecessary, not only that but totally futile.  There is no way that a reduction of man-made CO2 emissions, emissions that constitute no more than 3.6% of the total CO2 content of the global atmosphere, will have a noticeable impact on climate trends.  The question is, what do power cuts and saving the globe have to do with the planned destruction of the family and with the abrogation of fathers rights?

Yes, I know.  A few fathers-rights activists asked me that question over the years, but, although I gave them the answer to that question, few of those who asked that question ever accepted my answer.  Well, if anyone still has a doubt as to whether environmentalism is part of the current program for implementing global socialism, consider how big a part of naziism environmentalism was.

Yes, naziism is a form of socialism.  The term nazi is a nickname for the name of the party that promoted that particular form of socialism, the National-Socialist German Workers Party (the acronym for the nazi party, NSDAP, stands for Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiter Partei, that is, the National-Socialist German Workers Party –WHS).  If you have any misgivings about the fact that environmentalism was strongly intertwined with Hitler’s National Socialism, read

The Nazi-Enviro Connection: Uekoetter’s “Green and Brown” (2009), at Environmentalism is Fascism, by William Walter Kay

Considering the global attempts under the auspices of the UN to implement international income and asset equalization between have- and have-not nations (true to the communist maxim, “from those who have to those in need”) at any cost, in the order of many trillions of dollars, the income and asset transfers from men to women in the name of women’s rights pale by comparison, and so does the accompanying extent of the human misery, suffering and deaths so created through the planned destruction of the family.

The third member of the Toxic Trinity of Humanicide, multiculturalism, will be covered in another commentary that I will, if time permits, post a few months or so from now.

For now, if we cannot stop the insanity of extremely expensive but totally futile, humanly and economically damaging efforts to implement climate control for the sake of environmentalism in the name of saving the globe, what makes anyone think that the ongoing planned destruction of the family can be stopped? The same organizations and ultra-wealthy individuals who fund and promote “climate control” also fund and control the planned destruction of the family, with the goal of reducing the world population to about 350 million to a billion people.  After all, they consider humanity to be a cancer on the face of the Earth.

If you have not yet caught on to the strong connection between environmentalism and feminism, then consider to what extent you, too, have become indoctrinated:

The function of propaganda does not lie in the scientific training of the individual, but in calling the masses’ attention to certain facts, processes, necessities, etc., whose significance is thus for the first time placed within their field of vision. …

All propaganda must be popular and its intellectual level must be adjusted to the most limited intelligence among those it is addressed to. Consequently, the greater the mass it is intended to reach, the lower its purely intellectual level will have to be. But if, as in propaganda for sticking out a war, the aim is to influence a whole people, we must avoid excessive intellectual demands on our public, and too much caution cannot be extended in this direction. …

The receptivity of the great masses is very limited, their intelligence is small, but their power of forgetting is enormous. In consequence of these facts, all effective propaganda must be limited to a very few points and must harp on these in slogans until the last member of the public understands what you want him to understand by your slogan….

The function of propaganda is, for example, not to weigh and ponder the rights of different people, but exclusively to emphasize the one right which it has set out to argue for. Its task is not to make an objective study of the truth, in so far as it favors the enemy, and then set it before the masses with academic fairness; its task is to serve our own right, always and unflinchingly.

—Hitler, Mein Kampf, Chapter VI

Walter Schneider

Posted in Social-Destruction Enterprise, Media Bias, Civil Rights, Religion, Economy, Education, Divorce, Propaganda Exposed, Feminism, Family, Men's Issues, The New World Order | Print | No Comments »

Roadkillradio.com

May 12, 2009 by Walter Schneider.

FYI,

Here is the chance you were always waiting for, a chance to have your say in public!

RoadkillRadio.com is worth listening to (Tuesdays, PST 7:30 to 9:30 p.m.) and even worth promoting.

Home Page: RoadkillRadio.com

Listen live:

Quoted from that web page:

NOTE: We only Broadcast “LIVE…” on Tuesdays, starting approximately 30 minutes before showtime! If its not Tuesday, you will not get a live stream. The archived shows however, will stream. All archived audio on the web site is of the MP3 file format.

Archived shows:

Archived Shows
All shows [a large and interesting list — WHS] are available for mp3 download

For example:

Download Show 8 Part Two

There will be time for some open-line then an eye-opening, in-depth discussion on Fathers Rights and the Rights of Children.  Vancouver lawyer and well-known advocate Carey Linde will be joining us to talk about this issue and parental alienation.  Are the courts getting it wrong?  (Note: The first third of that portion of the show deals with provincial politics in B.C..  Skip that to get to the interview with Carey Linde.  The discussion of fathers rights, feminist judicial bias, divorce issues such as parental alienation and much more is fascinating.  It is very important for anyone living in B.C. that the discussion contains a recommendation by Carey Linde to copy the results of the poll on shared parenting run by Saskatchewan MP Vellacotte and to forward that to the B.C. Attorney General — in view of the currently going-on revisions to family rights laws in B.C.. –WHS)

From the home page:

Important and Informative! Joins US!!

Broadcasting Live from Vancouver Canada
Unabashedly Canadian, BOLD, No Apologies!
Join Kari Simpson and Terry O’Neill as they expose and examine
the issues that affect your family, rights and liberties.

This Hard-Hitting current events online show dares to be
politically-incorrect and invites all those who have been silenced to be heard!!

May 12th 2009 - 7:30 p.m. - We ran out of time last week, so as promised you will hear a tape recording of a meeting (held on April 29, 2009) between RKR’s very own Kari Simpson, social workers and the parents of three children who are being “investigated” by these so-called child protection workers. Listen as social workers REFUSE to have the meeting taped for accuracy
(click here for an advanced listen part 1).

Then you will hear how they REFUSED to provide the findings of their investigation in writing!!!! (click hear for an advanced listen part 2)

For the rest of the show it is all about the BC Election!! Joining us in-studio will be pollster Glen Robbins from SceResearch and our own, politically in-the-know commentator Ron Gray. Former B.C. Premier Bill VanderZalm will be here and we will talk to candidates as their political fates are decided by BC VOTERS!!!!

We will be taking your calls and emails! This is a must listen… a must tell your friends and family to listen to… RoadKill Radio Rumble!

CALL IN: On-air telephone: (604) 525-4167

Important and Informative!

Your Calls, Your Thoughts, Your Opinions are welcome!

EMAIL THE SHOW LIVE: Roadkillradio@live.ca

WHERE: Listen live - http://www.roadkillradio.com

–Walter

http://fathersforlife.org
http://blog.fathersforlife.org

Posted in Social-Destruction Enterprise, Media Bias, Education, Paternal Rights, Civil Rights, Economy, Child Support, Judiciary, Divorce, Health, Feminist Jurisprudence, Feminism, Propaganda Exposed, Family, Gay issues, Men's Issues, Child-Custody Awards, The New World Order | Print | No Comments »

Barack Obama against the boys

March 16, 2009 by Walter Schneider.

WorldNetDaily

March 13, 2009

By Ilana Mercer

Unless there’s been a monstrous misunderstanding, the man is muddled, malevolent, or both.

Barack Obama has just signed “an Executive Order creating the White House Council on Women and Girls. The mission of the Council will be to provide a coordinated federal response to the challenges confronted by women and girls and to ensure that all Cabinet and Cabinet-level agencies consider how their policies and programs impact women and families.”

Under the rubric of this Council, feral, (mostly) female bureaucrats will “ensure that agencies across the federal government, not just a few offices, take into account the particular needs and concerns of women and girls. The Council will begin its work by asking each agency to analyze their current status and ensure that they are focused internally and externally on women.”

Barack, however, has it backward: It is boys, not girls, who lag behind – and have for decades….(Full Story)

Posted in Health, Education, Social-Destruction Enterprise, Men's Issues, Family, The New World Order, Propaganda Exposed, Feminism, Women's Violence | Print | No Comments »

A male feminist complains about lack of statistics at F4L

January 17, 2009 by Walter Schneider.

Adam McRae wrote:

Hello,

I stumbled upon your website while looking for a completely unrelated topic and was very curious as to your message. As a 25 year old male born and raised in Alberta, I was eager to see the message you would put forth to the world. After reading many articles and links on your site I was about to close the window when I realized that my conscience would not allow me to without first writing this email. Your absolutely disgusting misrepresentation and complete fabrication of facts underscores everything that is wrong with society. Your viewpoints are not only morally repulsive but they undermine any progress women have made in the past century while ignoring their continuing pain and struggle. Where are your graphs regarding pay scales or the official statistics on domestic violence or sexual abuse, a crime you claim to be gender equal when the evidence clearly shows that over 90% of sexual abuse is committed by a male (97% according to Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, 2003 & 90% in a study by Finkelhor in the US in 1994). Anytime the statistics are overwhelmingly against your viewpoint, you turn to the fringe of statistics and cite feminist cover ups or conspiracies. I, like any right minded individual, was aware of the gender inequalities that still exist in our society and thought of myself as someone who would always support equality. But after finding your website I have personally committed myself to become a loud, fierce and persistant voice towards the destruction of “organizations” and attitudes such as yours. I have felt many things in my life, but you have managed to make me ashamed to not only be an Albertan, a male but also a human being. I would like to thank you for adding another layer of purpose to my life.

I hope you stay true to your claim of reading all responses and read this as an intellectual challenge, not as an obligation that will simply be deleted.

Adam McRae

Hello Adam,

Good of you to write and to offer your opinions, but, wow, what strong language you use!

That you “stumbled upon” our website is not surprising.  It is a large and popular website that covers a large variety of topics.  Moreover, “stumbled upon your website” is a cliché that is literally never used by someone who is not a feminist or someone who agrees with what our website stands for.  Without exception, of those about 4,500 “stumblers” who wrote to us over the years and found our website a stumbling block, not one ever had to say anything good about Fathers for Life.  I am not surprised that you had nothing good to say.  The reason why I wrote back to you with such a lengthy response is that you distinguished yourself from all of the other 4,500 “stumblers.” You do stand out.  (More on that farther down)

“Stumblers” who wrote to us used to comprise about three percent of the incoming mail to Fathers for Life but lately, over the space of the last three years, their verbal eruptions dwindled down to next to nothing.  Yours is the very first message from a stumbler in 2009, but that is just a random accident and not the true measure of your uniqueness. (I will come to what it is.)

Of course I read your complaint, although at times it is hard to keep up with all of the mail that is coming in. Moreover, I read your comments even though you made totally unsubstantiated insinuations and predictions that I would not do so. To make such insinuations and predictions is a little childish and does not become a man, but then you appear to feel that a man you are not. However, because your complaint was so very unique, I posted it to dads & things.  After all, I would not write such a comment just to one individual without giving many others a chance to read it, too. It is of course befitting that they must have a chance to read what sparked my response, therefore, and because you are so unique, I posted both.  (I am a man of my word and will most certainly explain what makes you unique, as surely as I wrote back to you, and I will come to it soon.)

I am a man who wrote as a man, as a member of humanity. You wrote several times that you are a male.  Am I correct in assuming that you emphasized that bit of feminist-created terminology because you consider yourself to be a member of the animal kingdom? Still that is nothing special.  Many “new men” feel that way, especially if they posture to please their girlfriends.

What makes you unique is that you are the first individual, out of far more than 100,000 that wrote over the years, who complained about there being a lack of statistics at our website.  That is very fascinating.

You are somewhat misinformed (perhaps because you attended a women’s studies course or perhaps because you never had anyone but feminists teach you), but that is not due to the absence of statistics at our website, and I assume that you referred to http://fathersforlife.org, although you did not identify that or the web pages in which you found the statistics that offend you, nor did you identify the statistics that caused you to be obviously unhappy.  That is very unprofessional, tsk, tsk, tsk.  Did your teachers not tell you better?

I hate to take a guess at the sources of your misinterpretations and therefore will not.  Your specifications are far too vague, and our website is far too large (1000 web pages, not counting our blog), to permit anyone to come even remotely close to guessing correctly what it was that raised your ire.

It is curious that you complain about the absence of statistics at Fathers for Life, yet your complaint is about statistics you found at our website. The website search-facility you apparently failed to discover (you could not possibly have overlooked it if only you would have read the short home page of Fathers for Life) identifies references to statistics and even shows them on a very large number of our web pages.

However, when you allege “misrepresentation and complete fabrication of facts” as you come falling with the door into the house when you come knocking, you must do much better.  In essence, your accusations are slanderous and violate the reputation of the professionals whose statistics you label as misrepresentations and fabrications.  Misrepresentations and fabrications are what feminists do.  They are not something that reputable and self-respecting researchers engage in.  For your own good, given the fact that you know very little about the subjects you are too quick to judge, you lay yourself open to lawsuits for slander and quite possibly even libel.

It is good that our website woke you up a little and made you determined to become a “voice towards the destruction of “organizations” and attitudes such as” ours.  That your mind is made up about that will without a doubt ensure that you will be enlightened in more ways than you imagined to be even possible.  I look forward to seeing the evidence of your efforts to that extent and hope that you will make the results of those efforts available at the earliest opportunity.  Please, by all means, tell me when you are ready and go public with the results of your efforts.  I will then look up the source location.

By the way, you will most definitely benefit from the use of two tools we installed to help people who try to debunk feminist propaganda and bigotry.  Make sure to use the site-specific search-entry-field in the upper right-hand corner of virtually all of our web pages, and also explore dads & things, the blog affiliated with the website of Fathers for Life.  Our blog is almost as popular as our website is (its popularity has doubled during the last year), and blog entries relating to specific searches you will undertake will be included in the search-return list.  Using the search facility to find occurrences of “sexual abuse” will give you a long list of entries, and a search for “sexual child abuse” OR “child sexual abuse” will provide another fairly long list, while many of the pages you will find through those searches also contain many links to more in-depth studies on those subjects.

A search for pay equity will also prove to be very productive, and, interestingly, one of the reports on that issue, commissioned and published by StatCan, will provide you with more statistical tables, bar charts and graphs than you will probably like to read or are perhaps capable to comprehend if you can’t handle the mathematics.  That report (and a graph from it) is mentioned in the web page on “Pay equity for women doesn’t exist?“.  The conclusion of that StatCan report is that:

On page 27 of their study they say:

Do the models provide evidence of discrimination against women?

The models provide incontrovertible evidence that women interact differently with the labour market than men.  However, it would be very tenuous to conclude that the differences are due to widespread discrimination against women.  Keep in mind the four conditions introduced at the beginning of this section.

              The first two conditions ask the questions: “Are women rewarded differently than men?” and “Is the net effect of these differences negative for women?”.  In every model except one the answer to both of these questions is “Yes.”⁶, providing consistent evidence that female and male graduates interact differently with the labour market.  However, the third condition — a negative and significant intercept term — is met only for two of the 1988 university models for full-time workers.  But when the population is expanded to include all workers, women are estimated to earn higher wages all else being equal.  This was also the case for almost every other “All Earners” model.  Therefore, net of the effects captured by the model, women earned higher wages than men.  Chart 1 illustrates this point for 1992.

Isn’t that amazing?  Already in 1992 women had “pay equity” that exceeded what men earned.  You asked for it, and there it is, but don’t just take StatCan’s word for that, check “Pay equity for women doesn’t exist?” for what many other reputable sources and authorities have to say on the issue.

That, contrary to your false assertion that Fathers for Life contains no statistics that satisfy your requirements, Fathers for Life contains many and far more than you insisted it does should not surprise you.  We have been searching for and compiling such statistics for longer than before you went to Grade I, since before you were born.

Without a doubt, dads & things and the search facility I mentioned but that you obviously must have missed will open a whole new world of information to you that will give you plenty of targets you can attack with your so-far unsubstantiated rhetoric.

I should have closed with that, but on account of you being so fired up about setting perceived wrongs right, a little more needs to be said.  Before you respond or write back on any issue covered at our website and blog, be aware of not only our e-mail address but also of the information that the other links in the footer of each web page point to, especially the disclaimer.  I don’t like repeating myself, therefore make sure, please, to read that disclaimer.

One more thing in that respect: You violated virtually every rule for posting to our blog. I would be negligent if I did not tell you that those rules also apply to mail sent directly to me or to whomever the webmaster of our website happens to be.  You will benefit from reading those rules. That won’t take you long, they are short, and you will not be over-taxed. To that end, check About Dads & Things.

I must be fair.  Perhaps you did not read those rules in your head-long rush to slander the work of reputable social researchers.  I will allow that for now, but now that excuse is no longer valid.  Every time you break those rules is a strike, and after three strikes you are out. Conduct yourself accordingly.  This website and its blog are about the truth, not about fluff, and if that photo on Facebook is yours, then I hope I did not put any wrinkles into your crown.

Have a good life, make the best of it and keep it safe.  After all, the average life expectancy of Canadian men is only about 90 percent of what the average life expectancy of Canadian women is. Are you truly fighting for the right to die before their time?  That would not be extraordinary, but is it necessary?

Normally, slaves do not live longer than their masters, and men always volunteered to die for home and country; they do the sweaty, dirty, dangerous and deadly jobs, and the research funding for health issues that are specific to men is at best half of what is being spent on comparable research for women’s health issues.

Even amongst the newly “gender-equalized” armed forces in Afghanistan, the score is now in the order of about 120 soldiers and one soldierette who died.  It is slaves who die before their masters do, and life spans that are shorter than men’s are most definitely something that women never had to worry about.  The myth of the oppressed women is a femprop production.

Expand your horizons far beyond feminist indoctrination, read Feminism For Male College Students — A Short Guide to the Truth, by Angry Harry.  After you do that you will know what it is like to be a real man and be proud to call yourself one.  You will wonder why you ever called yourself a male.  Just perhaps, and only if you are sufficiently objective, a quality you presently do not appear to possess, you will be far angrier than you were when you wrote to us, but for much different reasons that you will be very glad to have learned about.

Regards,

Walter Schneider

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

Let the children play

December 20, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

Ottawa Citizen

2008 12 19

Let the children play

By David Warren

….A girl was witnessed sneaking up on a boy and trying to shove a dead crab down his trousers. The author’s rather insulated daughter asked him why the girl had done that. “Because she likes him,” was his knowing adult reply. I would comment that we have adults today, teaching in our schools, who are just as insulated as Mr. Keltner’s daughter, and perhaps even more puzzled about the behaviour of their charges. I know this because I have met a number, both male and female — the products of grim feminist indoctrination….(Full Story)
_______________
F4L: David Warren’s article contains a comment that I found especially interesting:

“On the main theme, there is a book by Johan Huizinga, entitled Homo Ludens (1938; literally, “man the player,” but really untranslatable from Latin), greater I think even than his acknowledged masterpiece, The Waning of the Middle Ages.

In this book, the magnificent Dutch historian and linguist shows that play is not merely an element in human societies, but essential to them; that human cultures are themselves largely products of many forms of play. “Civilization is, in its earliest phases, played. It does not come from play like a babe detaching itself from the womb: it arises in and as play, and never leaves it.”

From our observations in raising sheep (the source of income and goal of our farming operation for many years), play is even important for sheep (and of course for many other animals as well).

During the springtime, when lambing came to an end, and when the lambs and their mothers had been put together with our whole flock of sheep, it was a very enjoyable sight to see all of the lambs playing in the evening, around sunset.  They would run and surge like a river from end of the yard to the other, oblivious to anyone like me standing in the yard, while their mothers were happily munching the feed we had just laid out for them.

We learned quite a bit about the similarities of sheep and humans over the years, and not just about the similarities of their playful behaviour.  I summarized some of what we learned in Of Sheep and People — and of my e-mail address.

Posted in Civil Rights, Education, Family, Feminism, The New World Order | Print | No Comments »

Daycare harmful to children, families and society

December 17, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

Thanks to Roger Eldridge, Ireland

From: “poppavox” <poppavox@yahoo.com>

“Clintons initiative of replacing family with daycare.”

Preschool Damages Children’s Social Skills and Emotional Development

By Terry Vanderheyden

November 10, 2005

BERKELEY, California, November 10, 2005 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Preschool has a negative effect on a child’s social and emotional development, according to a study of 14,000 US preschool children.

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2005/nov/05111001.html

————

What Can We Learn from Quebec’s Universal Childcare Program?

By Michael Baker, Jonathan Gruber and Kevin Milligan

February 1, 2006

Several measures we looked at suggest that children were worse off in the years following the introduction of the universal childcare program. We studied a wide range of measures of child well-being, from anxiety and hyperactivity to social and motor skills. For almost every measure, we find that the increased use of childcare was associated with a decrease in their well-being relative to other children.

Furthermore, we find that several important measures of well-being show parents to be worse off. The survey data showed that mothers of the children in daycare were more depressed, as indicated by the significant rise in their depression scores relative to the average.

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2006_docs/daycarestudy.pdf

———————

Study Shows Canada’s Universal Daycare Plan Has “Strikingly Negative” Consequences

TORONTO, February 2, 2006 

In summary, the findings revealed that children in daycare were 17 times more hostile than children raised at home, and almost three times more anxious. 

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2006/feb/06020205.html

————————-

Largest US Child Study Finds Early Child Care Linked to Aggression and Disobedience

Results proved true regardless of quality of center-based care they received

WASHINGTON, March 26, 2007

Teachers reported more frequent problem behaviours such as: child demands a lot of attention; argues a lot; bragging and boasting; cruelty, bullying or meanness to others; destroys things belonging to others; disobedient at school; gets into many fights; lying or cheating; screams a lot. 

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/mar/07032607.html

——————-

UNICEF: Daycare is “A high-stakes gamble with today’s children and tomorrow’s world”

By Thaddeus M. Baklinski

December 16, 2008

A study released in 2006 of universal daycare as currently offered in Quebec revealed that children in daycare were 17 times more hostile than children raised at home, and almost three times more anxious.

Preschool Damages Children’s Social Skills and Emotional Development

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/dec/08121603.html

—————

Posted to;

http://www.garth.ca/weblog/2008/12/17/the-chameleon/#comment-189620

***
Study Links Child Aggression to Time in Day Care

SALT LAKE CITY, August 21, 2003

The aggression study is by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, and found 17% of daycare children more aggressive, disobedient and more engaged in conflict, regardless of family background, quality or type of care and temperament.

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2003/aug/03082108.html

_________________
F4L: None of those are nice scenarios, but we can be sure that the promoters of daycare to bring about the planned destruction of the family will rationalize all of those problems away.  They have their minds firmly made up.  Facts will not confuse them.

Why the all-out promotion of daycare?  Well, there is money to be made, all the more so if the way it is to be made is by diktat of the government, but that is not the main reason.  The main reason is firmly rooted in socialist ideology and driven by it.

• Plato, in Republic, has Socrates offer this advice to philosopher kings:     Take all the children from their parents and rid the city of adults.
• Who owns the youths controls the future. — Slogan used by Napoleon and also by the founders of the Wandervogel (”bird of passage”, the enormously popular youth movement that began in about 1880 in Germany and produced many of the prominent — and often homosexual — Nazi leaders)
• Give me your 4-year-olds, and within one generation I’ll construct a socialist state. — Lenin
• [The State] must set race in the center of all life. It must take care to keep it pure. It must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. It must  see to it that only the healthy beget children…. — Hitler, in Mein Kampf
• First they came for the fathers, then for the mothers, and now for both parents in intact families.  In the end all children will be in the care, custody and control of the State. — Walter H. Schneider

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

Re: Fatherlessness

December 16, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

Hello Pete,

My comments are between the lines of your message.

You wrote:

Greetings,

I looked all over your website and I see that your organization is based in Canada, however I still have a couple questions. Why do you use the words fatherless and fatherlessness when talking about disadvantaged children?

The reason why you don’t find the expression “disadvantaged children” at our website instead of the terms “fatherless children” and “fatherlessness” is because children who grow up with their fathers having been expunged from their lives do grow up fatherless while their fathers are still alive.  That then causes the consequence that those children are disadvantaged; with fatherlessness being a problem cause, and with the many disadvantages stemming from that being problem symptoms.

No problem has ever been solved satisfactorily without eradicating its causes.  Only someone with an agenda he wishes to promote and perpetuate would hide a clear problem cause by using a euphemism that points at the symptoms of a problem cause and neglect to mention the cause of the symptoms.

Why would anyone wish to keep on putting Band-Aids on problem symptoms instead of eradicating the cause of those symptoms?

Fatherless has always meant that the child’s father was dead or missing.

Children whose fathers are dead have a less difficult time coping with their loss.  In such cases it is unusual that the mothers of those children feel compelled to slander the children’s fathers, thereby to deprecate half of their genetic heritage.  Still, we know some women who run even the fathers down that literally dropped dead from working too hard in trying to provide for and to protect their families.

A child’s father could be missing for a great many reasons, usually not because the father absconded but more likely because he was expunged from the child’s life.  Death of a family member is final, divorce isn’t, it is a death of a thousand cuts, especially for children of divorced parents but most of all for divorced, fatherless children.

In the vast majority of the cases of disadvantaged children the mothers and or the government know who and where the fathers are because they’re after them for child support.

You are preaching to the choir and are pointing out the obvious.  Nevertheless, children whose fathers are still alive but who nevertheless grow up fatherless have a handicap from which they will suffer for the rest of their lives, long into adulthood.  They are truly disadvantaged, but, besides fatherlessness, there can be many other reasons why children can be disadvantaged.

And if you read any sociology book that was written in the last 40 years or more from the library or even junior college they never use the term fatherless, it’s alway been disadvantaged.

Yes, sociologists and other social engineers have a vocabulary of their own.  Our language is being changed by them to reflect and further their agenda for social engineering that intends to eliminate many of our social institutions and moral standards.

Are you a sociologist or a social worker?

If a child applies to any public college or university in the United States he/she is asked if they come from a single mother home so they can apply under affirmative action.

Is that a good thing?  Will that fully compensate those children for the loss of their fathers from their lives?

You may want to read some of the references at Fathers for Life to the research work done by Judith Wallerstein on that.  She has done the longest-running longitudinal study on the fatherlessness of children of divorce undertaken by anyone.

Something I read on your website said the divorce trend is enabled by the welfare system.

That is true, and so is that claim.  In states in which it had been made difficult for divorced mothers to obtain welfare, the divorce rate fell substantially.

This is another myth created by feminists.

Can you corroborate that assertion with any citations?

The divorce industry was started before the turn of the century after feminists demanded for decades that women get custody of their children in divorce. By 1916 divorce increased by 1400 percent and mother custody had become normal practice of judges.

What is your reference for the 1,400 percent increase in the divorce rate by 1916 (compared to which time frame and in which country)?

Your assertion does not hold true for many developed nations, and I have a hard time believing that it holds true for the U.S.

It was not until the “liberation” of divorce laws in the late 1960s and early 1970s that the regular court system found it was unable to cope with the backlog of divorce applications.  That was the reason for creating the family court system.  That system enabled the judiciary to cope with the consequences of the enormously increased consequences of divorce applications.

Of course, it was not practical to merely shift divorce processes from one sector of the judiciary to another and to leave all of the existing procedures intact.  The notable differences that enabled the family court system to expedite the dissolution of marriages were, for example, to simplify the rules of the court, the rules of evidence and jury trials.  Family courts even eliminated the right to face one’s accuser and to be present at one’s own trial.

Which in turn caused thousands of children to become disadvantaged, year after year.

Right, but children were not disadvantaged just because the courts robbed them of their fathers.  The escalating divorce rates created massive numbers of children that were disadvantaged because of court-enforced fatherlessness.  That was in addition to the number of children who had become disadvantaged for many other reasons.

Welfare wasn’t created by the government for another 30-40 years later.

Welfare always existed, for as long as civilization did (e. g.: poor houses and alms).  I have not been around for as long as civilization has been, but in my childhood, which began in 1936, welfare was already in existence, long before you claim it was created by government. However, it was not as freely available and as generously handed out as it was when it became for all intents and purposes an entitlement. It was also not such a big tax burden as it is now.  (It was also called “welfare”, not social assistance or any other thing.)  By making it freely available, especially to women, and by removing all social stigmata associated with it, Father State assumed the role of fathers as teachers, providers and protectors of their children.

Welfare should begin at home and not be used to replace fathers.  There is another, related issue that began to be of concern long before the all-out systematic destruction of families.  That was the creation of government “sponsored” pension plans.  Pension plans eliminated the need for families to have children.  In many under-developed nations children in families are virtually the only effective social safety net for the elderly.  Nevertheless, that topic is a different one and falls into another area of taxation.

Do you consider your organization as conservative or moderately conservative feminists?  The reason I ask is no where on your site do you oppose judges giving custody to mothers.

Thank you,

Pete

You have not read all of our website.  The lack of evidence you perceive is not proof of the absence of evidence.  You merely limited your search terms and thereby prevented yourself from finding what you are looking for.  You could, for example, look for the planned destruction of the family or for social engineering or for war against the family.

You would be well served if you were to read our home page.  That will not take much time, as the home page is fairly short.  That will give you tips on how to navigate the website of Fathers for Life.  For example, it would bring you to the main table of contents and especially to the ToCs on Law, Justice and the Judiciary and on Fathers, Fatherhood and Fatherhood Issues.

By reading the home page you would also have been motivated not to ask that last question of yours.

With respect to your last question (there is a ToC on Feminism that you obviously overlooked in your eagerness to express your criticism), I would like to ask you whether you constructed and run a website that contains the sort of information you feel is missing from ours.

If you have information that falls within the scope of fathers- and family issues that is presented at a website of yours, please provide pointers to it, so that we can determine whether we should link to it.  If we were to make our website to look like yours, we would surely be duplicating efforts.  Why should we do that?

Regards,

Walter Schneider
http://fathersforlife.org
http://blog.fathersforlife.org

Posted in Education, Social-Destruction Enterprise, Paternal Rights, Civil Rights, Divorce, Health, Feminism, Family, Child-Custody Awards, Men's Issues, Propaganda Exposed | Print | 6 Comments »

International Men’s Day

December 8, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

It is too late now to celebrate International Men’s Day (IMD) in 2008, on Nov. 19, but it is not too late to get ready to celebrate it in 2009.

This year the Australian organization Dads 4 Kids joined Save Indian Family in promoting IMD. It appears that IMD has not yet been declared to be officially recognized by any country in the world. However, some men’s- and fathers rights organizations throughout the world are working hard to get that done.

There is a video of an announcement by Warwick Marsh of Dads 4 Kids, Australia, urging organizations and anyone throughout the world to become involved in joining and promoting the celebration of IMD. I found that video at http://www.internationalmensday.com/, a website that is owned by Warwick Marsh. (Here is a comparable 2007 statement by Save Indian Family, on YouTube.)

Warwick Marsh explains that the day for celebrating IMD, Nov. 19, is fortuitous, as that day is also the day of remembrance of the sinking of the HMAS Sydney.The HMAS Sydney, a light cruiser of the Royal Australian Navy (RAN)), sank on Nov. 19, 1941, “with the loss of all 645 hands, which represented the greatest loss of life in an Australian warship, and the largest Allied vessel to sink with all hands during the war.” (Source: Wikipedia)

Therefore it may be a good reason for Australians to celebrate IMD on Nov. 19. However, internationally, the date is not yet quite fixed.

The sinking of ships is rare. Voluntary sacrifices by men are far more common. It is the nature of men to sacrifice their lives to save women and children or — far more common yet — to die to merely keep women and children safe and comfortable. Still, it may be appropriate that, in celebrating IMD, a date should be chosen to commemorate a single instant of voluntary sacrifices in massive numbers made by men during the sinking of a ship. The sinking of the Titanic comes to mind, 1912 04 15, at 02:20 hrs.

The behaviour of the men on the Titanic is an example of what men do when the lives of women and children are in danger. In such circumstances, even in peace times, men eagerly and without much hesitation selflessly and voluntarily sacrifice their lives to save those of women and children. Moreover, the sinking of the Titanic has less of a national and more of an international nature of men’s magnanimity in saving women and children.

Women and children are not usually present on ships of war, as it would be uncharacteristic of men to demand that women and children risk their lives in the service of others to the same extent men do that. The deaths of the men on the HMAS Sydney were due to enemy action (the enemy in that case being comprised of German sailors who killed Australian sailors). The sinking of the Titanic had nothing to do with war, winners or losers.

In the sinking of the Titanic, 1,352 men, 96 women and four children lost their lives; 338 men, 316 women and 57 children were saved. (The Men of the Titanic Disaster)

The circumstances and current status of International Men’s Day in various nations were once well explained at Wikipedia (here is a ghost of that, the archived Feb. 27, 2008 entry of the definition), but now no longer so. World-wide, and if all men wish to say “me too”, then great efforts should be made by many men to have that day of celebration, so many decades after the world’s women got their International Women’s Day. How are men to do that? At Wikipedia, no man but men like Michael Flood, a manhater, gets permanent attention.

Feminism is socialism’s primary tool for re-engineering humanity and civilization. There are many forms and varieties of feminism, but the unifying thread that runs through virtually all of them is that when one examines their ideological roots, one always arrives back at the “gospel” according to Marx and Engels and their primary object of attention, the Status of Women. Marx and Engels were the first to popularize the term “status of women”. Ever since then, self-respecting feminists, especially of the Marxist or radical or socialist variety, religiously adhered to and promoted any and all dogmata pertaining to the well-being of the Status of Women.

Mothers Day wasn’t good enough for the feminists. They needed not only a day to celebrate women with children, they needed in addition to celebrate women, whether those women had children or not. They needed the worship of the uterus. Therefore it should not surprise anyone that International Women’s Day began like this:

Started as a political event, the holiday blended in the culture of many countries (primarily Russia and the countries of [the]former Soviet bloc). In some celebrations, the day lost its political flavour, and became simply an occasion for men to express their love to the women around them in a way somewhat similar to Mother’s Day and St Valentine’s Day mixed together. In others, however, the political and human rights theme as designated by the United Nations runs strong, and political and social awareness of the struggles of women worldwide are brought out and examined in a hopeful manner.

The IWD is also celebrated as the first spring holiday, as in the listed countries the first day of March is considered the first day of the spring season….

The first IWD was observed on 28 February 1909 in the United States following a declaration by the Socialist Party of America.

(Source: Wikipedia)

Now, we all know what has happened since then. To elevate someone to a pedestal causes discrimination. In the case of IWD, the discrimination became a war against men and the traditional nuclear family, and that is exactly what the socialists wanted, to cause dissent between the sexes and to create a rift between them. That rift already existed in the early 20th century and steadily deepened ever since, but a rift is not all. From the chivalry of the Victorian Age and its voluntary serfdom to women, men were made to jump into the mandatory slavery demanded by feminists and their fellow travellers.

Men’s average life expectancy, after being about the same as that of women in the developed nations at the beginning of the 20th century, fell more and more behind that of women. Now it is on average five years less than that of women, and as much as close to 14 years behind that of women in some of the developed nations, depending on for how long and how severely socialism has been at work in a given nation.

So, there is no doubt in my mind that International Women’s Day, given its origin as a political event (that was and still is its purpose), has done men a lot of harm and grief but not only men. Married women and their children who stick by their men and fathers suffer as well, as do even more so the vast majority of those who were enticed by easy divorces that followed and their children. Divorced women and their children wanted it all, and unless they went through a succession of new “husbands”, found instead that they had to do it all. It seems to me that the celebration of women on International Women’s day is not truly that but a wake for the traditional nuclear family.

Do men now want to fight back by having the governments of the world launch a day of celebration that will have a comparable impact on women, their husbands and fathers of their children? Is that why men now say, “me too”?

The reality of it all is that for good reasons no two legal-aid lawyers work on opposite sides of the same divorce or child custody case. For similar reasons it causes all governments problems to elevate women and men onto pedestals. If money and efforts are to be wasted, let the women do it — quite a few of them are good at it, as many a man can tell, especially those who were expunged from their families and need to pay child-support extortion (a.k.a. alimony in disguise) for their “right” to have been robbed of their children.

Such days of celebration don’t produce the results that the masses are made to expect, but they serve the politicians and the bureaucracy well, in as much that anything of that nature that the government gets its finger into, to promote and control, gets invariably fouled up (and that always being good for an expansion of the bureaucracy). That is what caused the fall of the Roman Empire, and it most certainly is causing our fall right now.

Instead of having government-sponsored and -promoted days of celebrating one or the other sex, let’s have more power for parents and more of the teaching of respect for them in school and at home, as well as the teaching of mutual respect between the sexes. Government-sponsored days of tax-payer-funded celebrations for one sex or the other won’t create even once a year for one day what we need to have all year around. What the government makes a duty will soon be perceived to be a chore by many who will not ever get to see it as their obligation.

Posted in Media Bias, Men and Women Work, Organizational News, Paternal Rights, Civil Rights, Censorship, Education, Family, Feminism, Men's Issues, Health, Divorce, Propaganda Exposed | Print | No Comments »

Social worker unlawfully harassed home-school family

November 18, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

Home-school family harassed by social worker
OneNewsNow - 11/18/2008 6:00:00 AM

A home school legal advocate is disturbed by the recent actions of a social worker in Florida.

According to Kris Klicka of the Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA), a social worker in Miami, Florida, overstepped the boundary of law when she demanded to interview a home schooler’s children. He says the social worker showed up at the family’s home when the father was at work — and out of fear and intimidation, the mother let the social worker into the home to interview her children, even though the worker neither had a warrant nor would disclose why she was there.

The social worker — according to HSLDA — then partially stripped the children and searched them, but found nothing….(Full Story)

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