September 28, 2011 by Walter Schneider.

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

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

Here is a bit of background to the case.

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

Comments:

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

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

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

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

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

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

August 3, 2011 by Walter Schneider.

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

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

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

Men’s Issues

www.youtube.com

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

Posted in Paternal Rights, Social-Destruction Enterprise, Suicides, Media Bias, Civil Rights, Judiciary, Single-Parent, Marriage, Books & Films, Men and Women Work, Abortion, Feminism, Propaganda Exposed, Child Abduction, Feminist Jurisprudence, Child-Custody Awards, Divorce, Health, Men's Issues, Paternity Fraud | Print | No Comments »

July 18, 2011 by Walter Schneider.

Daily Telegraph
Attention: Christopher Booker

Re: Child protection system tears two more families apart, by Christopher Booker, 16 Jul 2011
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/family/8642651/Child-protection-system-tears-two-more-families-apart.html

The latest official figures show that the number of children being taken into care by social workers (now averaging more than 800 a month) has soared in the past two years by 41 per cent, to its highest ever level. In many of these cases, it seems that children are torn from their parents for no good reason, to such an extent that this has become one of the most disturbing scandals in our country today.

I read the article again, and it still bothers me. I have a lot of respect for Christopher Booker, the journalist who wrote it. Nevertheless, he is not an objective observer.

It is obvious that Christopher Booker cannot liberate himself from the father-hostile bias that decades of feminist indoctrination and strict adherence to the western chivalry code instilled in many but especially in many journalists whose expressions are constrained and formed by feminist censorship of the media organizations they write for.

The photo accompanying the article shows a mother and child, thereby invoking a subconscious image of the Madonna and Child. That is a deliberate choice, probably an editorial decision.

The article mentions the word “mother” 13 times, the word “father” only once (but only “the father of her youngest child”, not the father or fathers of the older two children of the mother), the word “family” (or families) twice, once in the heading and once in the text of the article, and the word “parents” four times.

The impression that leaves, of course, is that fathers don’t matter, that mothers do, that it is deplorable that the government should dare to violate the bond between a mother and child, and that the paternal feelings of fathers don’t matter, that fathers matter so little that they don’t even need to be mentioned.

Things get no better in the article in relation to what constitutes a family. A family only needs a mother and her child. That completes the Madonna-and-Child image. To introduce fathers into that sacred icon would spoil things, wouldn’t it now? It would diminish the appeal to the emotions over the pain of the mothers the article discusses and downplay their struggle against the excessive totalitarian force exercised against the mothers.

Sorry, Christopher Booker, as objective as you may feel you are, the feminist slip that very much influences your thinking and the way you express yourself is showing. If you don’t believe me, just check a few more of the articles you wrote on family issues. They are more akin to promoting a Madonna cult than objective commentaries that do justice to both sexes. I wonder why you do it; did you ever wonder about that? Did you ever feel the pain of having a child ripped from you? Believe me, if you were a father having that done to you, it would hurt very much, and it would matter not a whit whether it had been done by the government, the mother of the child or both in collusion.

One more thing, in relation to the observation in the article “that children are torn from their parents for no good reason, to such an extent that this has become one of the most disturbing scandals in our country today.” Don’t you find it odd that ever since the divorce epidemic began, children have been ripped from their fathers “on the flimsiest pretexts” and often with no excuses at all, and that that never raised the slightest concern with many, let alone apprehension that it might be scandalous?

Sincerely,

Walter Schneider

Posted in Judiciary, Civil Rights, Violence by Proxy, Child Abuse, Single-Parent, Marriage, Paternal Rights, Social-Destruction Enterprise, Feminist Jurisprudence, The New World Order, Divorce, Censorship, Media Bias, Women's Violence | Print | No Comments »

November 17, 2010 by Walter Schneider.

Huffington Post
16 November 2010

The New Stigma - Children of Divorce Are No Longer Stigmatized, Until They Start Dating
By Elizabeth Marquardt

A young man says, “When I go out with a woman I can always tell on the
first date if she’s from a divorced family. The women from divorced
families are over-anxious, eager to please. They’re exhausting.”

A young woman says, “My parents have been married thirty-five years and I
want a long marriage like they’ve had. I love my boyfriend, but he’s from a
divorced family and, I don’t know, it just seems like he had to be a lot
more independent growing up than I ever was. Frankly, it worries me.”….(Full Story)

Posted in Marriage, Divorce | Print | No Comments »

November 13, 2010 by Walter Schneider.

It seems that Brittany, who sent the comments shown farther down, has very strong opinions on the merits of marriage or lack thereof.  She sent a follow-up comment after I wrote back to her, and she may have more to say, for that reason I began two new categories, so that she will have a place to post her comments.

Brittany began by commenting on a few different subjects covered at the website of Fathers for Life, without pointing to specific quotes on particular web pages that her comments pertained to.  Such comments cannot be answered properly, but it was her first time she wrote to F4L, and she probably did not know any better.   Here is what she wrote:

I agree with most of what you are saying but women have made some gains since the 1960’s. If a woman wants to be a scientist or a doctor it is much easier for her to do so. Not evrything since the last 50 years have ven been bad. I do agree with you about abortion but not really about birth control. Yes abstinence is ideal and it is the best but will teens stop having sex? Things were not as squeaky clean in the old days as people think. There was more premarital sex than people admitted to. A lot of people just got married afterwards especially if a female was pregnant.

http://www.norc.org/nr/rdonlyres/2663f09f-2e74-436e-ac81-6ffbf288e183/0/americansexualbehavior2006.pdf You should see the information around page 25. Women who were unwed mothers were shunned and judged even if they had sex with only one guy or even one time. Please look at The Girls Who Went Away on Google Books. I recommend trying to find this book at the library. The double standard was huge. Boys were not condemned if they had sex or got somebody pregnant. My grandmother was one of the girls who had to get married so the only difference between her and those girls was that my grandmother had a wedding.

I responded to Brittany:

 Hello Brittany,

Surely you would like others to read what you have to say.  So, rather than telling your thoughts just to me, in private and hidden from public view, why don’t you post your comments at Dads & Things, the blog affiliated with our website?

In that fashion you can pick a specific topic of interest, select a given posting, and comment on it.

That will make it easier to respond to you, as long as you make it possible to respond by sticking to specific topics of interest, rather than to express generalities.  Do not try to read all of the website of Fathers for Life; it is far too large for that.  Rather, when you respond to something, quote what got your attention and show the URL at which you found it.

Still, to comment on your observation regarding your grandmother, as in “…so the only difference between her and those girls was that my grandmother had a wedding,” you overlook or downplay important aspects.

Your perception is quite incorrect, as to what you imply.  The absence of an important difference is not what you think it is.  Your grandmother made sure to marry the man who had helped her to conceive, whereby she was then also able to provide a stable home for herself, that child and others that were perhaps to follow, and for the father of those children, for whom all he was without a doubt the designated provider.

The important difference between that and having children out of wedlock is that she committed herself to marital fidelity, while her contemporaries were able to continue the pursuit of promiscuity (if they so wanted) and to let their children be raised as full- or semi-orphans, fatherless and often in squalor, as Father State was then not quite as ready and eager to jump into the breach left by expunged fathers.

The most important difference of all was that your grandmother was not a slut.

Brittany, if you wish to respond to that, it will have to be done at Dads & Things.

–Walter

The PDF file Brittany referred contains a very large report.  Even though Brittany made a vague reference to one general location in the report (”You should see the information around page 25.”), that does not permit to make specific comments, as that could mean, for example, everything contained on pages 24 to 26 or perhaps in an even larger portion of the report.

Furthermore, she did not identify whether the report had ever been published in the peer-reviewed literature, not even whether it had ever been published in any professional journal at all.

Just in quickly browsing through the report I found a few statements that make me wonder how objective the whole report is.  For instance, as reported under “Premarital and Adolescent Sexual Activity” (p. 3), how can it be that men more likely than women have premarital intercourse.  Whom do those men have sexual intercourse with, married women, men, animals?  They surely cannot, according to the report, have sexual intercourse with women who have premarital intercourse, because those women are claimed to have premarital intercourse far less frequently than men do.

What the report states on that page is a statistical impossibility.  Given that only around 2 percent of men engage at some time in same-sex intercourse, it follows that the vast majority of premarital intercourse involves men and women to equal proportions.  It follows that either men are braggarts about their promiscuity and lie about their feats of sexual conquests, or women lie about being chaste.  It so happens that some research has been done on that.  The experiments run during those studies showed that women are more likely to lie about being chaste than men are likely to lie about their sexual conquests.

The study results showed a more reasonable conclusion, namely that men and women engage in sexual intercourse equally often.  That makes sense, whereas the report cited by Brittany appears to be very questionable in that respect.  (See: Adultery is not abuse, and women don’t lie?)

The reason for the discrepancy in the numbers of sexual partners by either sex stems from the eagerness with which researchers who produce reports such as “American Sexual Behavior: Trends, Socio-Demographic Differences, and Risk Behavior”, by Tom W. Smith et al. swallow assertions by female study subjects without valid scientific substantiation.

Brittany had one more thing to say and did not quite know where to post it.  Here it is:

I know in this day in age there are women who want to be single mothers but sometimes the man leaves. In the case of many women like my grandma who had a shotgun wedding the man could have easily left. Some women were just unlucky.

Well, Brittany, bad luck just runs both ways.  That is because of the laws of averages.  Probabilities work against both sexes, and women are not more more stupid than men are.

Nevertheless, women have a way to influence their “luck”.  Divorces are filed in about two out of three cases by women.  Once children are present, they provide additional incentives for women to file for divorce, which they then do in three out of four cases, and they “win” child custody in most cases.

That is not due to luck.  It is due to biased court systems.  Those hardly ever fail to let women walk away with kids, car, cash and castle, leaving the man holding the empty bag and having the obligation to pay for the lifestyle the woman has become accustomed to during the marriage from which she removed the inconvenience of her husband and father of “her” children with the help of the courts.

Posted in Single-Parent, Marriage, Family, Feminist Jurisprudence, Propaganda Exposed | Print | 10 Comments »