May 28, 2011 by Walter Schneider.

Orphans in the USSR

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

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

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

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

That had unintended consequences in the USSR, under Lenin.

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

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

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

Igor Shafarevich states in “The Socialist Phenomenon”:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

— Rebecca O’Neill

Posted in Social-Destruction Enterprise, Civil Rights, Books & Films, Child Abuse, Abortion, Health, Feminism, Family, Child Murder, The New World Order | Print | No Comments »

May 27, 2011 by Walter Schneider.

It puzzles me why Teri C. Stoddard from SAVE insists that we should thank Dr.Phil for running a show on domestic violence against men when that show derives entertainment value by showing battered men as whining idiots and demeans them.

Thank Dr. Phil for “Angry Women, Scared Husbands”

Today, Dr. Phil ran a show on Angry Women, Scared Husbands. Below is the show description from his website — http://drphil.com/   Angry Women, Scared Husbands   You may know that one in four women will become a victim of domestic violence, but did you know that one in nine men will too? Violence against men is rarely talked about and under-reported. Dr. Phil continues his campaign to end the silence on domestic violence with two couples willing to open up about their abusive relationships. Steve says his wife, Monica, punches him and recently pushed him down a flight of stairs. He says he’s not only afraid of her abuse, he’s afraid of how he may retaliate in the heat of anger. The couple has nine children between them — two of whom are severely disabled — and they’re worried about the effect their explosive arguments have on their kids. Then, Charlie worries she’ll get so angry at her new husband, Gary, that she’ll lash out and inadvertently kill him. Gary says that everything he does makes his wife mad, and he just can’t win. Can these women learn to control their tempers and before something tragic happens? Learn more about Dr. Phil’s End the Silence on Domestic Violence campaign and pledge to become a silence breaker!   Please send Dr. Phil an email TODAY to thank him for courageously covering this important topic:

SAVE for Victims and Survivors

Teri Stoddard asserts that the Dr. Phil website states, “You may know that one in four women will become a victim of domestic violence, but did you know that one in nine men will too? Violence against men is rarely talked about and under-reported.” (Original source: http://www.drphil.com/shows/show/1661 )

I see no reason why anyone should thank “Dr. Phil” for that, because it is not true, but I heartily agree that we should thank him for telling the truth about domestic violence (DV) against men as soon as he begins to tell not just some but all of the truth about it and tells it correctly. Aside from that, I am reasonably certain that Teri Stoddard knows of many sources of information that proves beyond any doubt that, when it comes to partner violence, women are as likely and even a bit more likely to be violent against men as men are to be violent against women (e.g.: here is a list of abstracts of hundreds of such sources, at http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm ).

Contrary to what Dr. Phil asserts, when it comes to partner violence, DV is without a doubt an equal opportunity employer. Nevertheless, the website at http://drphil.com/ spares no effort to raise concern about DV against women and most certainly is not silent about the need to “end the silence” about that.

Even that is an erroneous assertion, namely that there is a need to end the silence about violence against women. I wonder which planet Dr. Phil lives on. There is no evidence on the one we live on of anyone being silent anywhere about DV against women. There most certainly is a lot of evidence that Dr. Phil and his employer (HARPO Productions) do all they can to raise awareness about violence against women and that they keep silent about the largest sector of women’s DV victims, children (but they do go on about violence by “parents” and “grandparents” against children, while they do not mention at all that most DV against children occurs in single-mother households).

The DV that causes so many children to become victims of violence is in the majority of the cases (70%) being committed by their mothers, with other women being the perpetrators in the majority of the rest of violence against children in families. Yes, the Dr. Phil Show and HARPO Productions most definitely need to end the silence about that. If they did, we should all thank them for it, but I am not holding my breath waiting for such thanks being deserved any time soon.

Posted in Battered Men's Shelters, Civil Rights, False Allegations, Child Abuse, Single-Parent, Media Bias, Censorship, Feminism, Propaganda Exposed, Family, Men's Issues, Child Murder, Women's Violence | Print | 1 Comment »

May 25, 2011 by Walter Schneider.

Many feminists allege that testosterone is more dangerous.  For that reason they assert that men hurt women more often than the converse, therefore “Men are bad, Women are good.”

Are things really that simple?  The objective reality of inter-personal violence is that women are somewhat more often violent against men than men are violent against women.  All hype aside, domestic or family violence between spouses or “partners” is just a very small portion of interpersonal violence.  Children who are victims of that sort of violence comprise a large sector of that, and most violence against children, by far, is committed by the children’s mothers — an inconvenient fact, which is why feminist propagandists never mention it or at best rarely touch on it.

Still, regardless of whether women or men are more likely to be violent against the other sex, only a minuscule fraction of women or men engage in it.  The vast majority of women and men are quite peaceful, harmless and live in peace with one another, if only the feminist propagandists let them do that, and even though the feminist propagandists do their very best to incite open war between them.

Some feminists go so far that they assert that women can be safe from men’s violence only if the sexes are completely segregated.  To their chagrin, they have difficulties coping with the reality that “domestic partnerships” by lesbians are the ones that experience on average far greater incidence rates of domestic violence than do all others. (Re: Female DV)

Just the other day, a woman insisted that it is a well-known fact that men are more violent than women are, and that men’s violence is caused by testosterone.

I promised that I would provide her with a few facts on what the truth is about that.  The following is from what I sent to her.

What she had asserted reflects the consequences of a considerable extent of feminist indoctrination.  Therefore I can’t resist setting the record straight.

I have no doubt that, someday, the distortion of truth by the radical feminists of our time will be seen to have been the greatest intellectual crime of the second half of the twentieth century. At the present time, however, we still live under the aegis of that crime, and calling attention to it is an act of great moral courage.

— Professor Howard S. Schwartz, of Oakland University in Michigan, USA, 2001

Professor Howard Schwartz once explained to me the difference between objective and subjective reality, between absolute and relative moral standards, with the radical feminists (a.k.a. Marxist- or socialist feminists) using the latter to destroy the truth.

That was about a dozen years ago, when Prof. Schwartz was working on the book that is mentioned in the following.  As profound as the quote I showed above is, it would be better to identify not only brilliant thoughts and sayings but also the context in which such things were expressed or published.

Howard Schwartz’ opinion on the crime of the feminist distortion of the truth in the latter half of the twentieth century was expressed in his book, “The revolt of the primitive: an inquiry into the roots of political correctness,” p. 15 (in the beginning of the fifth full paragraph on that page, accessible via this link).

With respect to the ideas the woman had expressed, here is the truth in relation to that, as reported by Prof. Howard Schwartz; and let me assure you that he is reporting it accurately.  I am fully aware of the details of every one of the incidents he describes, including having been in touch with some of the individuals he mentions (especially Drs. Lupri and Dutton and their respective research mentioned by Dr. Schwartz — for obvious reasons — as their research was done right here in Alberta), but here go the details of the research by Lupri and Dutton and how it was spun by the feminists.

That is as far as the excerpt shown on Google Books goes, but I should receive a copy of the book within a few days.

I told the woman that I will be happy to lend the book to her, whereby she will be enabled to address some of the impact that feminist propaganda has had over the years.  Of course, that will work for her only if she wishes to learn about the absolute truth and not just the edited, feminist version of it.

Here is another item that will interest you.  It is a copy of a draft for an article that the Report Newsmagazine had asked me to write for them (for reasons explained in the introduction to the article — the Report Newsmagazine stopped publishing at that time — the article did not appear in print, although the Internet version that you can access via the preceding link has been read many thousands of times and has been accessed 108 times at my website during the past 30 days alone, while it has also been posted at or linked to from a total of at least 77 web pages on the Internet).

Last, but not least, you may wish to have a look as well at this: “The big list: Female teachers with students: Most comprehensive account on Internet of women predators on campus,” WorldNetDaily Exclusive, May 17, 2011.

I told the woman furthermore that in case she thinks that the people I mentioned and whose work the cited material identifies present just isolated and distorted views, I have a book here that she may wish to read, “When She Was Bad: Violent Women and the Myth of Innocence,” by Patricia Pearson (a feminist, by the way), 1997, Viking.  Here is a book review.

It has happened that some people asked me “Why should I believe you?“.  The commentary at the preceding link explains that no one has to take my word for anything, but that the truth is out there whether I tell it or not.  Unfortunately, feminist sources of information on the sexes and on what they do to one another are most often anything but truthful.

–Walter

Posted in Media Bias, Books & Films, False Allegations, Child Abuse, Censorship, Health, Propaganda Exposed, Feminism, Family, Men's Issues, Women's Violence | Print | 2 Comments »

May 13, 2011 by Walter Schneider.

In the late 1990s I received for whatever reasons a lot of questions from people who wrote in to get answers that sex-education in school and by various bureaucracies was and had been misleading them on.

In some cases, the misleading was obviously caused by ignorance, but in others, and especially when it was done by government officials high on the ladder, it was hard to avoid the impression that it was done deliberately. I have no idea why anyone would want to go out of their way to mislead, for example, kids in school about things that are matters of life and death, for the sake of indoctrinating children already at an early age to pursue sexual freedom.

At any rate, I had so many of those requests for information and there was so much misleading information out there, that eventually I posted an article on sex-education to help clear up some of the confusion for students as well as their parents.

The web page was quite popular for a while (as many as 80 page hits a day in 2007 — the first year for which I have usage data for that web page) but it is no longer being looked up very often (only about four times a day). I guess that kids either do not care much about sex anymore or that perhaps, thanks to our feminist governments, they now know all they are supposed to know about sex.

However, it does not surprise me that we now have an epidemic of STDs. Perhaps our governments feel that, ideally, a healthy nation is one in which no one is married, everyone is promiscuous, and everyone has one or more STDs.

For more, see Sex Education.

Posted in Education, Social-Destruction Enterprise, Health, Family, Feminism, The New World Order | Print | No Comments »

May 11, 2011 by Walter Schneider.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

May 7, 2011 by Walter Schneider.

The following contains excerpts leading to and from an article identified at the website of the canadiancrc.com:

The sins of the mothers

The Sydney Morning Herald, Sydney, Australia, Adele Horin, September 12, 2008

Unfortunately the article shown there does not identify a link to the original article, but it shows enough (perhaps all) of the text of the article to make me wonder.

When Lindsay Lohan, Paris Hilton and Britney Spears ran amok, the public blamed their mothers. Their fathers - Lohan’s had served time in jail and had addiction problems - escaped rebuke entirely.

Now an Australian study provides some evidence that bad mothering has a worse effect on children than bad fathering….

It shows that mothers who exhibit “toxic” behaviours - from being cold and indifferent to being abusive, manipulative or over-controlling - are far more likely to warp their children’s outlook on life than fathers with similar behaviour.

Wayne Warburton, a research fellow at Macquarie University’s Children and Families Research Centre, said: “Mothers have a really powerful effect on the way their kids view the world and themselves, probably because kids spend more time with their mothers, especially in the crucial early years.”

Dr Warburton asked 441 university students to fill out detailed questionnaires on the parenting styles of their mothers and fathers, and on their own patterns of thinking.

He asked them to recall 72 parenting behaviours, including “making a child feel ashamed”, being unloving or rejecting, and frequently telling the child they were stupid or would fail. He also asked questions designed to uncover destructive thinking patterns in the students, such as being “clingy” out of a fear of being abandoned.

He found young adults were two-thirds as likely to develop unhelpful patterns of thinking if the toxic parenting they had experienced came from their father rather than their mother. [my emphasis –WHS]

If a range of poor parenting behaviours existed, they tended to be found in the same parent, the study found.

Just over 22 per cent of the mothers and 14 per cent of the fathers were classified as toxic.

Dr Warburton said he was surprised that toxic mothers outnumbered toxic fathers. “When I first saw the figure I thought many of the people came from single-parent families but that wasn’t true. I’m at a loss to explain it.”

He said while mothers had more influence on their children, it was surprising that fathers had two-thirds the effect of mothers, given their lower levels of contact. “Fathers still have a significant effect on the development of their kids’ patterns of thinking.”

Of course, newspaper articles often do not accurately reflect the details, research procedures and findings of such studies, but I wonder why Dr. Warburton was surprised by his findings.  I suspect that he does not have children of his own, or that, if he does, he did not spend much time thinking about what sort of messages his children got from either parent about the other respective parent.

In other words, did his questionnaire include anything that addressed to what extent the students he surveyed had become alienated against one or the other parent?  If it did, he could not possibly be as surprised by the results of his survey as he had become.

Parental alienation is as likely to occur in intact families as in divorced families.  Perhaps it is even somewhat of a toss-up whether toxic varieties of parental alienation are more likely to be found in divorced or in intact families.

Let’s hope that Dr. Warburton’s puzzlement about the origins and causes of toxic parenting will eventually lead him to explore the issues of parental alienation, the increasing disfranchisement of paternal influence and the escalating power of maternal influence and control over children.

Perhaps the solution to his puzzlement will then become apparent, namely that the puzzle of toxic mothering cannot be solved through expunging fathers from the lives of their children but must involve policies that will return us to having a much-increased, strengthened, even controlling, presence of fathers.

Nevertheless, Dr. Warburton’s study has left its mark on Australia’s psycho-therapists.  Consider this commentary and advice:

Ask the Therapist

Since I was a teenager, my mother and I have not gotten along. She often makes me feel bad about myself by saying mean and hurtful things. I never feel my best around her. I have tried over and over to make her happy, but nothing works. I am 35 now and she is in her late sixties.

This year, my older sister and brother are planning a Mother’s Day dinner for her at my sister’s home. They asked me to participate in the planning and attend. If I go, I know that I will have a terrible time. On the other hand, they told me that she is not feeling well and may not be with us many more years. If I don’t go to the dinner, I will feel guilty. I am anxious just thinking about this decision. What should I do?

— Alicia in Oak Park

In that article, Susan A. Horen offers, amongst other things, this:

Dr. Wayne Warburton, a researcher at Macquarie University’s Children and Families Research Centre in Australia, confirmed this fact about toxic parenting in a recent study. As much as we hear about fathers who don’t do a good job of parenting, Warburton found that young adults are 50 percent more likely to develop unhelpful patterns of thinking if the toxic parenting they had experienced came from their mother rather than their father.

Toxic parenting can occur when people who have significant personality disorders become parents. The most common disorders are narcissistic, antisocial, histrionic and borderline. All of these disorders have core elements of selfishness, insensitivity to others, narcissism, a refusal to accept personal responsibility for their behavior and a sense of entitlement that allows them to abuse others when their selfish demands are not immediately met.

Damage from toxic mothers often continues into adulthood.

Toxic parenting is never a good thing.  In extreme cases is can lead to serious social dysfunctions in the affected children, such as in the case of a young woman raised from birth by her father.  The woman took a firearm to work and threatened to shoot her boss, after which she was remanded for observation to the psychiatric ward of the hospital where she has been residing for the past few months.

She is now permitted to spend weekends at home with the father whom she supports and who had fashioned her into the twisted individual she has become.  That is quite likely to counteract whatever positive outcomes are to be hoped for from the course of medicating and counseling she is receiving.

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

April 16, 2011 by Walter Schneider.

This relates to a discussion of the principles of the Manifesto of the Communist Party, a.k.a. The Communist Manifesto.

During the last week there has been a large drop in the number of visits brought to Fathers for Life through website searches via google.com.  During the week preceding last week there were 8,905 visits as a result of Google searches.  This week there were only 5,618 visits from google.com, a drop of 34 percent.  That is even though traffic from Bing increased by over seven percent.

It is not due to a drop in traffic volumes (those were on the rise).  It can only be due to Google having arbitrarily lowered either the ranking of, or the ease of finding information at, the website of Fathers for Life. I strongly suspect that the drop in traffic from google.com has something to do with someone complaining to Google about my conservative stance.

Ever since I became a bit more active on Facebook, a month ago, I became astounded about the extent to which many individuals actively promote socialism, especially the sort promoted by Karl Marx and Frederick Engels.  Here is an example, namely a portion of an exchange between me and someone who, along with many others, wishes for nothing but to stop working for money, to abolish the obligation to work, and to establish the right of everyone to have his basic needs provided by the State.

Linda wrote (after I had pointed out to her that her ideas read as if taken straight out of the Manifesto of the Communist Party): “Walter I never read any marx or communist manifesto,…”

It boggles the mind.  Is that an example of “women’s way of knowing”?  If that is so, then why does anyone worry about the doctrines expressed by Marx and Engels?  Let’s just use “women’s way of knowing” to guide us by, and then the whole world will be happy and in eternal bliss.

I told her the following:

That is too bad, because you are doing a lot of needless work.

There is no need for you to re-invent the wheel. Your wish to abolish the obligation to work and to establish the right to be provided basic needs was expressed by Marx: “From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_each_according_to_his_ability,_to_each_according_to_his_need

That is right down your alley.

Here are the main planks of the Communist Manifesto that every modern communist regime was or is built on (from “The Socialist Phenomenon”, by Igor Shafarevich):

1. The Abolition of Private Property

The fundamental nature of this principle is emphasized, for instance, by Marx and Engels: “The theory of Communism may be summed up in a single sentence: ‘Abolition of private property,’” (Communist Manifesto).  (p. 195)

2. The Abolition of The Family

The majority of socialist doctrines proclaim the abolition of the family. In other doctrines, as well as in certain socialist states, this proposition is not proclaimed in such radical form, but the principle appears as a de-emphasis of the role of the family, the weakening of family ties, the abolition of certain functions of the family. (p. 195)

3. The Abolition of Religion

It is especially easy for us to observe socialism’s hostility to religion, for this is inherent, with few exceptions, in all contemporary socialist states and doctrines. Only rarely is the abolition of religion legislated, as it was in Albania. But the actions of other socialist states leave no doubt that they are all governed by this very principle and that only external difficulties have prevented its complete implementation. (p. 195)

4. Communality or Equality

This demand is encountered in almost all socialist doctrines. Its negative form is seen in the striving to destroy the hierarchy of the surrounding society and in calls “to humble the proud, the rich and the powerful,” to abolish privilege.  (p. 196)

____________
The comments that follow each of those quotes are short, one or a few paragraphs each.  Just follow the links I identified.

The complete Manifesto of the Communist Party is here (PDF file, 539kB)

Then there is the context out of which Linda’s wish emerged during the discussion.  It emerged out of the proposal to work only enough to produce what is absolutely essential (without anyone specifying what they consider to be essential) and to do so without any money exchanging hands.  In other words, many of the people in the discussion thread in all seriousness contemplate that to solve the problems that bother many now living in the once-upon-a-time proud and wealthy U.S. of A. requires nothing less than to abolish money as a means of exchange and to substitute a barter system.

Hold on to your seat and consider this:

Allen (many others stated similar things) said: “stand up and stop working for money.”

To which I responded:

Okay, I’ll bite.  So, explain to me how you can exist without money. If you don’t make any mortgage payments, you will be paying rent. You need to pay for food, clothing, utilities, gas for your car, and even for Internet access and the PC or laptop you use, the software to run the applications on your PC, your cell phone, etc.

What about the infrastructure you are using, the roads, the sewer lines, the water for cooking, bathing and doing the laundry, the electricity you use, the fuel that is brought to your home to heat it, the education system that taught you and will teach your kids how to read, write and do arithmetic? How can any of that be supplied to you and anyone else without money?

What will you use as a means of exchange when buying goods and services — peanuts? Even if that were possible, how will you be able to get the peanuts? Did you ever try getting a ride on a bus by offering to pay with peanuts for the ride? Do you know of anyone willing to work for peanuts?

Here is a dose of reality. Even the cavemen had money. They used cowrie shells, flint stones and salt for money.

Kids used to learn about those things, if not before they went to kindergarten, then at least during the first two or three years in school.

At any rate,  it is not worth it to continue participation in that discussion.  As they say, the lights may be on, but no one is home.  The scary thing about it is that there are many people who are like that.  There are far more of them than there are voices of reason, and the clueless majority decides who gets into power to rule us all.

There is little doubt in my mind that this will play out throughout the world until the bitter end that is not all that far off, when everything will be in ruin and chaos.

The cavemen had more sense.  At least they provided the foundation on which our civilization was built, whereas now clueless people are hell-bent on tearing down all of what civilization achieved by voting accordingly and having no shortage of clueless “leaders” to vote for.

When I was younger, I had often thought that it would be nice to live a long life to see how things will turn out.  Now I am just about 75-years old, happy that most likely I won’t live long enough to see the the bitter end of it all and hope that that will hold off until after I meet my maker.

Posted in Men and Women Work, Censorship, Family, The New World Order | Print | No Comments »

April 6, 2011 by Walter Schneider.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The rout of the dreaded patriarchy was complete.

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

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

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

__________
Part 2 will follow.

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

April 3, 2011 by Walter Schneider.

There are few people today who know what the family wage was.

Three decades before ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act), President Kennedy recognized the need for an amendment to the Social Security Act. He suggested improvements to benefits—including benefits for the disabled—in February 1961. His argument was persuasive, and he succeeded in signing the amendments on June 30, 1961. At the signing, Kennedy called the changes “an additional step toward eliminating many of the hardships resulting from old age, disability or the death of the family wage-earner.”

From Call to Action — the Sixth Floor Museum — Disability Rights
http://www.jfk.org/go/exhibits/call-to-action/disability-rights

I earned a family wage supplement in Germany, before I emigrated to Canada in 1962.  Prior to the early 1960s, it was in place in the USA but also in many nations in Europe, but it was one of the first issues on the agenda of the radical feminists that they had vowed to get abolished, because they claimed it was a symptom of patriarchal oppression.

In 1963 JFK had to give in to pressure by radical feminists, and family wages came to an end in the USA.

The women’s movement of the 19th Century struggled to establish not a male but a family wage. It did not favor men; it favored breadwinners. This policy derived from their primary concern that mothers should be able to devote full time to raising children and managing a home. To do that they had to be provided for, and it was the husband and father who had to do the providing, which meant that he had to earn a wage sufficient to support not only himself but his entire family.

The long enduring effort to institutionalize the family wage eventually succeeded. Robertson writes that “it has been estimated that by 1960 a family wage was paid by 65 percent of all employers in the United States and by 80 percent of the major industrial companies.” He adds, “Although feminist historians today call the family-wage ideal a “myth” designed to keep married women oppressed, few myths have come closer to becoming reality.”[4] He later states that “the family-wage economy that prevailed from 1945 to 1970 was the product of an ideal pursued deliberately, primarily by women’s organizations, through the political process….”[5]

The reversal of the traditional family order, the work of countless family women and men during the previous century, quickly accelerated. By 1963, President Kennedy had established a Women’s Commission which was stacked with career oriented women and in the same year Congress passed an Equal Pay Act, which dealt a blow to the family wage concept.

From “Recovering the American Past with Brian C. Robertson”
A review by Frank Zepezauer
http://fathersforlife.org/hist/all_the_past2.htm

It would be interesting, although that is more than I can handle by myself, to determine the exact time and date when the family wage was brought to an end in each of the developed nations.  I am fairly certain that anyone discovering those dates will get a very astounding surprise.

At any rate, thanks to socialist feminism (a.k.a. radical- or Marxist-feminism), now neither men nor women nor the families they provide for get a family wage, but there is now government assistance funded by taxpayer largesse for all destitute single parents in need, the vast majority of whom are single mothers.  Socialist feminism has done much to give us the welfare state, for which we are supposed to be eternally grateful.

Posted in Economy, Single-Parent, Civil Rights, Men and Women Work, Propaganda Exposed, Feminism, The New World Order | Print | No Comments »

March 13, 2011 by Walter Schneider.

Planned Parenthood Aids Pimp’s Underage Sex Ring

www.youtube.com

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

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