April 30, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

By Marty Nemko

What do the following people have in common: Aristotle, Plato, Jesus, Leonardo da Vinci, Beethoven, Monet, the Wright Brothers, Jonas Salk, Steven Spielberg, 98% of the Nobel Prize Winners for science, the key scientists behind the development of every drug from aspirin to breast cancer breakthrough Herceptin, from anesthetic to heart bypass surgery, from refrigeration to heating, from the electric light bulb to the radio, the television, the computer, and the mapping of human genome? They’re all men.

And in the five decades since the women’s movement began, 97% of science, 92% of literature, and 100% of economic Nobel Laureates still are men….(Full Story)

Posted in Media Bias, Men and Women Work, Men's Issues, Feminism | Print | No Comments »

April 10, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

The following comments were sent to a fathers rights activist in response to his assertion that all that is missing for fathers rights organizations to gain political power is to obtain government funding.

George,

All the FR movement lacks is money? I cannot quite agree with that.

Money is the root of all evil, so the saying goes. It would therefore follow that money cannot possibly be the solution to a problem like the lack of inroads made by the FR movement, or can it?

As one of the largest budget items in the federal budget, subsidies to Canadian Natives to solve their woes at roughly $6,800 a year for every native man, woman and child have hardly solved any problems the Canadian Natives suffer from. A few success stories can be mentioned. However, as a whole,

• The life expectancies of our Natives are many years below the Canadian average;
• Their suicide rates are probably the highest of all ethnic groups in the world, higher than those in any of the nations in the world, much higher even than those in the Russian Federation, and about five times higher than the Canadian national average;
• The incident rate of Fetal Alcohol Syndrome is about 70 percent in some Native communities;
• Their rates of fatherlessness and infant mortality are higher than the national average;
• The crime and incarceration rates for Natives are ten times higher than the Canadian average; but
• The department of Native and Indian Affairs is a boon for an army of civil servants and even produced a few prime ministers, most notably Pierre Elliot Trudeau and Jean Chretien.

If I were a Native leader and were to observe those dismal outcomes of centuries of Canadian empathy for Natives, I would tell the federal government to go and fly a kite. However, why in the world would FR activist organizations ask for financial assistance by the government? Financial assistance breeds political and economic dependency.

It was not financial assistance from the government that gave political power to feminists. It was political power that enticed the government to provide financial assistance to Natives and to feminism.

How did the Natives gain political power? They demonstrated, closed roads, stopped logging operations, etc.. They also went to universities and studied law at far higher rates than other Canadians did. Political power brought financial and other concessions for natives, but overall that brought benefits only to band councils and to bureaucrats. The few handovers of large areas of Canada did not perceptibly hurt the average Canadian, and all of the concessions made to the Natives helped build the careers of an enormous number of bureaucrats and lawyers, with just about all of the bureaucrats and the vast majority of the lawyers not being Natives. However, the net-”gains” made by Natives were confined to the First Nations and to Native communities. Canadians paid their taxes, and the Native problems hardly ever intruded into their lives.

How did the feminists gain political power? They raised their children (in their image), and they burned their bras. Just as the natives did, they also went to universities and studied law at far higher rates than other Canadians did. They went a bit farther, they began lecturing at universities, and they formed law societies that forced feminist laws upon the judiciary and thereby on all of society. In the process of doing that, they obtained ever escalating financial and legal concessions, but overall that brought benefits only to feminists and to bureaucrats. Those concessions do hurt all Canadians, but, just as with the Natives - only on a much larger scale - feminism helped build the careers of legions of bureaucrats, lawyers, judges, psychologists, lecturers, counselors, mediators, etc.. However, the net-”gains” made by feminists, although confined to women, did nothing for the Canadian economy as a whole and were extremely expensive. Even though Canadians paid their escalating taxes to pay for it all, given that we live in a closed system, men pay the majority of all taxes (about 70 percent) and at best receive 30 percent of all available social benefits, while women pay a small share of all taxes (about 30 percent) while they receive at least 70 percent of all social benefits.

How do men gain political power? They increasingly don’t get to raise their children, and they can at best burn their jockstraps - which latter, moreover, many men don’t ever wear. Besides, compare the public appeal of bras vs. jockstraps, of mammary glands vs. prostate glands and rectums.

One thing is certain, men will not gain financial or any other sort of concessions from the government until they have political power and begin to wield it. The question is not so much what the benefits are that men have to offer - and let there be no mistake, the benefits that men can return for financial and other concessions must be irrefutably good (while feminists never had to offer anything other than the promise to set social injustices for women right). The question is whether a sufficiently large critical mass of men can agree on what men have to offer.

The feminists didn’t have a heck of a lot of money to begin to achieve their progress. Why would men need a lot of money to do something comparable?

One thing is for sure, the liberalism, sexual revolution and women’s liberation promoted by the student revolutions that happened simultaneously throughout the world in 1968 did not happen spontaneously.

…the student revolution of 1968 (brought about, as in all other nations where it happened, through organizational direction by Moscow and funding by Pankow - [a suburb of Berlin] the capital of the GDR - it happened not just in France but in many nations at the same time - e. g.: 1968 in an international context), and then to the world-wide usurpation of power and control by radical feminism - largely by means of the influence of radical feminism on the UN.

All those changes happened through whatever special interest group’s ideology influenced the bureaucracy, controlled it and then had the bureaucracy promote and enforce it. (See Trends of the politics of sex)

Men’s rights and fathers’ right organizations throughout the world ignore history. They ignore it at their own and at all of mankind’s peril.

Posted in Men's Issues, Family, Feminism, The New World Order | Print | 1 Comment »

April 8, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

Well, that is not quite it, but it is a good part of what needs to be done, as Angry Harry - in his usual and admirable lucid style - explains in his piece, Feminists Destroy the Planet (April 4, 2008)

Read it. You, and especially policy makers, will most certainly obtain a few good ideas on what it takes to save the planet and, in the process, human civilization.

I farmed for decades, trying to keep wilderness at bay and motivating even Jehovah’s Witnesses who came to our door to exclaim: “You live in a beautiful place, you have a lot to be thankful for.” To which I usually explained, “Well, the piece of Paradise on Earth you see here and admire was created by man, mostly by me, working with the material that God gave me - not exactly gave, but I had to buy it with my earnings and with my labour. If you wish to see the original state of the God-given assets I had to work with, let’s go a half a mile east from our yard and let’s take a look at what things used to be like in their natural state.”

I also usually explained that, without the improvements brought about by man, Nature tends to be a bitch given to be very harsh and unforgiving.

Funny that none of the JWs ever took me up on my invitation and never went to take a look at what Nature in its natural state really is like (they also always expected that we would be ready to listen to them but never paid any attention to me when I asked them to give a hand first with pressing things before we would sit down, such as assisting with lambing). Still, Angry Harry is right. Man cannot live in harmony with Nature when feminists are bent on doubling the unavoidable losses that occur when man tries to make a living.

Posted in Feminism, Propaganda Exposed, The New World Order | Print | No Comments »

April 7, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

Dr. Albert Mohler’s blog features an entry today that is very favorable of Stephen Baskerville’s book “Taken into Custody”, a damning expose of the widespread corruption in the government-designed and -run divorce industry: a conglomerate of racketeering involving not only legislators, judges, prosecutors, social workers, police and bureaucrats but also a host of private-industry adjuncts to the government’s sector of the divorce industry, namely: child-support enforcement and similar agencies (in whom many politicians have a vested interest); psychologists; psychiatrists; mediators; lawyers; bar associations; law societies; universities; journalists; reporters and other interests in the media, and so on.

As Professor Stephen Baskerville describes in his book, all of those parties, especially those connected with the family-court system, conspire to intrude and insert themselves into families - even into the most intimate parts of family life - to expunge loving fathers from their families and their children’s lives, to apprehend and control children for the purpose of financially and emotionally devasting fathers (but not exclusively just fathers), to control women (for example, so as to dictate to women that they must choose between being married to the fathers of their children or to lose their children).

“Taken into Custody provides overwhelming evidence that a major reason for the existence and cancerous growth of what Dr. Albert Mohler calls the “Divorce Industrial Complex,” is the overwhelming greed and corruption that permeates the divorce industry.

“Taken into Custody” was popular from the time the first printing was released in the summer of 2007, but even now, quite a few months later, its popularity and appeal are still growing.  Last night the reader reviews at amazon.com for “Taken into Custody” numbered 37. This morning their number had increased to 41, all of them favorable and five-star rated. The most remarkable thing about those reviews is that amongst them is not a single one written by a family- or father-hostile feminist.  Just a few years ago that would have been unimaginable, while a dozen years ago Stephen Baskerville would have had a very serious problem with finding a publisher willing to produce and distribute his book.

The vast majority of the reader reviews originated in the USA, but quite a few are from reviewers in other countries, such as the U.K., Sweden, Australia and one with an origin identified as “International”.

There is apparently as of yet no review by a Canadian reader. I should have written one, but have not yet finished reading the book, having received it, finally, and after two inexplicably failed attempts, just a couple of days ago.  I will make up for my missing review as soon as I am through reading “Taken into Custody.”

The fundamental issues discussed in “Taken into Custody” are not exclusive to the USA.  They are endemic of all English-speaking nations (as Stephen Baskerville identified with numerous examples and citations pertaining to many of those nations).  Still, they are applicable to - to mention a few such nations other than the USA - Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Finland, the countries of the former Soviet block, India, Japan, Egypt, Spain, Italy, France, Holland, Germany, Canada, South Africa, and so on.  The preceding list of countries is based on what is being reported to and discussed with me by fathers and by pro-father- and pro-family activists from around the world.

If you haven’t yet obtained a copy of “Taken into Custody”, get one, and you will find out that - if you dare to dream of having a family - civil rights and liberties are only an illusion.  You will also find out that families make up the fabric of society, and that society is being destroyed when governments engage on a deliberate war designed to rip families apart.

As I am reading “Taking into Custody,” I cannot help but feel that the views I have held for years are confirmed.  We managed in the ostensibly “free” West to install absolute totalitarianism by the government bureaucracy.

Posted in Shared Parenting, Men's Issues, Divorce, Media Bias, Child-Custody Awards, Family, Propaganda Exposed, Feminism, Feminist Jurisprudence, Child Abduction | Print | No Comments »

April 5, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

Edmonton Journal,
April 4, 2008, B16

Wife sentenced for slicing man’s penis, butt

Convinced he was having an affair, Calgary woman attacked husband during sex

Daryl Slade
Calgary Herald

In the midst of lovemaking, Abigail London-Fife pulled out a knife she had hidden under the bed and slashed her husband’s penis and buttocks.

The woman suspected her husband of cheating, court heard Thursday, when she was handed a 12-month conditional jail sentence, with house arrest for the first six months.

Provincial court Judge Judith Shriar and Crown prosecutor Deven Singhal both said the woman should be treated in the same manner as a man who assaulted his wife.

“Regardless of what’s going on in the home and background, you do not take two knives to the bedroom and stab your husband in the penis and buttocks,” Shriar said.

London-Fife, 35, pleaded guilty Jan. 16 to assault causing bodily harm to Leonard Fife for the Aug. 24 assault.  She has had no contact with him since.

Singhal earlier told court London-Fife was angry over phone calls she intercepted that led her to believe her husband was having an affair.

She planned the attack by bringing the weapons to bed, and carried it out at the most opportune time, the prosecutor said.  “He was in a vulnerable position and she took advantage of it.”

The judge ordered her to take psychological counselling, and to continue domestic violence and anger-management courses.

She is also prohibited from owning or possessing any weapons for a year.

________________
Notes by Fathers for Life

The Edmonton journal took considerable liberties with what it purports is an article published in the Calgary Herald.  For example, the following information was deleted from the edited text of the article:

Singhal noted the victim sustained a 2.5-centimetre laceration to the shaft of his penis, a 15-centimetre laceration to his left buttock, a puncture wound inside his right thigh, a laceration to his scrotum, a 10-centimetre laceration to the back of his shoulder and 7.5-centimetre lacerations to both hands.

However serious the redactions by the Edmonton Journal are, the case of Abigail-the-penis-slasher deserves more attention than even the Calgary Herald gave it.

What would happen if a man would attack his wife in a similar manner?  Right, the man would get locked up, and the key would be thrown away.  However, the “punishment” handed down to Abigail London-Fife-the-penis-slasher proves that women can with impunity commit crimes of domestic violence. We can rest assured that if a man had committed a crime of comparable and equal severity, not only would he have served a long term of incarceration, the story would quite likely have made the frontpage.

For some crimes of equal severity committed by men or by women there are even laws, unlike in this case, that provide preferential treatment for women, such as the category of murder involving children of age 12 months or under.  It is called murder when a father kills his child, and it is called infanticide when a mother murders her child that truly or allegedly is an infant - supposedly less human than a child.  In fact, the category of crime “infanticide” has been applied in cases of the murders by mothers of their children when the victims were far older, as old as six years. When murdering a child, a woman almost always gets off free, with at most a conditional sentence (serving no time in prison, such as in the case of Abigail London-Fife-the-penis-slasher), while a man gets locked up for a lengthy time, which he should be, just as a woman should be.  After all, according to our most fundamental laws, men and women are equal in all regards.

However, there is always an excuse when a woman commits a crime. There is always someone - virtually always a man - or something (if everything else fails, even her inner demons or the devil will do) that compelled a woman to be a criminal or to have been violent, whereby she is then deemed to be suffering and not deserving of any punishment.

The excuse used - entirely illegally but nevertheless by a judge in a court of law - in the case of Abigail London-Fife-the-penis-slasher is that she is a woman and therefore dumb and ignorant of the law.

Isn’t it odd that the feminists refuse to raise a stink about that sort of demeaning and most vile discrimination against women?

In reality, of course, feminists welcome such discrimination.  Such discrimination perpetuates the lie that women cannot be violent and when evidence to the contrary presents itself, as it invariably will and shows women to be as often and as seriously violent as men are, the violence must be excused and thereby condoned.

The worst consequence of that will of course be that the victimization by women of all those who are less powerful or lower in social status (that is primarily children, men and the elderly) intensifies.  A “sentence” such as that with which Judge Judith Shriar rewarded Abigail London-Fife for slashing her husband’s penis and body is an incitement, not a deterrent, for all women to freely exercise their potential for violence against others.

The most remarkable aspect of the case of Abigail London-Fife-the-penis-slasher is what neither the original nor the edited version of the story mentions, the total absence of any injuries to the penis-slasher.  That says a lot about men’s potential for violence against women.  Virtually all men will protect and avoid hurting women, even when under a potentially deadly attack by a violent woman.

Posted in Child Murder, Feminist Jurisprudence, Feminism, The New World Order, Women's Violence | Print | 1 Comment »

April 1, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

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

Detroit Free Press
28 March 2008

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

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

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

The article concludes with:

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

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

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

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

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

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

April 1, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

The Reality Check
23 March 2008

The Intellectual Perversion of the VAWA Mafia

By Carey Roberts

This article by Carey Roberts is an excellent account of government-sponsored intellectual perversion in the government-driven propaganda war, called VAWA (US Violence against Women Act), against men and families.

It shows that without a doubt the government-policy that government policies need to be based on lies instead of the truth (critiqued by Professors Reece Walters and Tim Hope in Critical thinking about the uses of research) is endemic not only in the U.K. but in the U.S. as well, as it is in all developed nations.

Posted in Family, Censorship, Feminist Jurisprudence, Feminism, Propaganda Exposed, Women's Violence | Print | 1 Comment »

March 26, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

There is no doubt that some women excel in the hard sciences (e. g.: math, physics, computer science, and engineering) to the same extent as do men.  However, it is a fact that the hard sciences are being dominated by men, by far.

That irks feminist social engineers.  They assert that sexism against women is the cause of that disparity, and they intend to do something about it.  The solution to the “problem” that they intend to bring about is Title IX equalization in the whole field of education, so as to adjust education in the hard sciences to bring about educational achievement for the sexes in a fashion that will match the progress and achievement of the better learners (predominantly male students) to that of the slower or less adept learners (predominantly female students).

In that manner, they hope, there will eventually and in short order be as many female graduates in the hard sciences as there are male graduates.  The reality of that will of course be that, just as it happened in sports, that the number of male achievers will be adjusted downward to match the number of the few female graduates that chose subjects in the hard sciences.

It seems to me that just as we have seen over the years the elimination of male sports teams at universities and colleges, so we will get to see the elimination of courses in the hard sciences that presently are being dominated or exclusively attended by male students.

Of course, the consequence of that will be, just as it has been experienced in the field of sports, that any country that in that fashion downgrades its progress and achievements in the hard sciences will lose whatever advantages it may hold or may have held in scientific achievements.

Christina Hoff Sommers discusses the circumstances of these latest suicidal goals of the American feminist social engineers in “Why Can’t a Woman Be More Like a Man?” (The American, March-April 2008 issue).

Here are a few excerpts from that article.

While Title IX has been effective in promoting women’s participation in sports, it has also caused serious damage, in part because it has led to the adoption of a quota system. Over the years, judges, Department of Education officials, and college administrators have interpreted Title IX to mean that women are entitled to “statistical proportionality.” That is to say, if a college’s student body is 60 percent female, then 60 percent of the athletes should be female—even if far fewer women than men are interested in playing sports at that college. But many athletic directors have been unable to attract the same proportion of women as men. To avoid government harassment, loss of fund­ing, and lawsuits, they have simply eliminated men’s teams. Although there are many factors affecting the evolution of men’s and women’s college sports, there is no question that Title IX has led to men’s participation being calibrated to the level of women’s interest. That kind of calibration could devastate academic science.

Harvard’s legendary Math 55 class does not look like America. The class roster at semester’s end? ‘45 percent Jewish, 18 percent Asian, 100 percent male.’

Women comprise 19 percent of tenure-track professors in math, 11 percent in physics, and 10 percent in electrical engineering. The pipeline does not promise statistical parity.

‘Our goal,’ says the deputy director of the National Science Foundation, ‘is to transform…the entire culture of science and engineering in America, and to be inclusive of all.’

Baron-Cohen believes that men are, on average, wired to be better systematizers and women better empathizers. It’s a daring claim, but he has the data to back it up.

If numerical inferiority were sufficient grounds for charges of discrimination, Congress would be holding hearings on the underrepresentation of men in higher education.

Professor Emanuel said that although the discrimination report was ‘widely praised in public, it was privately deplored and disparaged in the hallways of MIT.’

It is odd that a single study of postgraduate fellowships at a Swedish university should play such a prominent role in a campaign to eliminate ‘hidden bias’ in American universities.

‘We don’t accept biology as destiny,’ says Valian. ‘We vaccinate, we inoculate, we medicate…I propose we adopt the same attitude toward biological sex differences.’

‘At bias-awareness workshops, physicists and engineers watch skits where overbearing male faculty ride roughshod over hapless but intellectually superior female colleagues.

Most scientists have no idea of the power and scope of the equity crusade. The business community and citizens at large are completely in the dark. This is a quiet revolution.

It is a very long article, but it argues unfailingly that the application of Title IX equalization in the hard sciences will be deadly to the nation’s economy.  One would do well to memorize Christina Hoff Sommers’ concluding paragraph:

American scientific excellence is a precious national resource. It is the foundation of our economy and of the nation’s health and safety. Norman Augustine, retired CEO of Lockheed Martin, and Burton Richter, Nobel laureate in physics, once pointed out that MIT alone—its faculty, alumni, and staff—started more than 5,000 companies in the past 50 years. Will an academic science that is quota-driven, gender-balanced, cooperative rather than competitive, and less time-consuming produce anything like these results? So far, no one in Congress has even thought to ask.

Full Story

With increasing frequency we hear that women’s studies programs are dying and even being eliminated in some countries due to lack of student enrolment.  To conclude from that circumstance that feminism is dead or dying is surely as false and dangerous as it would have been to conclude that Marxist communism was not the dominating and driving ideology of the USSR.

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

March 14, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

HumanEvents.com
Children of the State
by Joseph A. D’Agostino (more by this author)
Posted 03/03/2008 ET

There is no such thing as other people’s children. — Hillary Clinton

Conservative Americans fancy that socialism has been largely defeated or that its greatest remaining threat lies in taxation and spending. They forget that the dream of leftist revolutionaries for centuries has been not only to equalize wealth and social status, but to eliminate all distinctions among the citizens of their ideal republic. All of these revolutionaries from Marx on down have targeted the family for destruction…(Full Story)

That article in Human Events contains an excellent and important review of Stephen Baskerville’s book, Taken Into Custody: The War Against Fathers, Marriage, and the Family.

____________
Note: Hillary Clinton’s aphorism for the concept of state-ownership and control of children is fairly recent and not all that well known.  Its historical form, used by communists for more than a century to promote totalitarian state-control of society, is familiar to far more people and is a long-standing staple of feminist dialectics: “There are no illegitimate children.”  That means that all children, regardless of the marital status of their parents but especially those children who are full orphans or — primarily on account of  divorce or separation of their parents — semi-orphans, are the full responsibility not of their parents (except for the paying) but of the state and of all of society.

It is only a short step from that to the claim by many social reformers that any conceivable grouping of people constitutes a family, in the words of the former German family minister, Ulla Schmidt, the then new SPD-health-minister in Berlin: “Family is, if all eat out of the same refrigerator.”

Stephen Baskerville explores the concept of state-ownership and control of children in one of his articles: “Hillary and the Politics of Children” (Human Events, 2007 01 24)

Posted in Family, Feminism, The New World Order, Child Abduction | Print | No Comments »

February 12, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

Radical feminism goes by other names: Marxist Feminism, Socialist Feminism (therefore the nickname redfem), it permeates and guides all of feminism there is and is most definitely very much alive.

See Women and Marxism, at http://www.marxists.org/subject/women/index.htm.

For more information on definitions of feminist terms, refer to

Feminism?  You want feminism?  Which brand would you like?

– Walter

Posted in Feminism, The New World Order | Print | No Comments »