Another million dollars for women

August 31, 2010 by Walter Schneider.

FYI:

Recipient Name:	Alberta Council of Women’s Shelters
Location:	Edmonton, Alberta
Date:	2009-12-02
Value:	$1,000,000.00
Type:	Contribution
Purpose:	This three-year project will bring together provincial / territorial shelter organizations across Canada to work to improve the access to and quality of services for women who are in abusive situations, with a focus on Aboriginal, immigrant and rural women. The project will coordinate the national exchange and implementation of proven, promising, and innovative practices and service delivery models across Canada, through the establishment of a national network, including a strategy and action plan to link women’s shelters across Canada. The project will also pilot, implement and evaluate one proven practice across Canadian shelters. By establishing a strong national voice, shelters will be able to act together to identify and effectively address their common issues and goals. Their work will be carried out in collaboration with stakeholders, including government departments, community-based service providers, and women who are victims of family violence.
Comments:	Multiyear project

Source: Status of Women Canada, Disclosure of Grant and Contribution Awards

h/t to Gilbert Claes

________________
In contrast, there are no government-funded shelters for battered men and “their” children, no funding for men’s issues, but men have much shorter average life expectancies.  Men comprise the vast majority of serious or fatal job injuries, the vast majority of heart attack victims and receive far less attention in gender-specific medical research.

Still, the all-pervasive propaganda campaign that alleges that women are victims of men’s oppression marches on…

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

In praise of older women

August 6, 2010 by Walter Schneider.

Today someone sent me some sort of statement (I received it a number of times already) falsely alleged to have been composed by Andy Rooney.

I wrote to her:

Claire,

No, anyone searching his memory for a 60-minutes program in which he did say that will search in vain.  It was not Andy Rooney who said or wrote it.

Here is the truth about that one: http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/rooney2.asp  [You can find the whole piece she sent at that link.]

As you can see at his website, the true originator of it, Frank Kaiser, did not say the gross parts of it either.  Which proves that one does not have to be gross to be clever, because clever he most certainly is, even though he is a feminist who is smart enough not to mention the female version of Western Chivalry.  Still, perhaps now there isn’t a female version of that anymore, especially not to be found amongst the young women of North America today, although in some nations and cultures it still exists.  I believe, if memory serves me right, that it was called femininity.

Mozart once wrote something to his sister about the power of women, and that one, I think, is truly clever.

…a free translation of a poem by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart (the poem was part of a letter he wrote in Vienna, August 18, 1784, to congratulate his sister on her impending marriage):

You’ll experience much in matrimony
that was half a riddle to you;
soon you’ll know from experience,
how Eve once had to deal with
giving birth to Cain.

However, sister, those matrimonial duties
you’ll do gladly with all your heart,
because, believe me, they aren’t hard.
But every matter has two sides:
although matrimony brings much joy,
it’ll bring you grief as well.

Therefore, when your husband offers,
what you feel you don’t deserve,
dark demeanor in his bad mood,
then think, that is male whim,
and say: Lord, Thy will be done
by day and mine at night!

A little later, in the beginning of the 19th century, Alexander Pushkin told us about the travails of Eugene Onegin and his views about the power that women exercised over their husbands.  (The husband may think he rules the roost, but who rules the rooster?  Right!)

XXXI She was like him and always sported the latest fashions of the town; but, without asking, they transported her to the altar and the crown. The better to dispel her sorrow her clever husband on the morrow took her to his estate, where she, at first, with God knows whom to see, in tears and violent tossing vented her grief, and nearly ran away. Then, plunged in the housekeeper’s day, she grew accustomed, and contented. In stead of happiness, say I, custom’s bestowed us from on high. XXXI For it was custom that consoled her in grief that nothing else could mend; soon a great truth came to enfold her and give her comfort to the end: she found, in labours and in leisure, the secret of her husband’s measure, and ruled him like an autocrat - so all went smoothly after that. Mushrooms in brine, for winter eating, fieldwork directed from the path, accounts, shaved forelocks,4 Sunday bath—, meantime she’d give the maids a beating if her cross mood was at its worst — but never asked her husband first. – Alexander Pushkin, “Eugene Onegin,” (begun in 1824) Chapter Two, (Translated by Charles Johnston)

[From the translator’s notes]: 4. Serfs chosen for the army had their forelocks cut off. [Note, as always during the history of mankind, it was the men, not the women, who were chosen for the army and to die on the battlefield, but that, like so many other things that men do (anyone can see the evidence all around), is something many women readily forget about. —WHS]

Aside from the bit from Snopes, all of that is — except for a couple of very small edits — from the web page at http://fathersforlife.org/hist/gerst.htm, which presents the translation of a somewhat longer poem about a prison pastor who had his very own patriarchal ways of looking at and dealing with dissidence in marital relations in the late 1840s.

Here is another side of the story.  It is more about the things that your story alluded to, “The ‘evil’ that men did.”

Enjoy,

Walter

Posted in Men and Women Work, Men's Issues, Feminism, Propaganda Exposed, Women's Violence | Print | No Comments »

Why we have two hands

May 3, 2010 by Walter Schneider.

Vicky [not her real name],

You told me that you don’t like reading.  Nevertheless, do me a favour and read all of what I am writing here.  After all, it’s not that long a write-up.

I know that you did not write anything in relation to those two photos you sent under the heading “Why we have two hands”, one of a little girl with a credit card and a cellphone, and the other of a little boy holding a remote control and his genitals.

Up-front, I don’t feel offended by the two photos, even though the photos offend both women and men.  The reason why I don’t feel offended is that the premise of the alleged “humour” in those photos is based in ignorance or, perhaps more correctly, in propaganda.  Jokes are humorous because they contain a kernel of truth.  They are often the more humorous the more of the truth they contain.  As far as that goes, your two photos contain very little truth and even less humour.

Objectively, I don’t want to over-analyze what is behind the two photos, but both of them are serious distortions of reality.  Many of such distortions are not as funny as they appear to be at first glance.

The photos brought something to my mind that happened when Ruth and I went with my older brother, who is somewhat of a feminist, to Northern Michigan.

I wrote a comment about that incident, and I made sure to drive my point home with my brother after the fact, by sending him a copy of that commentary.  Here is the main issue.

We had just arrived at the Mackinaw bridge and were at a visitor information centre.  There was an exhibit of a model of the bridge.  The short write-up associated with that model provided a few statistics, such as how long the bridge was, when it was built, how much time it took to build, how many men it took to build the bridge and how many of them had died building it.

My brother speaks and understands English, but to let the facts sink into his memory, he translated the facts and figures into German.  In doing so, he mis-translated “men” into the German word “Menschen”, which means “people” and not “men”.

I corrected him and explained that the bridge was built by men, specifically, and not just by “people”, and that it was men and only men, not just people, who had died during its construction.

It is something that many people, especially those of a feminist bent, forget when they re-write history, even if it is nothing more than propagandistic jokes or photos such as the two you sent out, photos that downplay the role of men in our society and throughout civilization.

As I explained to my brother, just about everything you see that did not grow by itself, was built or made by men.  Certainly, many things were made by women, clothing, for example (although even much of that is being made by men), but also the tools with which clothing is being made were designed and made by men, too.

Look around you.  Everything, absolutely everything you see and use right now, has been made by men.

Look out of the window.  Everything that did not grow by itself has been designed, engineered and made by men: your car, the roads it travels on, the materials both are made from — all made or produced by men.  The trailer you live in, the materials it was built with, the tools to work those materials, the mining that was done to produce some of the raw materials for the construction materials, all made by men.

Men have two hands, and so do women.  I won’t run down the good things that women do with their hands, no more so than I wish anyone to forget or make light of what men do with their hands.  Let’s not forget that men use their hands for far more than holding remote controls and their genitals.

It is said that women’s work is never done.  Just the same, it can also be said that men’s work is never done, but that, far more importantly, men’s work is never seen or, thanks to feminism, hardly ever recognized properly.

However, men’s work comes at a terrible cost.  Men’s lives are on average ten percent shorter than women’s lives.  That is mostly because men’s work kills far more men (e. g.: about 100,000 men — and no women — died throughout the world in mining accidents during the last century) than women’s work kills women.

For as long as statistics on that have been kept, about 18.5 job fatalities out of every twenty involved men as victims.  The reasons why women have not yet reached equality with men in that area of human endeavor (the statistics show not the slightest trend of that being changed any time soon, if ever) is a subject of a different and far longer discussion.  I will not go into that right now.

So, even if we try to be funny, let’s be a bit more honest about what we do with our hands.  A lie, even if made out to be humorous, is still a lie.

All the best,

Walter

Posted in Men and Women Work, Feminism, Propaganda Exposed | Print | No Comments »

Praising gender inequity raises feminist ire

November 5, 2009 by Walter Schneider.

Student won’t be punished for satirical posters

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

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

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

A “fare-well” of sorts

October 10, 2009 by Walter Schneider.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

– The Toxic Trinity of Humanicide, by Perseus

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Igor Shafarevich
The Socialist Phenomenon, p. 200

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

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

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

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

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

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

So what on Earth is going on?  ….

(Full Story)

And this:

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

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

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

(Full Story)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

—Hitler, Mein Kampf, Chapter VI

Walter Schneider

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

Fred says…

June 7, 2009 by Walter Schneider.

….Purple-haired dyke feminists: These venomous lynxes have done enough harm that I shall have to be firm. All public doorways will have a spectrophotometer to detect purpleness at hair level. When this happens, a laser will light up and, ssssssssPOP! her head will explode. The entire membership of NOW will be sent to Bangladesh to work in a jute factory. Since most of them look like fire plugs with leprosy, on their return they will be required to wear burqas….

–Fred for Prez (http://www.fredoneverything.net/FredforPresident.shtml)

Posted in Feminism | Print | No Comments »

Why Did Feminists Attack The Family?

May 30, 2009 by Walter Schneider.

Definitely worth reading

From the blog Heretical Sex

Monday, August 27, 2007

Why Did Feminists Attack the Family?

The contemporary cultural and political war against the family has several causes, of which feminism is by far the most significant.

‘First-wave’ feminists in the early Twentieth Century were not at all anti-family. Indeed, one of their demands was that control of hearth and home should be the domain of women. Reference.

It was only as a result of second-wave feminism, in the late 1960s, that the feminist attack on the family began. Neil Lyndon, in his 1992 book ‘No More Sex War’, was perhaps the first to trace the origins of second-wave feminist ideology to Marxism….(Full Story)

Posted in Divorce, Civil Rights, Men's Issues, Family, Propaganda Exposed, Feminism, The New World Order | Print | No Comments »

Roadkillradio.com

May 12, 2009 by Walter Schneider.

FYI,

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

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

Home Page: RoadkillRadio.com

Listen live:

Quoted from that web page:

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

Archived shows:

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

For example:

Download Show 8 Part Two

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

From the home page:

Important and Informative! Joins US!!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Important and Informative!

Your Calls, Your Thoughts, Your Opinions are welcome!

EMAIL THE SHOW LIVE: Roadkillradio@live.ca

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

–Walter

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

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

Barack Obama against the boys

March 16, 2009 by Walter Schneider.

WorldNetDaily

March 13, 2009

By Ilana Mercer

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

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

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

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

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

A feminist defines sexism

February 21, 2009 by Walter Schneider.

Mon, 16 Feb 2009, Rina Mackereth wrote to misc@fathersforlife.org on the subject of “The definition of sexism”.

Rina stated:

To Fathers for Life,

The definition of feminism according to one of the great feminists, Bell Hooks, is:

“feminism is a movement to end sexism, sexist exploitation, and oppression”.

Is Fathers for Life pro sexism?  You want discrimination against men, women and all people to increase?  Do you want to increase sexist exploitation, such as lesbians tricking men into getting them pregnant and ten not telling him of the event?  Is Fathers for Life for oppression?  Racism, classism, ableism, slavery, governmental abuses and the continuing raping of countries and lands?

Feminists’ goal is to make life better for everybody.  Men and children included.

Rina Mackereth

Women’s Studies student at The Simone de Beauvoir Institute at Concordia University, Montreal, Canada

Rina, I find it to be odd that you, while studying at The Simone de Beauvoir Institute at Concordia University, Montreal, Canada, rely on a definition by one feminist, Bell Hooks, to interpret the nature of the ideology that is being promoted at your school in the name of another feminist after whom your school is named.

You can do better than that.  In defining what feminism is, let’s not use the camouflage provided by Bell Hooks, but let’s use the raw, honest and unmistakeable language employed by the patron-saint of your school, Simone de Beauvoir, in trying to understand what socialism in the form of radical feminism is all about:

1. Many feminists are particularly host to the traditional family. Martha Nussbaum, a much-touted classical scholar, writes:

   It would be foolish to deny that there is some truth in Nussbaum’s argument, though it is inaccurate to depict the family as denying women equal opportunities to outside work and education. The question is what to do about the problems she describes, particularly those arising from the altruism of marriage.  Feminists have cooperated in creating the problem by establishing no-fault divorce, and, in their celebration of female autonomy, can hardly agree to make divorce difficult once more. This is one instance of many where feminists have done damage to women.  There is no apparent solution to the problems of divorce and widowhood other than denying women the right to choose a traditional family role.  The feminist solution is: All women must work.
   That was the position taken by the ur-feminist Simone de Beauvoir in her interview with Betty Friedan: “No woman should be authorized to stay at home and raise her children.  Society should be totally different.  Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one.” (17) Feminism is not about giving women freedom to choose; it is about taking away choices of which feminists disapprove. And one choice they disapprove is participation in a conventional family. (Robert H. Bork, in Slouching Towards Gomorrah, pp. 203 - 204)

2. ….At that time [during the pre-emergence of the 1960s student movement] we unruly and restless youth sat all night long in groups and grouplets, discussed and agitated. Some peacefully, others radically. Most «objected», even though they weren’t always clear on what they actually objected to. And those «revolootioners» that stemmed from the educated, well-situated high-society families of the medical professions, -jurists, -magnates of industry, -professors and teachers, or those whose grandfathers and fathers didn’t come to terms with rank and name acquired in the Second World War, kept pace most passionately.One of the compulsory subjects was the «feminist bible» by Simone de Beauvoir, the student and life partner of Jean-Paul Sartres, that had been published in Germany in 1951 under the global name of «The other sex». As if it were a written version of the Oswald-Kolle movies about man «the unknown being», some reached for it and hoped to find therein fundamental truths about «relationship boxes». Others devoured it as a new doctrine of healing and a sign-post to the true meaning of life, something that the doctrines of the Church seemed to guarantee no longer.Carried by the idea that every mensch is the product of his own achievements, Simone de Beauvoir announced the self-realization of the mensch through the total rejection of all constraints as well as [through] the total engagement in work based on performance. How that was to function she demonstrated by means of the example of men. They appeared to her as «complete human», because as absolute individuals they were in the position to liberate themselves from the constraints of fatherhood and family, by concentrating on their total performance and thereby «transcended» into a higher state of consciousness.

   It seemed to Simone de Beauvoir that women were on account of their role as mother and housewife estranged from this desirable state of «becoming human». Motherhood and family-work were deemed to be instruments of the oppression of woman. A woman who wanted to «transcend» and find self-realization had to extricate herself from such constraints, through abortion if necessary. In the ideal case she had to become like a man.

   Whether Simone de Beauvoir, who passed away in Paris in 1986, considered herself to be a pioneer in a merciless war of the sexes with the goal of the oppression of men or more likely interested in true equalization is open to debate. It is a fact that she defended the liberation of women from the constraints of motherhood as one of it’s strongest champions and actively participated in abortion campaigns together with ladies from high society who were inspired by her.

   Many women of the generation of ‘68 let themselves be convinced through the lectures in her work «The other sex» and from thereon divided the world, here into liberated men who had found self-realization, and there into women who are oppressed by men and hampered in their self-realization through their children and families. Particularly into women whose life-goal it had to be to shake off that yoke and to experience the true meaning of existence by self-realization through achievement. The most important mile stones on this path that were proclaimed were the right of the woman to her own belly, to a career, and to the upbringing of the children by the State.

   The second compulsory subject of ‘68 was deemed to be Friedrich Engels’ 1884 paper in which «The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State» is rolled out.

   Hardly anyone from the younger generations still knows Friedrich Engels. Even the older ones almost forgot or never knew him…. (Karin Jaeckel, Ph.D., in Germany devours its children — Families today: Exploited and burned out, pp. 137 - 138

Rina, there is a simple means by which to test the validity of any social hypothesis.  One only needs to ask what would happen if everyone were to follow and adopt the proposition.  The self-realization of all women through casting off the chains of motherhood, as proposed by Simone de Beauvoir would within one generation bring about the extinction of humanity.

It is hardly a practical solution to humanity’s troubles to equalize everyone by depriving them of children, the only real means of survival for humanity.

As to the barrage of questions you asked about Fathers for Life (…is it pro sexism?…  You want discrimination against men, women and all people to increase?…Do you want to increase sexist exploitation, such as lesbians tricking men into getting them pregnant and ten not telling him of the event?…Is Fathers for Life for oppression? Racism, classism, ableism, slavery, governmental abuses and the continuing raping of countries and lands?), you obviously got your mind already made up about all of those questions.  I won’t bother to answer them, other than to observe that their English grammar is sub-standard, but I will respond with another question:

Why is it that, when anyone does not toe their party line,  feminists accuse them of long litanies of invented transgressions?

Let’s face it Rina, Canadian women, with their so-much-greater average life expectancies are not the oppressed sex in Canada.  Why don’t you just stay in your corner of the sandbox and leave men and women alone?  Both do quite well without you.

Posted in Feminism | Print | 2 Comments »