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 1, 2011 by Walter Schneider.

An organization that propagates anti-male propagandist misinformation like that in the indicated article should not call itself “The Good Men Project”. A better name would be “Supreme Misandry”.

Are Men Natural-Born Cheaters? — The Good Men Project Magazine
goodmenproject.com

Men are more promiscuous than women, but that doesn’t mean we should buy the cultural fallacy that men are programmed to cheat. The vast majority of men are happily, naturally monogamous.

The last few years brought several headline stories about the cheating behavior of guys like John Edwards, (former) South Carolina governor Mark Sanford, and Tiger Woods. The public—or at least the pundits’—reaction included outrage but little surprise. After all, here in the U.S., we expect guys to cheat on their partners. Research on male sexual behavior confirms what we know—that men are more likely than women to have an extramarital affair.

The information in the article presents a pile of findings from feminist advocacy research served on unadulterated B.S. Adultery is not abuse when women do it, but it is bad only when men do it? Women do not lie?
If you believe that, you better have a look at this:
http://fathersforlife.org/divorce/women_do_not_lie.htm

Why do we need misandrist websites like that launched by The Good Men Project? You better consider how much funding such a thing gets and where that funding comes from.

Consider also why the hatred against men needs to be intensified. Do men need it? Does it do them injustice? Thinks about this and play around with comparable and comparative search terms at the following links:

1.) Misandry (hatred of men) vs. Misogyny (hatred of women)

http://www.google.ca/trends?q=misandry%2C+misogyny&ctab=0&geo=gb&geor=all&date=all&sort=0

2.) Jack the Ripper (he killed five prostitutes) vs. Elizabeth Bathory (she killed about or close to 650 girls and young women by torturing them to death) vs. Jane Toppan (a nurse and contemporary of Jack the Ripper who killed as many as or more than 90 patients for no other reason than that she wanted to set a record)

http://www.google.ca/trends?q=Jack+the+Ripper%2C+Elizabeth+Bathory%2C+Jane+Toppan&ctab=0&geo=gb&geor=all&date=all&sort=1

Although you probably know all you want to know about Jack the Ripper (unless you grew up on a different planet), you most likely know nothing about Elizabeth Bathory or Jane Toppan. The following links will help you to learn something about those two women (and there is a large lot of more women like that, as the first of the following links shows).

http://www.michaelnewton.homestead.com/BadGirls.html

http://fathersforlife.org/hist/elizabeth_bathory.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Toppan

No one in their right mind will think that men need something like The Good Men Project to help out with promoting the good image of men. It won’t come from that place and organization.

Men need something like The Good Men Project Magazine like they need Ms Magazine or additional holes in their heads.

Posted in Social-Destruction Enterprise, False Allegations, Men's Issues, Feminism, Propaganda Exposed, Women's Violence | 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 2, 2011 by Walter Schneider.

On 01/03/2011 8:45 PM, [name omitted] wrote:

Many thanks for your information. I have contacted my [elected representative] (a woman. . . lol) so I’ll let you know what transpires. Thanks again….

Let’s hope that she can do something for you.  Chances are better than 50:50 in your favour that she will.  After all, you are a potential vote for her.  The more shaky her position, the more likely it is that she will help you.  On the other hand, civil servants are not bothered by such considerations.  They can use their positions to further their pet-ideologies with impunity, provided they toe the party-line of their respective organizations or departments.  It follows that real political power resides in government bureaucracies, not with our elected representatives.

There is nothing wrong with a woman being your representative, as such.  Being a woman does not necessarily mean that she is a feminist or unwilling to help you.

The reality is that being a feminist is a condition that is independent of sex.  Moreover, the pro-feminist bias in individuals produces somewhat more male than female feminists.  For many men who are feminists, being feminists gives them the illusion that their affliction earns them more respect in the opinions of women whom they wish to impress.  That works well for the women who can be impressed.

On the other hand, women generally feel that they do not need to impress men (but, generally, women most definitely have a great need to impress other women).  They are more practical than that.

For many truly honest women, wanting to be feminists poses a great dilemma. They know full-well that being feminists implies the obligation to be fully equal to men.  That means, that to be able to reach full equality, they would have to give up too many of the advantages that feminism provided them with.  However, most being extremely practical, virtually all women — feminist or not — are very reluctant to forgo any of those advantages.

Let there be no mistake.  Those tendencies are ingrained and have been re-enforced through selective breeding throughout evolution.  Feminism is older than civilization and predates the advent of humanity.  For instance, you can observe feminist tactics in action when watching the movies that anthropologists have made of the social interactions in the daily lives of troupes of chimpanzees.

It would not be wise to discuss any of those observations with [elected representative].  :-)

Posted in Civil Rights, Men's Issues, Feminist Jurisprudence, Feminism | Print | No Comments »

January 9, 2011 by Walter Schneider.

A lot of mail comes my way each day.  In many of my responses I recommend to read certain books.  The reason why I do that is because I get the impression that those to whom I recommend those books don’t have a clue that they exist.

About ten years ago or even earlier, that was hardly ever necessary.  Men’s rights activists, then, knew the authors whose books I must now point to because many of today’s activists need to be told about those books , that they need to be read and learned from.

I don’t know why that is, although we could all speculate a lot about how anyone can possibly know much about men’s rights activism without knowing the basics of what to be active about.  Here (in no particular order) are links to information on some books that are essential reading for anyone who is or claims to be a men’s rights activist:

• The Myth of Male Power: Why Men Are the Disposable Sex, by Warren Farrell
  You don’t like reading?  Here is a link to the first part of an audio series on The Myth of Male Power
• The Manipulated Man, by Esther Vilar
• The Case for Father Custody, by Daniel Amneus
• Taken into Custody: The War Against Fatherhood, Marriage, and the Family, by Stephen Baskerville
• Save the Males, By Richard Doyle
• And again. for those who don’t like to read, an excellent series of videos: Man Woman & Myth

Feel free to add to the list, but stick to the blog rules.

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

December 28, 2010 by Walter Schneider.

…at least that is the intention of Oakland County Assistant Prosecutor Sydney Turner.

Sidney Morning Herald
December 28, 2010 - 8:58AM

Husband charged after discovering wife’s affair by reading her emails on shared computer

A US man who says he learned of his wife’s affair by reading her e-mail on their computer faces trial on felony computer misuse charges….(Full Story)

Posted in Civil Rights, Divorce, Feminist Jurisprudence, Feminism | Print | 1 Comment »

December 27, 2010 by Walter Schneider.

It appears that the concept of PC Feminism evolved out of, or is an umbrella term that describes, a combination of various factions of feminism, such as Affirmative-Action Feminism, Gender-Feminism, Hegemonic Feminism, Pop-Feminism, Post-Modernist Feminism, Radical-Feminism, Survivor-Feminism, Total Rej (total rejection) Feminism, and Victim Feminism, in short, any and all forms of feminism that elevate women to the status of a superior class of citizens and relegate men and boys to the category “sub-human”.

Therefore, PC Feminism not only promotes superior status, rights and privileges for women but makes all-out discrimination against men and boys politically correct and desirable.

(Full Story)

Posted in Judiciary, Civil Rights, Religion, Maternal Rights, False Allegations, Paternal Rights, Social-Destruction Enterprise, Feminist Jurisprudence, Feminism, Family, Men's Issues, Education, The New World Order | Print | No Comments »

December 25, 2010 by Walter Schneider.

From the website of the Family of Men Support Society:

“NO MEN ALLOWED”
Misandry at the government level (City of Calgary , Province of Alberta , Government of Canada ) and at community level agencies.

No Men Allowed to participate at any meetings, therefore male victims of female-perpetrated domestic violence are denied a voice.

The system is autocratic, exclusive & misandrist.

The system is not democratic, inclusive or open minded.

Posted in Organizational News, Social-Destruction Enterprise, Civil Rights, Battered Men's Shelters, Violence by Proxy, False Allegations, Media Bias, Censorship, Propaganda Exposed, The New World Order, Feminism, Feminist Jurisprudence, Health, Men's Issues, Women's Violence | Print | No Comments »

December 17, 2010 by Walter Schneider.

“There is no such thing as bad publicity.” — unknown origin

On Dec. 14, 2010, I received a complaint from Lisa McShine, who, according to what she wrote in the ensuing e-mail exchange, is an occasional proofreader for Project Gutenberg.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Project Gutenberg, abbreviated as PG, is a volunteer effort to digitize and archive cultural works, to “encourage the creation and distribution of eBooks.”^[2] Founded in 1971 by Michael S. Hart, it is the oldest digital library.^[3] Most of the items in its collection are the full texts of public domain books. The project tries to make these as free as possible, in long-lasting, open formats that can be used on almost any computer. As of November 2010^[update], Project Gutenberg claimed over 34,000 items in its collection. Project Gutenberg is affiliated with many projects that are independent organizations which share the same ideals, and have been given permission to use the Project Gutenberg trademark. (Link to Wkipedia article on PG)

Lisa McShine complained that the web page by Fathers for Life on a mid-19th century German-language children’s book, Der Struwwelpeter, by Heinrich Hoffmann (Slovenly Peter, translated by Mark Twain) misrepresents the intentions of PG and its proofreaders.  She wrote:

Hello:

Thanks so much for adding the Mark Twain translation of Der Struwwelpeter. I enjoyed reading Twain’s much more close translation from the German.

However, I want to point out that the preamble of the e-book in Project Gutenberg says the English translation dates from 1848 and it certainly dates before 1927, the published date of my physical copy of a volume of extracts for children including the Der Struwwelpeter translation and illustrations shown in the Project Gutenberg e-book. Thus, I highly doubt that the bowdlerization was intended to make the translation politically correct, as you state.

Lastly, as someone who occasionally volunteers time to proof-read for Project Gutenberg, I would like to reassure you that PG NEVER re-translates or tries to change the meaning of anything it makes available online. Our Primary Rule (http://www.pgdp.net/c/faq/proofreading_guidelines.php) is “Don’t change what the author wrote!”: we only transcribe from the image of the printed page.

I hope you will consider revising “In the translation provided by Suzanne Shell, Sandra Brown and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team of the Project Gutenberg those lines came to read as:” and “Project Gutenberg’s politically-correct translation reads:” so that it does not imply that PG and PG proofreaders had anything to do with the existing content other than to make it available in plain text form.

Kind Regards

LM

Depending on what I will eventually find out about what caused the enormous increase in traffic to the web page by Fathers for Life on Der Struwwelpeter, concurrently with or subsequently to Lisa McShine’s complaint, I may at some time publish all of the e-mail exchange between us.  Nevertheless, it was not on account of anything I had done.  My responses to Lisa McShine were sent only to her, and until today I had not done anything to make anyone aware of the discussion.  Regardless, my closing remarks in my second message to Lisa McShine (Dec. 15, 2010) proved to be prophetic, at least in part, the one pertaining to publicity.

Nevertheless, not all is lost.  An often-used maxim by an unknown individual states: “There is no such thing as bad publicity.”  That principle brought fame, power and fortune to many people.  Let’s hope that the discussion of the book at Fathers for Life will help to encourage improvements to the good work by Project Gutenberg and that thereby the quality of that work will become even better.

It remains to be seen whether the remaining part, about the good impact that publicity may have, will come true.

The increase in the number of daily visits to the web page is remarkable.  After having been read for years by from four to 21 visitors a day (each remaining on the page on average for a little over eight minutes), the number of daily visits increased to 95 (Dec. 13), then to 1,110 (Dec. 14, the day Lisa McShine sent her complaint), after which it fell off to 556 (Dec. 15), and to 310 (Dec. 16), with the average time each visitor remained at the page still being a little more than eight minutes — enough time for most to have read all of the page.

A screen shot showing the daily number of visits at http://fathersforlife.org/hist/der_struwwelpeter.htm, for the 30 days ending Dec. 16, 2010 (thanks to Google Analytics)

The conclusion is inevitable, there is no such thing as bad publicity.

Posted in Media Bias, Books & Films, Education, Men's Issues, Feminism, Family, Propaganda Exposed | Print | 1 Comment »