April 27, 2011 by Walter Schneider.

In the early days of the Internet, when web browsers first came on the market, I found that I had problems finding information about advice for fathers who are being put through the wringer.  There were then few websites, but there were bulletin boards.

The first time I looked for whether there  was a fathers rights organization in or near Edmonton, Alberta, it took me about six months for someone to put me on the right track.  The lead came to me in a round-about way, in the from of advice from someone in the USA.

That experience led me to start the website for Fathers for Life.  I figured that it was wrong that any man in need of help and advice would have to look for months to find it.

Now I get help requests from all over the world, but mostly from the USA and from Canada.  Most of those come through e-mail, but some of them come by phone.

Early this morning I had a call from a man in Michigan whose boys had been placed in foster care because of a drug charge.  He is holding a good job now and his life is on the straight and narrow, while he had the misfortune to be a passenger in a vehicle the driver of which was charged with possession and transporting drugs.  Of course, he got charged and now mentioned that he had been advised to plead guilty, so as to get off easy.  Well, for one thing, getting off easy involves having another offence added to his criminal record.  Guilty or not, the charges he faces are at least legally warranted.  That is not the case with the woman who called me last night.

The woman called because she wanted to know whether there is any way by which her son can protect himself against false allegations of domestic violence.  He apparently went through a separation and divorce, and his ex got custody of his boy, of course, while he has standard visitation rights.  Now his ex is charging him again with domestic violence in connection with an assault she alleges he committed when he came to pick up his son.

It appears that there were witnesses who will testify that no assault took place at the time of the exchange of the boy, but now the mother of the father asked what he can do to protect himself against further wrongful allegations of violence by her son, and how an end can be put to that apparently widespread practice of women making such allegations against men and fathers whom they want out of their lives for good, except for the child-support money they will be forced to fork over.

We got into a little bit of a discussion on that, during which I provided a run-down of the causes and history of the evolution of Canadian feminist jurisprudence.  She still wanted to know what can be done to put an end to the widespread practice of making false allegations of violence and the associated injustices perpetrated by the courts.

I told her that there is no protection against that, no magic bullet, no remedy but to abolish feminism as the driving political force for the policies that make false abuse allegations so exceedingly effective and so often used effectively by women.

I explained to the woman that we live in a country that is becoming ever more socialistic, and that the evolution of Canadian feminist jurisprudence has the same Marxist roots that brought about increasingly oppressive feminist jurisprudence in the USSR.  Her response was that she came from [one of the nations] in the former USSR, but that terrible injustices such as those we have here now in relation to false abuse allegations never were a problem in the area of the USSR she came from.

I disagreed with her on that, but I will let you be the judge.  Have a look at Matriarchy in USSR.

See also:

• The Russian Effort to Abolish Marriage, The Atlantic Monthly, July 1926, and
• History of the evolution and destructive social impact of Soviet divorce laws

Posted in Divorce, Civil Rights, False Allegations, Men's Issues, Child-Custody Awards, The New World Order, Feminist Jurisprudence, Women's Violence | Print | No Comments »

April 26, 2011 by Walter Schneider.

AdelaideNow, April 13, 2011

Penis-burning wife Rajini Narayan walks free

It was predictable and predicted accurately. Again, a murderess or (if you don’t want that sexist term) a murderer walks, proving once more that women are incapable of committing crimes, especially the crime of murder.

She murdered her husband. She did it deliberately. It was premeditated.

However, in the latest hearing in a series that was nothing more than a travesty of justice, the murderer was set free, because — and you better believe it as it surely must be so on account of a judge assuring it on the basis of the true victim’s unsubstantiated assertions — she is the real victim, and not the husband whom she deliberately murdered by throwing gasoline on him and setting it on fire,

Therefore:

In sentencing today, Justice Sulan said Narayan had “deified” her husband and was “shattered” by his betrayal.

He said there was “no doubt” her thinking at the time was “unrealistic, muddled and illogical”.

“For the first time in your life you had confronted your husband, had found the courage to be assertive to the person who had mistreated you for 20 years,” he said.

“His response was to treat you with disdain, dismiss you and turn his back to you (and) you snapped.”

Justice Sulan further ordered Narayan be under Correctional Services supervision for two years, and undertake psychological counselling as ordered.

More

There you got it, straight from the judge’s mouth: women are not possibly capable of murder.

There is never an excuse when men murder. When women murder, no excuse is necessary. It is a waste of the valuable time of our courts to even have to contemplate excuses when women murder. Women cannot and do not commit murders.

More on the history of this case

Posted in Judiciary, Violence by Proxy, Men's Issues, Feminist Jurisprudence, The New World Order, Women's Violence | Print | No Comments »

April 18, 2011 by Walter Schneider.

Mail Online

My wife was sweet and demure - then the fashion industry made her a monster

By Zoe Brennan
Last updated at 11:48 AM on 17th April 2011

More

Quotes from the article, with comments by Dads & Things:

‘When I met my wife, she was sweet and demure. I believe she’s become egotistical and self-centred. The fashion world has turned her into something of a monster.’

If I read this right, she was a model already when she decided to have him for a husband, whereupon she could legally and without complications use him as a sperm donor — quite possibly on the advice of her handlers or her peers in the modelling industry.  Without a doubt, having a child is an asset for a model.  That sort of asset does not peter out as fast as her looks will.

Her campaigns have included Ungaro, Cavalli, Gucci and Paul Smith.

Those were not her campaigns.  The were campaigns designed and launched by advertising agencies that used her modelling agencies to supply a key ingredient for successful advertising, namely the image of Ujjwala Raut.

‘It has broken my heart to be apart from my daughter.’

Welcome to the world of the expunged fathers.  There are hundreds of millions of them.  If misery seeks company, he’s got more than enough of it now.

She, …has accused him of threatening behaviour.

Allegations of violent behaviour are standard fare in such cases.  He should consider himself lucky that as of now she has not accused him of sexually abusing his daughter. As far as false allegations are concerned, child-sexual-abuse allegations are the ultimate silver bullet, because they always get their man.

He blames the fashion world for turning his wife’s head…

That is an unjustified allegation, no matter how correct it may seem.  He, having been a part of that world, should know better.  She sold her soul the moment she decided to become a model.  He had rocks in his head for falling for her.

Sterry states that he still loves his wife. ‘If she said, “I made a mistake,” I would accept her back, even though she has done some really nasty things.’

Of course he would.  That is how men are made.  That is how they get suckered, time and again.

‘Her judgements have been wrong, but she is not inherently bad.’

Of course she is not inherently bad, no more so than a gun is, not until it is aimed and someone pulls its trigger.  “Wrong” is a relative concept, flexible, and always relates to someone’s standards.  From her perspective, everything she has done works out well and produces the desired results.  Don’t knock success.

For her part, Ujjwala has flatly denied both her husband’s claims of assault and the allegation that she has influenced the deportation proceedings in an improper way.

She has said: ‘If Maxwell is alleging abuse and intimidation, why is he not resorting to court procedures, which is how things should be?

‘This matter is sub judice [before a court, not yet judicially decided]. I don’t wish to comment on it. When the time comes, I myself will make an announcement.’

Smart move on her part.  He should have had advice like that a long time ago and followed it.  He should not have publicly commented on the collapse of his marriage, because what he told the Mail Online is more than enough to allow them to have constructed a long article.  Moreover, even though he is most likely correct with everyone of his observations, everything he said can and will be used against him in the courts.

He should now concentrate on what he will do during the rest of his life to be able to cope with the handicap of having to pay his daughter’s mother for a child he will most likely never get to see anymore, commensurate with the life-style his soon-to-be-ex has become accustomed to.

Posted in Civil Rights, Maternal Rights, False Allegations, Paternal Rights, Men and Women Work, Feminist Jurisprudence, Men's Issues, Divorce, The New World Order | Print | 1 Comment »

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 »

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 »

February 2, 2011 by Walter Schneider.

If you are a man and are married, live with a spouse or contemplate marriage, you better have a good look at the ruling by the British High Court.

Fathers & Families

British High Court Expands ‘Domestic Violence’ to Include Shouting and Criticizing

January 27th, 2011 by Robert Franklin, Esq.

It’s hard to overstate the reach of the British Supreme Court’s ruling in this case (Daily Mail, 1/27/11).  It was decided on Thursday and from that date all aspects of domestic violence law have been completely changed….

Seventh, let no one be deceived into believing that this ruling will be applied in a gender-neutral way.  Domestic violence law hasn’t been to date and this ruling will be more of the same.  For over four decades, men and fathers have been demonized in law, education and popular culture.  The result is that, when women bring a claim of domestic violence, they are often believed whether they back up their claims with objective evidence or not.  Men, having been demonized, get no such privilege.  So the consequences of this ruling will be sexist, overwhelmingly used by women at the expense of men.

Don’t believe me?  Just look at the photo in the linked-to article.  Who’s depicted shouting?….(Full Story)

h/t Roger Eldridge

Robert Franklin concludes his article by stating, “If Parliament fails to immediately correct this travesty of “justice,” the consequences to British society will be incalculable.”

That, of course, will not happen, therefore the damage will be incalculable.  If you wonder why that is so, then you are part of the problem.

At any rate, the article describes nothing other than feminist jurisprudence in action.  Feminist jurisprudence is driven by misandry and enables women to commit violence by proxy without having to soil their hands and without having to exert themselves in any other fashion.

Posted in Paternal Rights, Civil Rights, Judiciary, Violence by Proxy, Social-Destruction Enterprise, Divorce, The New World Order, Feminist Jurisprudence, Men's Issues, Women's Violence | Print | No Comments »

January 30, 2011 by Walter Schneider.

I don’t know what is going on, but it seems to me that these cases were not being reported in the US mainstream media, quite possibly because they are an embarassment.

MailOnline
Jan. 30, 2011

Convicted rapist allowed to walk after DNA tests cast doubt on case… after serving all but five months of 25 YEAR sentence

….Sims, who missed the death of his mother as he was in prison, will have to register as a sex offender and is not eligible for any services or funds that the state gives to the wrongly convicted….Full Story)

You think that things cannot get any worse than that with wrongful convictions?  Check this:

MailOnline
Jan. 28, 2011

Wrongfully convicted rapist is freed after 17 years.. and hit with a $110,000 bill for backdated child maintenance

….Northrop was told he owed $111,000 in back child maintenance payments. About half of that sum was owed to the mother of his children and half to the state, which helped support the family while Northrop was incarcerated.

The state’s Department of Social and Health Services has a programme for writing off child support bills in hardship cases, and it waived its share of Northrop’s balance in November.

But Northrop still owes tens of thousands of dollars to his former partner, and the state has now enforced mandatory monthly payments of $100 out of his wages….Northrop’s co-accused has also fallen on hard times, working for just three days since his release….(Full Story)

“Men who are unjustly accused of rape can sometimes gain from the experience.”

— Catherine Comins, Vassar College,
Assistant Dean of Student Life in Time, June 3, 1991, p. 52
— From: Feminism and Society — As seen through feminists’ eyes (and as seen through the eyes of others who still use common sense) A collection of quotes by Bill Wood)

And what exactly is it that these three men gained from their experience?

Posted in Censorship, False Allegations, Men's Issues, Feminist Jurisprudence, The New World Order, Women's Violence | 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 »

January 4, 2011 by Walter Schneider.

WND Exclusive
NEWS OUTRAGE!

Psych studies ordered for jailed homeschooling dad

Just wanted to spend time with state-napped son

Posted: January 01, 2011
10:40 pm Eastern

By Bob Unruh
© 2011 WorldNetDaily

Unspecified psychological studies or evaluations have been ordered for a jailed father who, in violation of the procedures of the government-run social services that instructed police officers to abduct his then-7-year-old son because he was being homeschooled, took him home for a visit….(Full Story)
______________
The more things change, the more they are the same.  “Psychological studies or evaluations” is what the prisoners of the KGB in the Lubyanka were being subjected to.  The government held those prisoners for “psychological examinations and treatment”, not that they were being detained for any crimes that they had committed.  If the prisoners had committed any crime, it was then as now most likely that they were not thinking and acting along politically-correct outlines, such as that they insisted upon their individual rights and freedoms.

The government in Nazi-Germany was not quite so sophisticated or fortunate in its choice of reasons for the detention of citizens whom it considered enemies of the state.  The Germans used the device called “protective custody”, to “protect its political prisoners against harm” from sources other than the government, I guess — harm by the government being quite as alright then in Germany as it is now in Sweden.

So, just to jog my memory and to bring it into line with the program, how is the present totalitarian system in Sweden an improvement over what was in place in the USSR and in Nazi Germany to circumvent and abrogate anyone’s civil rights then?

Posted in Paternal Rights, Civil Rights, Social-Destruction Enterprise, Men's Issues, The New World Order, Feminist Jurisprudence, Child Abduction | 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 »