November 23, 2010 by Walter Schneider.

Thanks to Gord Balik:

Canada.com

By Sharon Kirkey, Postmedia News November 22, 2010 Comments (3)

Divorcing parents usually worry about the long-term emotional impact their split could have on the kids, but new research suggests there may be a physical fallout, too.

The Canadian research suggests the children of divorce may be at a higher risk of stroke in their own adult years.

Based on more than 13,000 adults living in Manitoba and Saskatchewan, the research has found that those whose parents divorced when they were children had twice the odds of having a stroke at some time in their lives, a finding that held after researchers controlled for numerous known risk factors for stroke…..(Full Story)

___________
Note by F4L: For interest’s sake, children of divorce are affected to virtually identical extents by other negative outcomes of divorce.  Here is what StatCan has to say:

WHAT WE KNOW ABOUT CHILDREN FROM SINGLE-MOTHER FAMILIES

Mind you, the issue of negative outcomes in children of divorce it not merely a Canadian, national problem, it is universal.  A variety of negative outcomes affect children wherever their parents separate and divorce:

Children of Divorce & Separation — Statistics

Consequences of father absence

Posted in Child Abuse, Single-Parent, Civil Rights, Social-Destruction Enterprise, Health, Divorce, The New World Order | Print | No Comments »

November 11, 2010 by Walter Schneider.

Today is Remembrance Day in Canada, a day to pay tribute to our fallen heroes and the sacrifices men make in war

Well, at least that is the way it used to be.  Today we are more politically correct and create, rightfully so, also compassion for fallen men’s (and a handful of fallen women’s) surviving loved ones and families.

This morning, a bit rushed for time, because I had to go to the Remembrance Day ceremonies in honour of Canada’s fallen heroes, victims of the wars required to preserve Canada’s freedom in two world wars, but also almost forgotten ones, the Boor War, the Korean War and now the war in Afghanistan in which more Canadian men (and a handful of women) left their lives as sacrifices for the same reason, I had responded to a Canadian journalist.  She had informed me of a paper on The Status of Men, by Andrea Mrozek, Manager of Research and Communication, Institute of Marriage and Family Canada.

The journalist, a long-term pro-family and pro-male advocate and writer, had written, “Walter are you already on this list? This was written by a friend I worked with at…. Very impressive.”

I was not quite that much impressed by the paper, although the paper is a fair outline of the plight of men and its impact on families and society.  Before I explain why that is and state what I wrote back to her, let me tell you what happened at the local watering hole, Nightmoves, the Bruderheim bar where I stopped in after the Remembrance Day ceremonies were over, to warm up.

It had been cold, and, because the sun had been shining before I left, I had thought that I would not have to put on my parka.  That had been a mistake I will not soon make again.

It was cold, I got cold, chilled to the bone, and I needed a brandy and a coffee to try and warm up. That worked, and I was glad it did. I needed it.  A few acquaintances were there, having breakfast and also warming up before they were to resume their attempts to hunt deer and moose in the area.

“Where is your wife,” they asked, and “why did you not bring her?” I explained that the missus went to Edmonton, with one of her girlfriends, to the farm fair, although I could not think for the life of me why her girlfriend would want to go there, unless she wanted to go shopping for a prospective husband, because she surely was no longer in the farming business, having done her best to sell off already most of the farmland that her husband — deceased for a few years, long before it was his wife’s turn to go, as husbands are likely to do for various reasons (e. g.: such as being forced to fight in military actions here and there) — had done his best to acquire for the safety and security of his family.

I told them that I thought that at her age, about 65, she would face tough competition. In the age-group 65 and over, there is one man for every two women. The hunters said that they had never thought of it that way, and that I made reaching old age quite an attractive proposition for men. I said that they were quite right, but that, even though the risk for men of losing it all is quite high, things would progressively get better for surviving men, the older a man gets. “Think of it,” I said, “all the fun you can have! At age 85 and over, the ratio of men to women is about 1 : 5, and at age 95 it is about 1 : 10. Women could be falling all over for you. You would no longer have to look for them. They would come looking for you, although by that time you would probably have forgotten even the memory of what the chase is all about.”

Still, here now is what I wrote back to the Canadian journalist, in memory of the sacrifices men make, in Canada and elsewhere. I told the journalist,

I am not sure what list you are referring to, but I read the abstract of “The Status of Men“, its summary, and small portions of the full report. I will have to leave the reading of all of it until much later today. As of now I cannot comment intelligently on the whole report, but I must assume, from what I read so far, that the author accurately summarized her perspective on the issue of the declining status of men. My commentary is based on that assumption.

I am not all that impressed by the paper; but is it perhaps a step into the right direction? I wonder. I am a bit rushed and have not yet given several readings to what I wrote here. So, consider this a first draft that needs some refinements, although what those should be is not immediately apparent. Perhaps you have a few ideas on that. I would gladly discuss those this with you, provided we can do it at Dads & Things, where I will post the following.

As a subject for concern, we should neither be overly concerned about the status of men nor about the status of women. The latter is a term that was brought into prominence through Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels [considered to be the fathers of modern communism]. It was used to help “liberate” women, to bring them into the work force and to help bring about the destruction of the traditional nuclear family, for which purpose modern feminism rose (all along opposing the incumbent pro-family feminism that had prevailed since the early 1800s) to promote that and the consequential marginalization of men.

It somewhat underscores the reality of those objectives when one considers that while women became “liberated” and expanded their power from the home domain (which they without a doubt already firmly dominated) to the work domain and continued and intensified their domination of public life (enabled by male politicians who recognized the opportunities presented to them through women’s suffrage), men became more firmly enslaved.

It is ironic that during the initial period of women’s liberation, men were forced like slaves to die in record numbers in the bloodiest wars in the history of mankind, while their surviving widows and children were forced to live miserable lives, often and largely on the dole; but the politicians had achieved their goal, female liberation and domination, while the tax burden for income earners — mostly men — rose rapidly and enormously to enable the State to pay for it all. [Preceding link inserted 2010 11 25 –WHS]

While formerly it was that men were still openly and deeply mourned by their mothers. sisters, wives and daughters, today’s women see nothing wrong with men’s enormous sacrifices, for the simple reason that radical feminists indoctrinated them into firmly accepting the belief that no sacrifice by men is large enough to atone for the alleged oppression of women throughout the history of mankind (of course, history as invented and edited by feminists). There is of course another reason why the large losses of men are no longer so keenly felt. Father State jumped into the breach that was left by men and fathers who were expunged from their families, providing his benevolence so easily funded by the much greater contributions of men (70 percent of all such contributions) to social safety nets whose benefits are handed out primarily to women (70 percent of all such benefits). That alone is socialism in action: from those able to give to those in need — and men industriously give, slaving away as always, now for Father State instead of for their families from which they were expunged.

The question is whether the promotion of the status of men will change and equalize what is an obvious imbalance in the status of women and men. Radical feminism (a.k.a. Marxist or socialist feminism), the currently ruling faction of the feminist movement, always has and will vehemently oppose the elevation of the status of men, while other feminist factions, of whom there are several dozens, are happy to ride along on the feminist band wagon.

The elevation and promotion of the status of men will do little more than to enormously deepen the rift between the sexes and to intensify the war of the sexes.

Here is an excerpt from a commentary I wrote just yesterday morning to put the war of the sexes into the greater context of the re-engineering of civilization. I urge you to follow the link in that to some observations on Igor Shafarevich’s book, The Socialist Phenomenon. I think that The Socialist Phenomenon is of far greater importance than the IMFC paper on The Status of Men. Alone the foreword by Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn makes it worth having a look at the book.

My first marriage had fallen to pieces and ended in separation and divorce in 1975. The consequence of my experiences of the divorce process convinced me to become a fathers-rights activist. On account of that I now operate the most-popular fathers-rights website in Canada, Fathers for Life, but that is also quite popular (one of the top-ranking websites of that sort) on a global basis.

Through the international networking I do in connection with that, I developed early on an interest in the history and evolution of feminism and of the Marxist roots and ideology of radical feminism, feminism’s controlling faction. That led me to explore the history and evolution of socialism and of the tools and programs employed by socialists in the re-engineering of our civilization.

Out of that, beginning in the early 1990s, came my interest in environmentalism and in the hype and hysteria created and used by it to indoctrinate humanity. I set up a website and blog to address that.

As Anthony Watts often explains, it is not necessary to assume that malice is the driving cause of something that we see as corruption, when simple incompetence suffices. Still, I am more inclined to consider that the driving force for our progression towards the global socialist state is nothing more than greed for money, power and control.

I know, I am describing the making and development of a cynic, but I consider Igor Shafarevich and others who stated similar things to be absolutely correct.

Socialism is an ideological force that existed for as long as did civilization, while feminism, a branch of socialism, existed just as long. A society will always tend to evolve into a socialist regime of a totalitarian nature. That was true on a regional basis throughout history. We now have the tools and the audacity to attempt expanding the scope of that progression to encompass the globe. At that level, things will end as they always did, in chaos and a long dark age from which humanity will take a long time to emerge in more conservative manifestations of orderly nations and regimes. However, before that happens it will be necessary for society to develop once more an appreciation for the essential, fundamental building block of a well-functioning society, the traditional nuclear family. That will happen all on its own. It will be a survival mechanism that comes into play when Father State can no longer afford to support his children (that’s beginning to happen right now), and individuals will once more seek and find security at home, within the welfare and safety provided by the immediate family.

Consider a few of the observations presented by Igor Shafarevich,

But while Fourier, with the infantilism so characteristic of him, sees amid “the passions we call vices” nothing more terrible than “passion for sweets and the delights of love,” Freud goes much further. Among the forces to which he attempts to reduce culture and the spiritual life of man, Freud does not bypass either malice or lust for domination, destruction or the death wish. He considers all culture to be based on the suppression of the instincts–the deepest part of the human psyche, which strives to act according to the “pleasure principle.” Unhappiness, in Freud’s view, is a necessary cost for civilization. Happiness does not fall within the range of cultural values. Moral norms, elaborated by that part of the psyche that is of later, cultural, origin, are factors which are destructive and mortally dangerous to the organism. Freud compares morals with products of decay which are manufactured by a cell and then become the cause of its death.(ibid. p. 229)

and

There is certainly nothing that suggests the existence of any kind of limit beyond which socialist principles cannot be applied. It would seem that everything depends only upon the depth of the
[274]

crisis with which mankind may be faced. In this case, one could regard the death of mankind as the final result to which the development of socialism leads. (The Socialist Phenomenon, bottom of p. 274 and top of p. 275)

and

The death of mankind is not only a conceivable result of the triumph of socialism–it constitutes the goal of socialism. (ibid. p. 285)

Shafarevich is right, and I can’t see for the life of me how promoting the elevation of the status of men will address the problem he identifies. It will certainly not do so by focusing on the plight of men and illuminating them as victims, while the welfare of our nation and indeed all of civilization is being ignored through diverting attention away from the fact that all along socialism had as one of its primary objectives: the planned, deliberate destruction of the traditional nuclear family, whereby — with what can be salvaged out of the resulting rubble of the destruction of our civilization — then a greater and better socialist, totalitarian, global regime can be constructed.

Walter Schneider

Posted in Men and Women Work, Media Bias, Social-Destruction Enterprise, Civil Rights, Health, Men's Issues, Propaganda Exposed, Feminism, Family, The New World Order | Print | 3 Comments »

October 31, 2010 by Walter Schneider.

Many thanks to George Rolph for pointing me to this.

Man Woman & Myth

Truth, Lies and the War on Men

The website identified by the preceding link is one of the most important ones I have come across in decades.  It answers the concerns of many men’s and fathers rights activists who wrote to me over the years and expressed the wish for a video lectures series on men’s and fathers’ issues.

Well, the video project by Man Woman & Myth is the answer they sought and to which many of them through their efforts tried to contribute more or less successfully.

About the Video Project

The Project

A documentary series, 7 years in the making, exploring all aspects of male-female relations from a man’s point-of-view. Looks at the various reasons behind the negative treatment of men in Western society, including the root cause: Feminism.

Consists of 49 short films on Feminism, Misandry, Equality, Domestic Violence and Education as well as Family issues like Paternity Fraud, Fatherlessness and Reproductive Rights.

As of now I have only been able to quickly browse the website and looked at no more than a quick sample of the 49 videos that are available there.  I am amazed at what has been put together.

I will watch all of the videos in the coming weeks and try to give that top priority.  As I go along with that, I will report on what I find.  It is quite obvious already that not many words at the website are wasted and that all of them are intended to mean what they say.

The first lesson I learned is that the website owner means everything he states in his “Notes on the Video”.  Read all of the notes.  Just as there is no way you can take in all of what the 49 videos present without watching all of them, so you will not be able to successfully understand the problems you may encounter in downloading, file-sharing or watching the videos without reading all of the notes.

As of now, my first impression is, Wow! The Man Woman & Myth video project either used the website of Fathers for Life to develop its scripts or it took its guidance from some of the same sources that guided me and the contributors to Fathers for Life over the years.  The video-project leader quite rightly states:

As a result of years of feminised programming, any film like the ones found here will be a bit like a bucket of cold water in the face in terms of the presentation of what I see as basic reality. Many people will not be used to this degree of forthrightness and honesty and some may be a little shocked.

That is absolutely no exaggeration, at best an understatement, and it is no wonder.  Look at the individuals that were interviewed and whose views are being presented:

Principal Interviewees

• Angry Harry

Psychologist and prominent Men’s Rights activist, angryharry.com.

• Erin Pizzey

Author and Domestic Violence expert. Opened the world’s first domestic violence shelter in London and is a patron of the Mankind Initiative Men’s Charity. Author of the book “Prone to Violence”.

• Stephen Fitzgerald

Former Director and National Organiser of the Mankind Initiative Men’s Charity.

• Michele Elliott

Founder and Director of Kidscape, a children’s charity, and author of the book “Female Sexual Abuse of Children”.

• Oliver Curry

Evolutionary Psychologist at the London School of Economics and contributing author to Demos, the independent think tank and research institute.

• Professor Colin Francome

Professor Emeritus of Medical Sociology, Middlesex University. Author of the book “Improving Men’s Health”.

Alright.  That is all I can say for now.  I will be back about this and present more of my impressions as time goes on.   I hope that if you watch any of the videos, and you absolutely should, you will be able to post a comment here.

Posted in Civil Rights, Paternal Rights, Social-Destruction Enterprise, Media Bias, Maternal Rights, Parental Alienation, Child Abuse, Violence by Proxy, False Allegations, Men and Women Work, Education, Feminism, Propaganda Exposed, The New World Order, Women's Violence, Feminist Jurisprudence, Family, Divorce, Health, Men's Issues, Paternity Fraud | Print | No Comments »

October 26, 2010 by Walter Schneider.

LifeSiteNews.com
Tuesday October 26, 2010

Woman Seeks Identity of Anonymous Sperm-Donor Father

By Patrick B. Craine

VANCOUVER, British Columbia, October 26, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) – In a case showing the painful consequences faced by children conceived through artificial reproduction, a British Columbia woman is petitioning the courts to find out the identity of her father, an anonymous sperm donor….(Full Story)

Posted in Civil Rights, Child Abuse, Social-Destruction Enterprise, Health, Men's Issues, The New World Order | Print | No Comments »

October 25, 2010 by Walter Schneider.

Hello [name not shown],

Thank you for your letter dated October 5, 2010.  I received the letter today.

You described your intentions to prepare for a 45-minute presentation on “the emotional effects homosexuality may have,” on individuals, I presume, although in your opening paragraph you emphasized that you are “focusing  on how being homosexual might affect a person’s daily life.“  Those two perspectives are related.  Still, each would require a unique and different scope of your inquiries, scopes that overlap in some areas.

Furthermore, you asked whether I could send to you “any informational materials, referrals, and/or suggestions” that I “might be able to share on this subject.”

What I can share in that respect is freely accessible at the website of Fathers for Life. You can find any material or information that is available there in relation to homosexuality by entering relevant keywords, subjects or topics of interest into the site-specific search-engine input field that is shown in the upper-right-hand corner of virtually every web page at the our website.

You must have accessed some of that material already.  However, as you asked for referrals, may I ask why you feel that the citations and sources shown in the accessible reference material are insufficient and prompt you to request the identification of additional referrals?

As to suggestions I may be able to make, you may wish to consider whether your presentation should not also include information that will put the consequences of homosexuality you wish to describe into a broader context, such as to identify causes of homosexual behaviour as well as health effects (some of which are without a doubt deadly) other than merely some emotional aspect and their effects of interest to you?

That would not require many words other than a short statement that those issues do exist and need to be of great concern, but that you put them aside for now, so as to permit you to focus on the issues that interest you.  You may also wish to explain why you deem the emotional aspect of homosexuality — selected aspects that interest you — to be more important than all others.  One has to wonder if your exclusion of the much shorter life spans of homosexuals and their so much earlier likelihood of death should not be mentioned in your presentation.  Surely, there is hardly a more powerful emotional effect affecting anyone than one’s own or a loved one’s early demise.

Regards,

Walter Schneider
Fathers for Life
Dads & Things

Posted in Health, Gay issues | Print | 1 Comment »

October 3, 2010 by Walter Schneider.

The following story is one of many my Aunt Thekla, oldest sister of my Dad, told when I was old enough to appreciate some of her experiences as co-owner of the vintner-supply business she ran with her husband in the Ahr Valley, in Ahrweiler, Germany, a region known for producing good red wines.

The old vintner, Henry, had finally come to the end of his days.  He had grown his vines, tended to them, growing and harvesting the grapes, squeezing every single one of them, so not a drop of must would be wasted.

Henry had quite literally worked his heart out, producing some of the best wines any connoisseur could have hoped to taste, while his faithful wife of most of his years, Mary, had stood by his side and squeezed every nickel, so as to make sure it would not be spent frivolously.

Between the two of them, they had done well.

Now Henry lay on his death bed.  The village priest had just left, after performing the last rites.  Now there was nothing left to do but wait, wait for the grim reaper.

“Henry,” said Mary, “is there anything I can do to make you a bit more comfortable before you meet your maker?”

Henry responded, “Yes, Mary. Do you remember that award-winning “‘37″ of which you always saved those nine bottles for a special occasion?  Do you think you could go to the cellar, fetch one of those bottles and let me have just one glass of it? I sure would enjoy that.  It would be a great way to go.”

Reluctantly, Mary went to the cellar and got one of those treasured bottles of the ‘37 vintage, skilfully extracted the cork and lovingly poured a glass for Henry.  She carefully helped him to sit, so that he could drink all of it in comfort and without having to worry about spilling even a single drop of the precious liquid.

Then she helped him to lay back and sat back herself.  Silence settled for a few minutes, with the clock ticking away the time in the quiet room.

Mary spoke up, “Henry, is there anything else I can do for you?”

Henry asked for another glass of the ‘37 vintage.  Mary poured one for him and carefully helped him, so not a drop of it would be spilled.

Henry settled down again and said, “Ah, that was good.  It sure was worth the hard work producing it.  No wonder it won first prize.”

Then, after a long silence and more waiting, Mary asked, “Henry, is there anything more I can do for you?”  Henry replied, “You saved that wine for a special occasion for all those years.  I am glad you did.  Surely this is one of those occasions.  Let me have another glass of that wonderful wine.”

Mary said, “Okay, Henry, I’ll pour another glass of that wine for you, but then it is time to die.”

Posted in Humour, Men and Women Work, Health | Print | 2 Comments »

September 29, 2010 by Walter Schneider.

If you do not want to read all of this entry, then nevertheless do yourself the favour of getting a good belly-laugh by watching comedian Alan King’s Survived by his wife (thanks to Allan Chinnery for that link).

Last Saturday Ruth and I went to the celebration of her aunt Jenny’s 100th birthday.  Aunt Jenny survived her husband by 33 years.  He had passed away in 1977, at age 71.

All of that anecdotal evidence would not stand up in a court of law, but the following excerpt from the website of Fathers for Life shows that the anecdotal evidence of women’s longer lives is well supported by objective data from official sources.

(It took me a while to decide to assign this article to the category “Humour”.  Still it is funny, and humour is the more funny the more it relates to the truth.  There is a lot of truth in this story, so you may as well read the rest of the truth relating to this.  Maybe you, too, will find it to be at least somewhat funny that men die so much sooner than women, yet women are considered to be victims in need of protection.  That is worth having a laugh over, isn’t it?)

Differences in the life expectancies of the sexes in various countries in the world

This page contains statistics on the life expectancies of the sexes in various countries in the world.  The statistics shown on this page are a bit dated, from the late 1990s, if I remember right, but I am getting a little tired and will not update them with more recent data.  You can perform that little exercise by yourself and will find that the gender-gap in the life-expectancies of the sexes has widened a little more since that time.

Certainly, life expectancies since then increased for both men and women, but more so for women.  So what is the problem with that? There is not much of a problem, at least not one that men complain about.  After all, who can argue with the truth?  The truth will set us free, as the saying goes, but when the truth is inconvenient, it could become a problem, such as when the shorter average life-expectancies of men in the majority of the nations in the world must be presented in such a way as to show that men’s earlier deaths are a serious inconvenience to women’s quality of life when women reach the end of their days.

That is a truth, too, that from that perspective must be presented as a serious impediment to women’s happiness, such as in Women: Victims of Men’s Shorter Life Span (off-site).  Of course, rather than to look at this from such a biased but politically-correct perspective, one could look at the gender-gap in the life-expectancies of the sexes in a more objective fashion and simply state that the gender-gap exists, and that it favours women.  As comedian Alan King showed in 1987, in Survived by his wife, the truth about the gender-gap in life-expectancies can be made to look very funny, even hilarious (what could be a better reason for making a joke than to make fun of death?).  Still, as Alan King illustrated in his presentation, telling the truth and nothing but the truth about such matters is likely to have the consequence that an elected official calls the truth-teller a male, chauvinist pig.  That is a good thing, too, as thereby any possible complaints by men about having to die so much sooner than women can be nipped in the bud.

With the exception of seven countries (Nepal, Bangladesh, Malawi, Niger, Namibia, Bhutan and Afghanistan), in all other countries listed in Table B women live longer than do men, in some countries by a considerable margin.

________________________
Life Expectancy is not the only measure of quality of life.   The UN has since 1990 annually published a Human Development Index that ranks countries’ quality of life by a combination of indicators, such as life expectancy, availability of schooling (but not the quality of schooling), the GDP, availability of health care (but not the quality of health care) and more. The UN Human Development Index has shortcomings that have been addressed by the Fraser Institute in a more realistic alternative to the UN Human Development Index.

An additional indicator that should be used by the UN as well as by the Fraser Institute to measure the quality of life in a given nation is a measure of how happy people in a nation are with the quality of lives.  Suicide rates are a very good indicator that can be be used for that.  It surely can be no accident that the rankings of nations according to life-expectancies very closely matches that according to suicide rates.

By both of these measures, life expectancies as well as suicide rates, men’s lives are almost exclusively in all nations far worse than those of women’s.

The average of the differences in life expectancies for the sexes in the countries listed in Table B is 5.09 years (by which the life expectancy of men is less than that of the women in a given country).  Turkey is the country in which the difference in the life expectancies of the sexes is closest to the average of all countries.

Russia leads the list with the greatest difference in the life expectancies of the sexes (12.89 years less for men), followed almost exclusively by formerly communist countries — countries in which affirmative action for women made the largest advances for the longest intervals.

Afghanistan is the country that has the largest difference in favour of the average life expectancy of men over women (one year).

Almost all of the developed nations have differences in the average life expectancies that are on average slightly above the average for all countries.  See Table A for details….(See all of the web page)

Posted in Civil Rights, Humour, Suicides, Health, Men's Issues, Propaganda Exposed | Print | 2 Comments »

September 15, 2010 by Walter Schneider.

Today I came across a story about an Australian judge having awarded child-visitation rights to two gay men who took turns donating sperm to two lesbians.

The story appeared on the German-language blog http://www.in-australien.com, apparently a gay-rights-oriented blog, at http://www.in-australien.com/baby-mit-4-homosexuellen-eltern-das-gericht-fallt-ein-urteil_103692

The story is dated Sept. 15, 2010 and mentions that the court decision involves a lesbian couple in Melbourne, with no identification of where the two gay men hail from.  The judge in the case is ostensibly Linda Dessau, but I have no clue as to which court she resides at.

Although I spent a considerable amount of time searching for English-language verification of the story, I have not been able to find any such thing.  Do any of you know anything about this?

Here is a translation of the German-language article into English (it is an edited version of one produced by Babel Fish, but I did not spend very much time in correcting grammar, wording and syntax):

Baby with 4 homosexual parents: The court delivers a decision

In Australia, a lesbian and a gay pair were transformed into four homosexual parents of a cute baby. The Australian court responsible was able to deliver a verdict in this case that awards  rights to all parents  enabling them to be allowed to care for the baby. Originally, the two lesbian life-partners  simply wanted to have a child of their own. A gay couple made itself available as sperm donors, with both men alternating  with their sperm donations. The project was successful, and thereby, approximately two years ago, a small boy came into the world. That evoked such great parental emotions in all four parents who had been involved that now none of them can do without the little tyke and, accordingly, wished to spend as much time as possible with the newly-born.

For that reason, with the passing of time ever more disputes developed  between the two pairs of parents, so that now a court had to decide in the situation. The four tried to find common grounds on parental responsibility and visitation arrangements, in order to do justice to themselves and to the small baby. However, they could find no agreement that would satisfy all parties. Justice Linda Dessau was therefore to decide what was to be the best for the now already 2-year-old child. Because all four persons love the small one dearly and deal responsibly with him, she decided that all participants should be awarded the right  to be allowed to spend time with the boy. The child is to have the possibility in each case of becoming acquainted with all four parents in order to experience their parental love.

The court hands down a clear verdict

 The baby was born in Melbourne and lives until today together with his two mothers here. The two men  had moved to Melbourne already before the birth of the child, in order to have regularly contact with it. After two years all parents had developed such strong feelings that everyone wanted to spend equal time with the infant. Since the baby had  so far lived with the two women and these thus more were involved in its life, the mothers pleaded that the small boy was to live further with them. The judge said, however, that the two men are not just simply sperm donors, but that both feel true feelings for the boy.  On the basis of those facts the judge decided that the boy may live further with the women, although the two men should receive regular visitation rights, to see their offspring grow up and to be able to provide him with their paternal support.

Well, I am not an expert in matters of such a confoundedly confusing parental situation in which a judge declares the physically-impossible, that there can be two mothers and two fathers of one child.  All I have to go by is my many years of experience with raising sheep.  Furthermore, tit-for-tat, I would like to, just as homosexual-rights-activists are fond of doing, project from the parental practices in the animal world to  those that come into play in civilization.

Even King Solomon found parental disputes by mothers in such issues extremely confusing but devised a practical solution that enabled him to rule which of two competing “mothers” was the natural one who truly deserved to be the one mother whom the boy in that case was to be assigned to, so as to preserve the standards that made society work well.  Judge Linda Dessau appears to have assumed powers of judgment that vastly exceed the wisdom possessed by King Solomon.  Nevertheless, my experience in such matters with the sheep that we raised over the years will almost certainly lead to the situation in this case where reality will bite all the participants in the butt.

The hormone oxytocin exerts a powerful influence in such cases, powerful enough to evoke parental influences and feelings for all ostensible parents involved.  However, within a relatively short time the confoundedly confusing parent-child relationships always and without fail lead to disastrous outcomes that are often even fatal (most definitely in the case of sheep and especially in regard to “child abuse” by sheep as a result of maternal confusion).

The experimentation with human standards in such matters must come to an end.  Homosexuality is an evolutionary dead-end, most definitely in the animal world in the wild and in husbandry.

Aside from that, I wonder why I can’t find any references to this particular case of  the confusion of homosexual-rights with normalcy in civil society.  Should one not think that this case should have made the news where it took place?

Can anyone help out with some more information on this case?  Is the whole story perhaps just the creation of a new urban myth in the making?

–Walter

Posted in Civil Rights, Judiciary, Maternal Rights, Child Abuse, Paternal Rights, Social-Destruction Enterprise, Gay issues, Child-Custody Awards, Health, The New World Order | Print | 1 Comment »

September 13, 2010 by Walter Schneider.

Yahoo! News | The West Australian
10 September 2010

Swiss pioneer shelter for newly separated husbands
By Barbara Prevel, Reuters

Geneva (Reuters) - A trickle of newly separated Swiss fathers looking for
shelter and help after marital breakdown have been finding a warm bed and a
sympathetic ear from a pilot project on the shores of Lake Zurich.

Protestant pastor Andreas Cabalzar has founded Switzerland’s first shelter
for newly separated fathers in the Swiss village of Erlenbach, not far from
Geneva….(Full Story)

________________
Battered men’s shelters

Although domestic violence is in the vast majority of cases mutual violence and slightly more often initiated by women that by men, there are., with extremely rare exceptions, no shelters in which battered men can find refuge with their children.

Over the years and decades during which battered women’s shelters became all-pervasive and virtually inexhaustible sources of revenues through found-raising  for feminist issues and programs in the developed nations, any attempts to establish battered men’s shelters faltered due to lack of funding and in some cases through obstruction by feminist-dominated and -controlled government bureaucracies.

Virtually all of the few battered men’s shelter that opened their doors and began to serve men in need on account of marital strife struggled for survival and in short order closed their doors again due to shortages of funding and other necessary resources.

You may wish to explore this issue in some more depth at the website of Fathers for Life.   Here is a list of pertinent articles and reports.

Posted in Divorce, Battered Men's Shelters, Health, Men's Issues, Feminist Jurisprudence, Women's Violence | Print | No Comments »

September 12, 2010 by Walter Schneider.

Men’s News Daily

Friday, September 10, 2010
By J. Steven Svoboda

Why has Michael Gurian, author of over twenty books mostly relating to children and/or gender, devoted a book to boys and purpose?

In answer to that natural question, the author lists “some of the core issues of male purposelessness”, including schools not trained in caring for and motivating boys; media “attack[ing] males as defective and dangerous (and, quite often, just plain stupid) without also providing a variety of strong role models”; families lacking male role models or not understanding their critical importance; and “workplaces helping young women secure employment, but assuming young men will do just fine at landing a job, even though millions are not finding useful work.”…(Full Story)

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