November 9, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

Remembrance Day is coming up.

It is a celebration in honour of the men (many millions of them) and the women (a handful) who sacrificed their lives fighting for home and country and for the preservation of democracy, freedom of speech that is. (Canadian World War II casualties by sex: 50,000 men, 25 women)

Now that freedom of speech is just about dead, so dead that the only places in which it is being discussed publicly is in such venues as the (Canadian) Human Rights Tribunals (the Canadian equivalent of what in totalitarian regimes used to be called People’s Courts), it may be worth having a look at a personal experience from a few years ago - perhaps now quaint and outdated - with the concept of free speech, something that once-upon-a-time made the societies in the developed nations great.

Have a look at http://fathersforlife.org/articles/robin/freespeech.htm.

Given that the commentary on Remembrance Day that was posted last year at this blog has been fairly popular for all of last year, but especially during the past few days (more than 500 visits a day), you may want to have a look at that one, too.

–Walter

Posted in Civil Rights, Judiciary, Censorship, Feminist Jurisprudence, Propaganda Exposed, The New World Order | Print | No Comments »

November 1, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

Catholic Insight

Why Stephen Harper should be retired

By Fr. Alphonse de Valk

Issue: November 2008

After the election of October 14, a number of political observers concluded that Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s time is coming to an end.  Don Martin in the National Post ( Oct.14), still argued that Harper had won the election and now is secure in the saddle. Half a dozen others, however, saw his third failure to obtain a majority in the House of Commons as a sign pointing to the exit. Lawrence Martin of the Globe and Mail wrote that Harper will be gone before “the next vote” (Oct. 16)….

After the election of October 14, a number of political observers concluded that Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s time is coming to an end.  Don Martin in the National Post ( Oct.14), still argued that Harper had won the election and now is secure in the saddle. Half a dozen others, however, saw his third failure to obtain a majority in the House of Commons as a sign pointing to the exit. Lawrence Martin of the Globe and Mail wrote that Harper will be gone before “the next vote” (Oct. 16)….

In general the commentators emphasized similar failures in analyzing why Stephen Harper did not get his majority. As the only spokesman for the Conservatives, all other MPs having been silenced once more, the blame, they said, falls squarely on him, mostly because of his autocratic personality….

Yes, the Harper government has made some improvements, such as the abolition of the Court Challenges Program, the appointment of judges opposed to judicial activism, and extending child support directly to families instead of spending billions on centralized daycare.

However, none of this makes up for the most grievous flaw of all, Harper’s outright and brutal rejection of the pro-life ethic in defence of the dignity of all persons, newly re-iterated in the most blatant way possible….(Full Story)

Posted in Judiciary, Civil Rights, Abortion, The New World Order | Print | No Comments »

October 25, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

WindsorJournal.com

Historian examines witch hunts past and present
By: Susan Corica, Staff Writer
10/23/2008

“Connecticut would have been the leader in witch hunting if it hadn’t been for Salem,” historian John Demos told a full house the Windsor Historical Society.

Demos is the author of the recently published “The Enemy Within: 2,000 Years of Witch-Hunting in the Western World,” and Samuel Knight Professor of History at Yale University. He is considered one of the foremost scholars on witch hunting….

The article states that,

Many parts of Europe were swept up in witch hunts, large and small, he said. It used to be thought that millions were killed, but now the best estimate is 50,000 to 100,000, “still a very large number.”

….(Full Story)

Yes, that is a very large number, but one must consider that it represents the total number of witches executed over a period of 343 years, from 1450 - 1792.  That brings the annual average of executions of witches to about 146 to 292, considerably less than the millions of lives a year that modern-day witch hunts by totalitarian regimes claimed and still claim.

Let there be no mistake.  As many as half or perhaps more of the witches killed during the old witch hunts were men.  During more modern witch hunts, such as those that took place during the Stalinist purges in the USSR, about 96 percent of the tens of millions of victims that had been killed were men.  The killing of those men in the USSR is quite clearly discernible in its impact on the population pyramids for Russia and Ukraine.

That is most certainly not an issue that any self-respecting and self-centered feminist ever complained about and clamored for equal rights.  A more politically-correct view on the role of women in witch hunts then and now is provided in the following quote from the article:

During the question-and-answer period of his talk, he said explained that the accusers in the colonial witch hunts were about 50/50 men and women, but women were always the primary targets, whether in New England, Virginia, Europe, or in other eras or parts of the world…..(Full Story)

From the information provided in the remainder of this footnote is is clear that a statement like that can only be made by someone whose objectivity is perhaps somewhat blurred by looking at history through the feminist gender lens.  Contrary to all such feminists assertions, it was men who were at least at times and in modern times without a doubt always the primary targets of witch hunts.

______________
This posting is a quote of an update made today to The Happy Days Ahead.

Posted in Media Bias, Civil Rights, Judiciary, Education, Men's Issues, Propaganda Exposed, Feminist Jurisprudence, The New World Order | Print | No Comments »

October 21, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

PRESS RELEASE

ATTN: Social Issues / Men’s Editors And Writers

—————————————————————

Battered Men Being Denied Services Is Ruled Unconstitutional By California Appellate Court, Reports National Coalition of Free Men

Domestic violence programs in California must open doors to battered men

For Immediate Release

SAN DIEGO/EWORLDWIRE/Oct. 17, 2008 — On October 14, 2008, the Court of Appeal in Sacramento, Calif., ruled it is unconstitutional to deny state-funded domestic violence shelter services to men.

The case (Woods. v. Shewry) was filed by four men and the daughter of one, against the State of California and its agencies. The lower court dismissed the case on the ground that men and women are “not similarly situated” as victims. The Court of Appeal reversed the decision on October 14, 2008, holding “male victims of domestic violence are similarly situated to female victims for purposes of the statutory programs” and the laws “violate equal protection.”

“This is a big victory for male victims and for gender equality, but the fight is not over,” said the plaintiffs’ attorney, Marc E. Angelucci of the National Coalition of Free Men (NCFM), the oldest and largest men’s rights organization in the U.S. “Many taxpayer-funded programs, especially in Los Angeles, deny men counseling, legal services, shelter or even hotel vouchers, putting their children in danger. Men pay at least half of the taxes that fund these programs, and they should not be denied services when they need them.

“This decision can profoundly affect the equal treatment of victims,” said NCFM’s President Harry Crouch. “All victims need help, and services should be need-based, not gender-based.”

Professors and experts filed sworn declarations supporting the plaintiffs and explaining that this is a serious but hidden problem and that children are being emotionally harmed when their fathers don’t get the necessary help.

Men are less likely than women to report domestic violence, which makes crime-based statistics unreliable. Randomized sociological surveys worldwide, however, consistently show women initiate domestic violence at least as often as men, and men suffer about a third of physical injuries. California State Long Beach Professor Martin Fiebert summarizes over 200 of these studies in an online bibliography. The 50/50 result remains even when self-defense is accounted for.

SOURCES:

Court Decision:
‘http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/C056072.PDF‘

California State Long Beach bibliography
‘http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm‘

Canadian government report
‘http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/ncfv-cnivf/familyviolence/pdfs/Intimate_Partner.pdf‘

American Psychiatric Association
‘http://www.patienteducationcenter.org/aspx/HealthELibrary/HealthETopic.aspx?cid=M0907d‘

University of New Hampshire 32-nation study
‘http://www.unh.edu/news/cj_nr/2006/may/em_060519male.cfm?type=n‘

Prof. Don Dutton, ‘Transforming a flawed policy: A call to revive psychology and science in domestic violence research and practice,’ Aggression and Violent Behavior, (11) 2006, 457 483
‘http://www.nfvlrc.org/docs/DuttonCorvo.policypaper.pdf‘

Contact: Marc E. Angelucci, Esq., National Coalition of Free Men, 626-319-3081; marc@menslegal.com

HTML: http://www.eworldwire.com/pressreleases/19067
MOBILE: http://e4mobile.com/pressreleases/19067
PDF: http://www.eworldwire.com/pdf/19067.pdf
ONLINE NEWSROOM: http://www.eworldwire.com/newsroom/312078.htm
LOGO: http://www.eworldwire.com/newsroom/312078.htm

CONTACT:
Marc E. Angelucci, Esq.
Men’s Legal Center
940 C Street
San Diego, CA 92101
(619) 234-3838 x 20
Mobile (622) 319-3081

KEYWORDS: National Coalition of Free Men, Mens rights, fathers’ rights, gender equality, masculism, domestic violence, battered men, battered women, gender equality, men’s rights, violence against men, abuse, spousal abuse

SOURCE: National Coalition of Free Men

—————–
Copyright 1996-2006 Eworldwire, All rights reserved.

Press Relase Distribution By EWORLDWIRE
http://www.eworldwire.com
(973)252-6800.

For Media Questions:
http://www.eworldwire.com/forthemedia.php

—————————————————————

Related comment by F4L

Posted in Organizational News, Civil Rights, Judiciary, Men's Issues, Family, Propaganda Exposed, Feminist Jurisprudence, Women's Violence | Print | No Comments »

October 18, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

U.S. must stop exporting weapons of family destruction

By Uma Challa
web posted January 29, 2007

Pearl S. Buck once wrote, “The lack of emotional security of our American young people is due…to their isolation from the larger family unit…no mere father and mother…are enough to provide emotional security for a child.  He needs to feel himself one in a world of kinfolk, persons of variety in age and temperament, and yet allied to himself by an indissoluble bond…”

The much envied Indian family structure is, in fact, based on mutual tolerance and coexistence of persons belonging to different generations, and provides safety and security to individuals at all stages of life. The larger family also acts as a buffer to mitigate everyday stress and helps minimize conflicts between inexperienced married couples. This stable and time-tested cultural institution has suffered the most serious assaults due to the export of family-breaking ideologies originating in the Western world. Understanding and tolerance to build harmonious marital relationships, are now being projected as a form of slavery. To make things worse, senseless U.S. anti- family laws, which have literally destroyed trust between American men and women, are now being thrust on India, without any heed to cultural relevance, social consensus, or the presence of a suitable law enforcement system for their proper implementation….(Full Story)

Posted in Social-Destruction Enterprise, Paternal Rights, Judiciary, Health, Family, The New World Order, Feminism, Feminist Jurisprudence, Women's Violence | Print | No Comments »

October 18, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

The Courier News

Wife gets 48 months’ probation in husband’s shooting

October 17, 2008
By DAVID GIALANELLA Staff Writer

ST. CHARLES TOWNSHIP — A Huntley woman who authorities said shot her husband after a day of drunken arguments pleaded guilty Thursday to a felony charge in connection with the January 2007 incident.

Virginia Choromanski, 67, of 12700 block of Woodgrove Drive, agreed with prosecutors to a 48-month probation term in exchange for pleading guilty to one count of aggravated domestic battery….(Full Story)

Posted in Judiciary, Men and Women Work, Feminist Jurisprudence, Women's Violence | Print | No Comments »

October 16, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

The Third District California Appeal Court ruled in a 3-0 decision, October 14, 2008, that to deny support services to men who are victims of domestic violence is unconstitutional.

Regardless of the overall impact, Justice Fred Morrison said in Tuesday’s 3-0 ruling, the state acknowledges that “domestic violence is a serious problem for both women and men.” He noted that the California Constitution forbids sex discrimination, under a 1971 state Supreme Court ruling, and said men and women are entitled to equal treatment, even if one sex is affected more than the other. (San Francisco Chronicle)

With that decision comes the beginning of the end of the corner stone of feminist agitprop: “Women good. Men Bad.”

Domestic Violence or its equivalent expression, family violence, is a misnomer, as that term - as used by feminist activists - excludes violence against children and the elderly in families and almost invariably is used by feminists to point only to violence by men against women and to sweep the vast majority of domestic violence under the carpet.

The largest single group of domestic violence victims is comprised of children in families, of which in the vast majority of cases, 70 percent, mothers are the perpetrators. That does not mean that in the remaining 30 percent of the cases of violence against children only natural fathers are the ones who commit violence against their children. Those remaining 30 percent of the cases involve primarily the mothers’ boyfriends, other relatives, babysitters, and so on. Natural fathers comprise only a small fraction of those remaining 30 percent of the perpetrators of violence against children in families.

The feminist tactic of remaking the public’s perception of the term domestic violence achieved great success. Feminist camp followers, journalists, social services, and other non-governmental but taxpayer-funded organizations, and even judges intent on helping “victims of domestic violence,” direct their help almost exclusively to women who claim, often falsely and as a very effective part of divorce tactics and separation strategies, that they became victims of violence by their husbands or boyfriends.

Even men’s rights activists became indoctrinated by the feminist rhetoric regarding the alleged sole victims of domestic violence, women, in as much as they clamor that men too are often victims of their wives’ violence.

Still, most men’s rights activists at least advocate that domestic violence is not a gender issue but an equal opportunity employer who affects both sexes to equal extents.

Unfortunately, talking about domestic violence as affecting both partners in marriage or in ostensibly similar relationships ignores the largest group of domestic-violence victims, children.

It is fortunate that some men’s rights activists do not fall into that trap set by feminists and their fellow travellers. Marc Angelucci is a California lawyer who could be considered to be one of the more enlightened men’s rights activists. He is the lawyer who clearly identified, in his fight for the monumental California Appeal Court decision to declare favoritism in the provisioning of services to only one class of domestic violence victims as being unconstitutional, that domestic violence victims are not only women and not only men, but, far more importantly, also children who are victims of their mother’s violence.

The decision by the California Appeal Court judges must be seen from that perspective. It provides hope not only for battered husbands but for all victims of domestic violence. That is rightfully so and thus gives full recognition to the fact that, all feminist propaganda to the contrary, domestic violence is a human condition that, fortunately, affects women as victims not all that often, relative to its remaining victims.

Unfortunately, domestic violence affects children as victims far more often than either women or men. Even more unfortunately, domestic violence is most often committed by violent women.

The California Appeal Court decision will now permit us to begin work on finding solutions to a problem that for far too long found public concern only for a relatively small sector of its victims, women, and no concern at all for it primary perpetrators, also women. The decision gives, at least indirectly, legal recognition that services for domestic violence victims must be available to all of its victims.

However, the decision only addresses problem symptoms, the plight of all victims of domestic violence.

The California Appeal Court Decision does absolutely nothing to address the major problem cause of domestic violence, the lack of treatment, education and counselling for the primary perpetrators of domestic violence, violent women.

We have a long way to go before we get from the recognition of all domestic violence victims to the full recognition of all of its perpetrators. Only when we do that can the human problem of domestic violence be solved.

Just as did the judges of the California Appeal Court, all of the journalists who rejoice over the decision failed to address all of the root-causes of domestic violence. Here is what those journalists had to say.

National Post

A big piece of stone just fell out of the Domestic Violence version of the Berlin Wall

Posted: October 15, 2008, 8:43 AM by Jonathan Kay

Barbara Kay

October is Domestic Violence Awareness Month and I am sure that to 99% of readers the two words “domestic violence” means violence against women. Only.

The politically correct view that all domestic violence (DV) can be accounted for either by the inherent aggression and controlling instincts of men or by women’s defensive reactions against those instincts is so deeply entrenched in our culture that it has become the Berlin Wall of the gender wars - or rather the war of feminism against men.

In fact women initiate violence against their partners in an almost equal ratio to men.  And in many cases the violence they inflict is severe (as one woman in a woman’s shelter told the director, “knives make great levellers”).

For all the men who have suffered at the hands of battering women, a chunk of stone just fell out of that huge gendered wall. In a taxpayer lawsuit by four male victims of DV, the Third District appellate court in California reversed a previous ruling holding that because they are not statistically situated with women, men are not entitled to equal protection. The new ruling declares the exclusion of men from Domestic Violence programs unconstitutional….(Full Story)

More information on the California Third District Appeal Court decision is contained in the following articles.

MensNewsdaily

Victory! CA Appellate Court Says Excluding Men from Domestic Violence Programs is Unconstitutional

October 14th, 2008

by Glenn Sacks

California attorney Marc Angelucci scored a tremendous victory today as the Third District Court of Appeal in Sacramento ruled that California’s exclusion of men from domestic violence [victim support programs] violates men’s constitutional equal protection rights….(Full Story)

________________

San Francisco Chronicle

Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer

Thursday, October 16, 2008

Appeals court decision supports battered men

California domestic violence laws violate men’s rights because they provide state funding only for women and their children who use shelters and other programs, a state appeals court has ruled.

The decision by the Third District Court of Appeal in Sacramento requires the programs to be available to male as well as female victims of domestic violence. The court said the services don’t have to be equal - an agency could maintain a battered-women’s shelter while giving men vouchers to stay at hotels, for example - but both sexes must have access to the programs.

The ruling overturned a Sacramento County judge’s decision to uphold the laws on the ground that women are more likely than men to be victims of domestic violence and to suffer more serious injuries….(Full Story)

___________
See also the Domestic Violence Index Page at Fathers for Life.

Posted in Media Bias, Civil Rights, Judiciary, Divorce, Child Murder, Feminist Jurisprudence, Family, Men's Issues, Women's Violence | Print | No Comments »

October 5, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

Link to original article (in German)

A translation of the article into English is appended after the following comments.

It is worthwhile checking out the photos relating to the article.  They provide a few ideas for the wording and formats of placards that can be used on placards at other demonstrations elsewhere.

The photo in the main article shows expunged fathers writing (with chalk) the names of their children on the pavement in front of the Fulda Court Building.  Fulda is a German city with a population of about 60,000.

The slogans visible and legible in the photos related to the main article translate as follows:

13 photos in the related photo series:

1. “…and when do I get to see Dad?” (Link)
2. “Children’s Rights on Paper –
   Their Fathers are here today” (Link)
3. “Family-splitting
   instead of
   Splitting of Partners in Marriage”

   “You too have a right to both parents“”Both Parents for all Children” (Link)

4. “…and when do I get to see Dad?” (Link)
5. “Shared Custody”

   “Visitation that happens”
   (Sorry, that doesn’t make much sense to anyone who is not initiated, unless the absence of any other information implies that the visitation that happens is nil.) (Link)

6. The placard shown is of the Frankfurt Branch of the organization “Fathers Decampment [as for an uprising] for Children“. In addition to address details, the placard states “Two Parents for all Children” (Link)
7. “www.AktiveVaeter.de [active fathers] demand now:
   Custody-Right from Birth” (which says nothing about paternal rights after conception, but that exclusion is quite possibly deliberate — after all, would it be wise for anyone to deny mothers the exclusive right to kill unborn children?) Link)
8. “…and when do I get to see Dad?“(Link)
9. “Fathers Decampment [as for an uprising] for Children”

   “Men’s Commissioner”
   That implies that there is none, alluding to the fact that every developed nation has a government department for the “Status of Women” or for women but nothing comparable for men.  Sorry, but a sign like that is not of much help in promoting the causes of men, women and families.A discussion of why that is so would take too much space here.Let’s just say that only some of the initiated-few understand what the sign is getting at.  The philosophical complexity of the placard violates a few of the fundamental requirements for successful propaganda.  Hitler, who without a doubt was an expert when it comes to designing successful and effective propaganda, explained it like this:

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

   “Shared Custody”

   (Link)

10. “www.AktiveVaeter.de [active fathers] demand now:
    Custody-Right from Birth”

    “Fathers Decampment [as for an uprising] for Children
    Local Chapter [Saar-] Pfalz“(Link)

11. “Men’s Commissioner“”Shared Custody“(Link)
12. Photo (used in the main article) shows expunged fathers writing (with chalk) the names of their children on the pavement in front of the Fulda Court Building.(Link)
13. “Men’s Commissioner”

    “Fathers Decampment [as for an uprising] for Children
    Local Chapter Saar-Pfalz“(Link)

Translation of the article in the Fuldaer Zeitung  (Fulda News):

120 Demonstrators in the Inner City

2008 10 05

FULDA “We are here and quite loud, because they steal our children!” That is how it resounded through the Inner City of Fulda.

With that slogan the organization “Fathers Decampment [as for getting an uprising underway] for Children” demonstrated for the strengthening of the position of fathers who after separations want to take over responsibility for their children.

About 120 demonstrators walked in connection with that through the Inner City.

And because the critique aimed mainly at politics, church and courts, the demonstrators went past the City Palace, the Cathedral and the Fulda District Court.

In front of the main gate of the Court Building, the fathers used chalk to write on the pavement the names of their children with whom they they may not and cannot have any contact.

The demonstration finished with a closing rally on the University Plaza.

The aim of the organization is for the implementation of more equal rights [sic] in child-access and -custody.
___________
Comment by Fathers for Life: Compulsory divorce (ostensibly “no-fault” divorce, almost exclusively imposed on fathers and husbands, almost always against their wishes, in about half of marriages that form) is the primary cause for the escalation of the systematic destruction of the fundamental building block of society, the family.  It is thereby virtually the sole reason why fathers are expunged from the lives of their children.

To restore the respect that society once had for fathers and families and therefore to promote respect and love between fathers and mothers and harmony in families would provide for a stable and productive society; as it once did before the family became deliberately deconstructed.

One gains the strong impression that the aim of demonstrations, such as the one in Fulda, held by expunged fathers is not to promote the reconstruction of families and society, thereby to re-establish the esteem in which society once held fathers, but it is to give complaining fathers an opportunity to promote social changes that will eliminate their being discriminated against when they are forced to live with the consequences of separation and divorce.

It appears that such expunged and complaining fathers want to have rights that are equal to those held by women in sharing the loot that can be gained by scavenging amongst the ruins, rubble and ashes produced by the war against  families and society.

Equally-shared parenting still gives children on average only half of the parenting that they are entitled to.

Only two parents who live for their children and cooperate with one another to raise their children to the best of their abilities while sharing the same roof with their children will produce the best outcomes for their children.

From the perspective of a child of divorce, two parents living apart and equally sharing custody still add up to only one whole parent.  The reality of that is reflected in the results of the measurement of the outcomes in children from families.  In general, children that are not raised by two married parents living under a common roof with their children display more than twice the level of undesired outcomes than do children in married families.

Under the sponsorship of the Heritage Foundation, Patrick Fagan produced a good number of reports that provide irrefutable evidence of the extensive destructiveness of divorce and fatherlessness with respect to outcomes in children of single-mother “families”.

Posted in Abortion, Divorce, Organizational News, Paternal Rights, Judiciary, Civil Rights, Men's Issues, Child-Custody Awards, Propaganda Exposed, The New World Order, Feminism, Feminist Jurisprudence, Family, Women's Violence | Print | No Comments »

October 2, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

The Capital Times

Grim report shows 67 domestic violence homicides in state in ‘06-07

Jessica VanEgeren  —  10/02/2008 9:23 am

Two years ago in Fond du Lac, a 43-year-old woman was killed by her husband. The weapon of choice: a cinder block. Earlier that year in Marathon County, a 40-year-old woman was beaten and strangled. She died at the hands of her husband after a piece of broken glass from a candy dish was stuffed down her throat….(Full Story)

That first paragraph in the article sets the stage.  After that, it doesn’t matter all that much anymore that the rest of the article is very careful to avoid  breaking down the fatality victims into men, women and children.

Perhaps there is a reason for that.  Maybe it is an interesting bit of truth that peeked through a chink in the armor of obfuscation in the article:

58 children under the age of 18 were left orphaned or without a mother or father as a result of domestic violence. Of the young children who lost a parent, 28 percent lost their mothers.

That means that 16 children lost their mothers and 42 lost their fathers.  The article provides no further clue as to what the proportions were of men and women who became DV murder victims.  Going by the proportion of the children who lost mothers and who lost fathers, the ratio of fathers to mothers killed is 2.6 fathers for every mother. That says nothing about who the perpetrators were.  However, the mothers’ ex-boyfriends or ex-husbands seem to have been the perpetrators in a good number of cases.

Does that mean that Wisconsin has almost three times as many battered men’s shelters as it has battered women’s shelters?  I don’t think so.  As far as I know, all of the Wisconsin shelters for victims of domestic violence are for women only.

Furthermore, the remedy for the victims of domestic violence is as follows:

Patti Seger, the executive director of the Wisconsin Coalition Against Domestic Violence, said getting victims to the point where they are ready to leave their abusers is an ongoing challenge.

The odd thing is that “getting victims to the point where they are ready to leave their abusers” appears to be exactly the trigger that causes much of the serious or deadly violence in the first place.

Given the fact that there is no battered men’s shelter in Wisconsin, the victims Patti Seger spoke about are all women. So, the solution to creating the love and respect necessary between spouses to prevent themselves or their ex-lovers from beating each other to death is to isolate them from one another, to make them separate, to have the victims leave their abusers, to get divorces.

There is a culture of violence that boys and girls are being indoctrinated with from the time before Kindergarten.

It seems to me that girls are no longer being urged to be lady-like but to be more like boys, even to be “as strong” as boys, which is, given that boys hardly ever defend themselves, not all that hard to do when it comes to that.

It happens far more often now that a girl is encouraged to be violent, and every time one slaps a boy in the face, gives him a black eye or two, or kicks him in the genitals, there is little reproach and more likely a resounding “Good for you! There you go, girl!”  That, as the years go by, is then being followed up with other lessons for such violent girls, by which they learn that in the eyes of the law they can do no wrong and that they can even commit murder with impunity.

On the other hand, it is more typical of society to teach boys who are old enough to play in a sandbox, “Boys don’t hit girls!”  That is then being followed up with lessons that teach boys and young men that they never, under any circumstance, may be violent to a woman, that there is never an excuse for them.

The other day, when I asked her whether her son was still single, the mother of a young man told me, “Yup, he is, but that is better than being black and blue all the time.”

Whenever something did not please her, his girlfriend whom he had lived with for a few years beat him black and blue on a regular basis, scratched up his immaculate truck, kicked in the truck’s head- and tail lights and slashed the truck’s tires.

The young man’s mother told me,

He got rid of her and now she is with X [a young man whom we both know and who had a few years ago been the victim of a serious paternity fraud] and is continuing the same violent behaviour with him. Fortunately I taught him [her son] all his life not ever to hit a woman.  At least he did not go to jail and he doesn’t have a criminal record for defending himself, but he is better off single than being constantly black and blue; and, thankfully, there are no children.

At what time in their lives do people learn to give and take respect for one another?  There is one thing that is certain in that regard. At least society tried, until the feminists and their fellow-travellers usurped power and control and began to create the rift between the sexes.

Posted in Censorship, Divorce, Media Bias, Paternal Rights, Judiciary, Health, Men's Issues, The New World Order, Women's Violence, Feminism, Feminist Jurisprudence, Family, Paternity Fraud | Print | No Comments »

September 27, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

Barbara Kay, columnist at Canada’s National Post, in her speech at the 25th Anniversary Conference of REAL Women of Canada, The Effect of Feminism on Canadian Society (Ottawa, Ontario, Canada; 20 September 2008), in describing what has in effect become a totalitarian society dominated and controlled by feminist ideology and doctrine, stated:

….Nothing is more illustrative of the punitive character of feminist excesses than family court. Here is where misandry in its most open, cynical and pernicious form is found. Over 85% of contested custody suits end with mothers receiving sole custody over children. The remaining 15% divide children between other family members, agencies and fathers, so in fact fathers arrive at sole custody about 7% of the time.

Only an extreme systemic contempt for the value of a father’s role in the life of a child can explain such a disparity, and only an extreme prejudice against men in general can explain that contempt, and nobody pretends otherwise.

Indeed, one of the more chilling statements I have ever read, one that captures the casual acceptance of democracy’s fall from grace in family court was this from the National Association of Women and the Law: “Courts may treat parents unequally and deny them basic civil liberties and rights, as long as their motives are good.”…. (See Full Speech)

__________________________
More of Barbara Kay’s speeches

Although Barbara Kay did not dwell on it in her speech, the totalitarian system created and controlled by feminists such as in Canada now prevails in all developed nations and extends to virtually all developing nations, in what is becoming a truly feminist, global, socialist, totalitarian State.

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