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 »

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 4, 2011 by Walter Schneider.

statesman.com; Tuesday, Jan. 4, 2011

By JEFF CARLTON

The Associated Press

DALLAS — A Texas man declared innocent Tuesday after 30 years in prison had at least two chances to make parole and be set free — if only he would admit he was a sex offender. But Cornelius Dupree Jr. refused to do so, doggedly maintaining his innocence in a 1979 rape and robbery, in the process serving more time for a crime he didn’t commit than any other Texas inmate exonerated by DNA evidence.

“Whatever your truth is, you have to stick with it,” Dupree, 51, said Tuesday, minutes after a Dallas judge overturned his conviction….(Full Story)

Posted in Violence by Proxy, False Allegations, Judiciary, Men's Issues | Print | No Comments »

December 28, 2010 by Walter Schneider.

Thanks to Stephen Hicks:

The Palm Beach Post

December - 28 - 2010

Riviera Beach mom who stabbed, sliced her kids sentenced to 27 1/2 years

By SUSAN SPENCER-WENDEL 

WEST PALM BEACH — A woman convicted of stabbing her infant son and slicing open the arm of her daughter was sentenced by a judge this afternoon to 27 1/2 years in prison.

During her trial earlier this month, lawyers for 30-year-old Wendy Harden argued she was not guilty by reason of insanity on the charge of attempted first-degree murder of the infant, and jurors found her not guilty….(Full Story)

Posted in Child Abuse, Judiciary, Women's Violence | Print | No Comments »

December 27, 2010 by Walter Schneider.

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

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

(Full Story)

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

December 24, 2010 by Walter Schneider.

It reads more like one hell of a divorce.

…Catherine once tried to run over Larry with a van. “This is always a telltale sign that a husband and wife are drifting apart,” Judge Quinn remarked dryly.

No kidding…, but there is much more in the article.

Toronto Globe and Mail

December 16, 2010

In family court, a judge turns to ridicule to defuse the rage

By KIRK MAKIN

A feuding couple and their ‘high-octane hatred’ prompt a highly unusual judicial roasting

(Full Story)

In a novel twist, Judge Quinn granted the wife, Catherine, sole custody of the feuding couple’s 13-year-old daughter. However, he ordered Larry to pay Catherine just a dollar a month in spousal support.

That appears to have been a good decision, as the daughter seems to have become alienated beyond repair against her dad.  However, although the article identifies a-dollar-a-month in spousal support for the ex-wife, nothing is mentioned about how much child support the father will have to pay for kids he no longer will be able to see.

Besides, will all of the actors in the drama have seen the last of the case?  Surely there is nothing preventing someone from launching an appeal. You want to take bets on who will launch one of those?

At any rate, you will want to watch this video:

Parental Alienation ~ Emotional Kidnapping

Listen well to what Alec Baldwin says as he is being interviewed in the third video in the series. It shows how hard it is even for men who were put through the parental-alienation grinder to get away from preconception and perhaps even all-out indoctrination about men’s paternal rights.

At minute 2:22, Alec Baldwin states that men have to earn 50:50 custody. Why would that not be true of women?

At minute 3:12 Alec Baldwin mentions that he has no respect for men who abuse women and fight for custody to gain power, out of spite and for no other reason than to hurt women. Well, why does that not cut both ways?

The point that one needs to pay attention to is that if not even the target in a case of parental alienation feels that equal rights come into the picture when awarding equally or equitably shared parenting, then why would he expect the judges to have more objectivity than such a victimized father does?

Posted in Parental Alienation, Child Abuse, Child Support, Judiciary, Child-Custody Awards, Divorce, The New World Order | Print | 1 Comment »

November 24, 2010 by Walter Schneider.

Why not?  She could not help herself.  After all, she had only wanted to “purify” the tip of her husband’s penis.  It is not really her fault that things went so terribly wrong.  He should not have turned his back on her.

Mind you, it is quite difficult to ignore the fact that she had a can with gasoline as well as a lit candle at hand for teaching her husband the lesson he deserved in their bedroom…

Still, that has all been done and looked after as it should be.  So, let the poor woman go!  Has she not suffered enough already?

Here are links to Nov. 24, 2010 articles that provide updates on the case.

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

November 10, 2010 by Walter Schneider.

The indifference referred to in the title of this posting relates to the social apathy that permits rampant discrimination in court proceedings that produce fathers expunged from the lives of their children as if they were being cranked out on an assembly line.

One such father wrote to me about a book that he feels will open people’s eyes to the abuses in the courts that are being experienced by men.  He thinks the book deserves honorable mention as an eye-opener because it was written by a woman.

Winner Take All : A woman exposes the violation of men’s rights at the hands of family law, by Molly Murphy

I post here my last response in the one-on-one discussion we had on this to encourage him to come out in the open with something that is essentially a public concern that should not be hidden.  Here goes:

Dear Kevin,

I accept all you state about the book, and if you condense it a little, so that many other people will want to read it, you will just about have it in the form of a review for which our blog has been made available to you and anyone who wishes to abide by the blog rules.  Aside from that, I merely stated that, going by the many comments I read [about the book], I see nothing that indicates that the book calls for any particular changes to Canadian jurisprudence (which in view of the name of the website for the book promotion, www.changefamilylaw.com, seemed to be a bit incongruous).  How do you read into that what you did, that I think the book has no merits?

I cannot do it all by myself, and I could not do justice to the book by producing a book review, because I have not read the book.  No copy of it has been sent to me, which is what people who wish to promote their books here usually do.  If you feel strongly enough that the book is worth it, write about it and post that to Dads & Things.  If it will be written well enough, which you are evidently able to do, it can be posted as a guest article and thereby become the beginning of a new discussion thread.

I really wish people would get over their fears and have such debates in public, on our blog, rather than on a one-on-one basis and in private.  Do you feel that your convictions will not withstand public exposure?

A public debate would quite likely do more to popularize the book than a book review could.  Besides, you are preaching to a member of the choir without anyone else being in hearing distance, but you should try and reach those who know little or nothing about the issues of concern, which is what the blog is for.  A one-on-one debate of any topic of that sort is wasteful, considering how many more people could be reached by having it in public.

Alright, now to what you see as a breach in the walls of the fortress of discrimination against men and fathers.

I have no idea of how familiar you are with what Fathers for Life presents, but surely you must have noticed that it contains contributions by many women, contributions of whom many were made many years ago already, for which reason and by your reasoning — that it takes women to make a breach into the wall of denial — you must be familiar with what they wrote and that much of what they wrote is available for free at our website or accessible through it.  If the following names have not reached the status of household words in your world, click on the links identified through their names (to mention just some in no particular order):

Note: Do not attempt to read all of the articles identified through the lists of references provided through the following links, but browse through the lists and try to read a few of the articles, so that you can get an appreciation of the issues that the author of your book appears have failed to address (she most definitely failed to impress any of the commenters whose opinions I read, if in fact she had made any suggestions for required changes).

Eeva Sodhi, Erin Pizzey, Dale O’Leary, Karin Jaeckel, Christina Hoff Sommers, Candis McLean, Donna Laframboise, Patricia Pearson, Louise Malenfant, Susan Steinmetz, Antonia Feitz, Barbara Dafoe Whitehead, Maggie Gallagher, Elizabeth Loftus, Patricia Morgan, Judith A. Reisman, Phyllis Schlafly, Gudrun Schwarz, Esther Vilar, and many more.

By the way, the preceding list of women authors contains Canadian women authors, five of them.  Do you know who those are?

Still, in spite of what all of those women wrote and of what of that is posted at our website (much more is available elsewhere), somehow I doubt it that you had ever known of all of them — if any.  Had you known of them, you would certainly not think that what you read in that book is so novel and so earth-shaking because a woman wrote it.

Nothing will change things, except time and the death of feminism, whereby then the judicial system will adapt to serve the public as required.  Until then, feminists are in total and absolute control.  I don’t think that the book so dear to you mentioned that.  I can’t even recall whether it impressed upon anyone that feminism is the driving force for the discrimination against Canadian men.  Can you clear that up for me?

Posted in Judiciary, Books & Films, Civil Rights, Paternal Rights, Men's Issues, Social-Destruction Enterprise, Feminist Jurisprudence | Print | No Comments »

November 4, 2010 by Walter Schneider.

Plus, how to use the site-specific search feature at the website of Fathers for Life.

Today someone asked about the discrepancies between the reported numbers of spousal murders of men as identified by police forces and the numbers of convictions for spousal murders of men.

In my response I explained what the reasons for the discrepancies are and also how the site-specific search feature at the website of Fathers for Life (affiliated with this blog) can be used to quickly and conveniently find answers to such questions and other questions.

Hello Fred,

Thanks for writing and for your kind words.

You posed a good question, the answer to which is to some extent already available at the website of Fathers for Life.  I will get to that a little later, right after I first comment on something you wrote.  You stated,

So, if it’s just court verdicts Stats Can is counting, there’s probably alot men dying at the hands of their spouses that those yearly statistics show.

I will make the assumption that the sentence contains a couple of typos and should have read, “So, if it’s just court verdicts Stats Can is counting, there’s probably a lot more men dying at the hands of their spouses than those yearly statistics show.”  Whether or not you had intended to write that, it is what you should have asked.  Therefore I will respond based on that premise.  However, the answer to the question will go to considerable length.  The problem is far more complex than a first glance indicates.

The problem with murder statistics that you identified exists, but no one knows how large it is.  The inaccuracy of statistics pertaining to spousal murders of men is far more serious than the preamble to your question implies.

You seem to assume, as many other people who think about it do, that there are bound to be considerable differences in the number of spousal murders by women of their spouses as reported by the police and as reported based on convictions.  That assumption is correct, but it is by far not the only reason for the differences.  That difference alone exists because of judicial bias, but police reports on spousal murders are affected by bias as well.  Therefore one cannot simply subtract one number from the other and state that the difference identifies how wrong the statistics on murder convictions are.

To begin with, one would have to account for murders reported and for murderers exonerated at their initial trial, which trial could then also be the last in a given case, but not necessarily so. Then one would have to account for wrongful murder convictions on account of which prison sentences where or are being served, In Canada we have had quite a few of them over the years.  I have never been able to determine whether the exoneration of a murderer, say in 1999, resulted in a corresponding downward correction of the murder convictions for the year in which the conviction occurred, say in 1979, and in a corresponding downward correction of the number of reported murders in the year in which the actual murder occurred, say in 1976.  The same sort of problem exists with an exoneration during the initial murder trial, although then the time span between the year of the reported murder and the year of the murder trial may be no more than two, three or four years.

I am not aware of anyone watching for that cause of inaccuracies in murder statistics and making the appropriate corrections, although when it comes to accounting for money, we know that auditing procedures generally take into account every single cent.  It can therefore be safely said that accuracy in reporting of murder statistics is considered to be less important than the accuracy required in tracking expenditures of a single cent.

Still, the causes of statistical errors in the reporting of murder statistic I discussed so far only scratch the surface of the problem.  For instance, we must also look at the problem of murders that do not come to trial and of murders that the police do not report.  You may argue that it is quite inconceivable that murders are not reported because things are quite simple in that respect, namely that any death that is not from natural or accidental causes is necessarily caused by murder.  However, police bias and bias by coroners come into the picture, and no one can tell accurately whether some or how many natural or accidental deaths were not murders.

With respect to women murdering their husbands or boyfriends, two important things come into the picture.  One is that poison is the favorite murder weapon used by women.

Moreover, women are more likely than men to hire or entice someone else to commit the deed, someone who is routinely convicted of the resulting murder, while the instigating women go free or at worst get away with a conditional or nominal sentence.  What is truly a spousal murder then naturally is counted into the general murder statistics and not as a spousal murder.  No one has to my knowledge established accurate figures on how often that happens.  We only know that it happens and that it happens often.

All that we know for certain is that murders of women are far more likely to be resolved as to who the perpetrators were than is the case with men who got murdered, and that the number of unsolved murders of men (roughly one third of all murders of men) whose murderers were never brought to trial is about equal to the number of women who have been murdered.  It is up to anyone’s imagination what proportion of unsolved murders of men were spousal murders.

There is much more to all of this.  Consider for instance what “FBI Statistics on Spousal Murder” states about some of the issues involved.  Here is a summary of some of those and some other issues pertaining to respective biases for and against men and women with respect to murders:

1. More so than at any time during human history, on account of thirty years of active and escalating propaganda against men, women are today far less likely to be considered to be capable of committing any kind of violence, all evidence to the contray.  That is reflected in statistics relating to ratios of incarceration of the sexes. (see Domestic Violence Against Men, 1999)
2. When individuals of either sex commit crimes of equal severity, women are far less likely to be suspected, less likely to be indicted, and less likely to be convicted.  If they are convicted, in the U.S. they receive on average a sentence that is one-third the duration of what men will receive.  In Canada, they are likely to go free on parole.However, even if they are made to serve a sentence, they are more likely to be released early on parole.  In all of Canada there are currently no more than 150 women in federal prisons.  The total capacity of our prison system is no more than 250 women!  It stretches the imagination to pretend that these large differences are due to the inherent inculpability of women, yet that is precisely what feminist gender-activists would like us to believe and accept as the truth…. (see Domestic Violence Against Men, 1999)

Fred, you must understand that it takes a considerable amount of time and effort to answer a question like yours.  It has been a few years since anyone asked such a question here, for which reason I thought that I comment in detail.  After all, others may have some questions like that, and I hope that, like you, they will benefit from what I will tell you now, and for which reason I posted all of this to Dads & Things.

I strongly suspect that you did not use the site-specific search tool accessible in the upper right-hand corner at virtually all of the web pages at Fathers for Life.  You will greatly benefit by doing so.  Our website is very large, in excess of a thousand web pages. To work your way through that to gain an impression on a specific issue is like memorizing an encyclopedia before you form an opinion on a given subject.  No one uses an encyclopedia that way, and neither should anyone use the website of Fathers for Life like that.

All of that is explained in more precise detail at our home page.  Did you read our home page?  It seems not, although it is fairly short.  Yet, if you had done so, you might not even have felt the need to write and would have been able to come up with a clear answer to your question without going through the trouble of doing it in writing.

Check what the search engine can do for you on the topic of “spousal murder“.  That might lead you to narrow your search to “spousal murder statistics“.  That in turn may eventually lead you to ask whether “women are “less likely to be suspected”“.

Such a train of thoughts and searches may also lead you to something else that should be of great interest with respect to the pro-female and anti-male bias in feminist jurisprudence, serial murder.

Searching in that manner works exactly like how you would use an encyclopedia, which, as our homepage states, is exactly what our website is, except that instead of having to pull down volumes from your bookshelf, turning a lot of pages and looking up references in the same laborious fashion, you have things far easier, and you spend far less time searching for an answer.

If I would have known, when I started our website about 16 years ago, that Wikipedia would come into existence, I would have chosen a different domain name, perhaps manopedia (not good because of some connotations that feminists would surely have brought into play) or familypedia, and you would perhaps have had no problem with figuring out how to use our website in the most efficient way.

So, to you and anyone else who may be reading this: Use the site-specific search feature, the workings of which are explained at our home page under How to navigate this website.

I receive between 300 to 500 messages a day (not counting spam).  A good portion of those are inquiries like yours.  I cannot possibly answer all of them, but you can save yourself the trouble of asking me a question that you can easily find the answer to yourself.  Most importantly, you will save me from being swamped with e-mail and you from running the risk of not having your question answered.

Posted in Organizational News, Judiciary, Web Statistics, Men's Issues, Propaganda Exposed, Feminist Jurisprudence, Women's Violence | Print | 1 Comment »

November 1, 2010 by Walter Schneider.

On 31/10/2010 4:57 PM, [a men’s-rights activist] wrote:

Did you hear this Walter?

http://www.expressfm.com/ListenAgain/tabid/338/Default.aspx (Update 2010 12 04: The preceding link no longer functions and has been replaced with a new file location for the audio program — 58 minutes.)

Click the Men’s Matters link. Program can be saved with the free real player software.

[a men’s-rights activist]

[Name omitted],

Sorry about not having paid enough attention to that audio presentation.  It is good.  I will cover it and promote it later today.  However, I must first get ready to go to a meeting pertaining to the promotion and re-organization of the Bruderheim Seniors Club.  Not being able to say no when someone asks me to jump in, I was made the president of that organization, and if you think that men have problems, the problems facing seniors and especially elderly men are worse.

Fortunately, the older they get,  the smaller the proportion of elderly men in the elderly population sector, Unfortunately, the vast majority of elderly suffering seniors is female, for which reason the problems that elderly women cope with outrank the problems faced by elderly men.

That is of course a sadistic and insidious way of looking at things, but it is a political reality that, there too, it is all men’s fault for leaving elderly women to be so lonely, uncared and unprovisioned for in their old age, but I will leave that for now.

The audio program is good, but at first glance it exhibits two major flaws.  One glares through absence, which is that, except for your name being mentioned (once, I believe), none of the contributors or participants are being mentioned in the discussion and presentation.  I listened to only random portions, perhaps only 50 percent of the program, so I may have missed names and credits.  Perhaps there is a written transcript where the names are identified?  Perhaps a transcript should be made that shows who said what and who the various participants are.  If not, then there is not much that shakes my conviction that it is pretty safe to express politically-incorrect and earth-shaking truths in complete anonymity.  Surely, given that the program contained lengthy musical interludes, sufficient time could have been devoted to give full credit to all those to whom credit should have been given.

The other issue is one that reared its head early in the program, when someone (was it you?) narrated the history of feminism and the emergence of radical feminism.  [Name omitted], you are a well-informed man, for which reason I find it difficult to accept that it appears that you would believe that feminism came on the scene in the early 1960s.

I am fully aware that many people bought into that myth of radical-feminist making.  However, the audio program debunked so much of the radical-feminist propaganda, why not the most outrageous one, namely that radical feminism came into being because of the oppression of women, to fill the need left by the lack of feminists to fight for women’s rights?  A good part of the audio program devotes itself to debunking all sort of feminist myths, why not that most outrageous one?

I wish I could specifically address that serious omission in my response, but I did so already over the years, although not specifically, in many other instances.  I will present a few pieces of the mosaic, and you will soon accept that what i state is true, not counter-propaganda.

Feminism is as old as humanity, not merely as old as civilization.  How many video programs have you watched of chimpanzee interactions in their own social settings?  There is quite a large lot of them, and almost without fail, all of them present all of the aspects of feminism in action (group-think, appeal to authority, violence by proxy, and so on).  It is therefore quite safe to claim that feminism was in existence already when the ancestors of humans were still swinging through the trees.  That is the biggest calamity brought about by the advent of radical feminism.  It is the re-awakening and promotion of a powerful primeval social force. It has been brought into play and to dominate, whereby all of the social advances and advantages brought about through the advent of the symbiosis of the state, family, language and the experiences taught by history are being deliberately and systematically deconstructed.  In a nutshell, feminism brings the law of the jungle to civilization — after which, of course, we will no longer have a functioning civilization but will no longer be able to revert to swinging through the trees.

The following are some examples in history, with history (and written language itself) being one aspect of the evolution of civilization.  The role of feminism in that deserves much more organized attention than I can give it here and now, but have a look at some of the things I noted, while not a single one of them is mentioned in the audio program.  (Sorry for not having the time to condense all of that into something more comprehensive.  As it is, it may take far more time to examine all of it than listening to the audio program demands.  Still, it permits you to bookmark parts of it, so you can use specific items time and again.)

Feminism in the evolution of civilization

• Antiquity

Various articles on feminism in antiquity

• Recovering All the Past with Amaury de Riencourt

By Frank Zepezauer, resident philosopher

In 1974, Amaury de Riencourt wrote a book which helped to recover a past that feminists were busily trashing. It was Sex and Power in History[1]. The title is somewhat misleading. Feminists at the time were trashing the entire past, all of humanity’s story going back to our departure from the higher primates. Which meant not only all of history, what has been written, but all of pre-history everything that happened before the written word.  (Full Story)

• Recovering the American Past with Brian C. Robertson

by Frank Zepezauer, resident philosopher

Have you ever heard of the National Congress of Mothers? Until recently I didn’t know about them myself and I’ve spent a lot of time studying women’s organizations. It so happens that the NCM was actually the biggest women’s lobby in American history. Founded during the presidency of Theodore Roosevelt, it had 190,000 members by 1920 and over one million by 1930. The National Organization for Women, even in its heyday, could never claim such numbers. (Full Story)

• The Beginnings of the Women’s Movement

A translated excerpt from The Wife at his Side (German title: Die Frau an Seiner Seite — NUR Hausfrauen im Spiegel des Feminismus, by Karin Jäckel, Ph.D., pp. 76-81, posted with permission by the author.)  Full Story

• The Beginnings of Feminism

Feminism dates back to antiquity and beyond, but the advances and gains regarding “equal rights” for women for which radical feminists of second-wave-feminism-fame take the credit came into existence a century and more before the 1960s.

The Fraud of Feminism (1913, LONDON, GRANT RICHARDS LTD), and The Legal Subjection of Men (THE NEW AGE PRESS, 140, FLEET STREET LONDON E.C., 1908) Two essays by Belfort Bax (July 23, 1854 - November 26, 1926), a British socialist journalist and philosopher, associated with the Social Democratic Federation (SDF), prove that the advances and gains of “equal rights” for women with the credit for which radical feminists (a.k.a. Marxist- or socialist-feminists) of second-wave-feminism fame adorn themselves came into existence a century and more before the 1960s.  Here are excerpts from Belfort Bax’s essays that illustrate the point: (Full Story at F4L, Old Table of Contents)

• Did Women Really Want To Go Out To Work?

By “Angry Harry” (2002 09 10)By his own admission, Angry Harry is not a historian.  Nevertheless, in this article he has done such an excellent job of exploring and debunking the myth that women in the past were oppressed that many historians would be proud to have done as well.  Full StoryIt is important to understand the philosophical context of history that Angry Harry is getting at.  Therefore don’t neglect to read as well the next item.

• THE NATURE OF WOMAN

A discussion by Kevin Solway & David Quinn, with guest Suzanne Hindmarsh — A transcript from The Hour of Judgment radio series (27th August, 1995) Full Story

• The dirty secret of radical feminism — Betty Friedan’s violence and the communist origins of her ideology

Smith College professor Daniel Horowitz states in his new book Betty Friedan and the Making of the Feminine Mystique that Betty Friedan was well into her thirties a devout and active functionary of the Communist Party of the U.S.A.  Full Story

If the term “radical feminism” (a.k.a. Marxist- or socialist-feminism) is somewhat new to you, you need to expand your knowledge.  After all, radical feminism, the currently controlling faction of feminism, governs just about everything that is happening in your life.  See,

Carey Roberts column

Carey Roberts is an analyst and commentator on political correctness. His best-known work was an exposé on Marxism and radical feminism.

Carey Roberts’ best-known work, his exposé on Marxism and radical feminism, is not necessarily easy to find, but this link will help with that. (Some of the URLs for the article series appear to keep changing.  For that reason the identified link leads to an Internet search for the series.  The first or second link in the return list will most likely lead you to the series.)

Sorry for not being able to spend more time on this, but you can find more on all of this by searching the website of Fathers for Life for terms like these, “feminism history” or such as these, “feminism socialism communism fascism“.

Feminism has been an influence in all places and periods affected by history.  It has shown its dominance in the most unlikely places, such as during Hitler’s regime, and, believe it or not, even during the Nuremberg War Trials and in the KKK:

• From the Women’s Ku Klux Klan in the late 1800’s to the systematic destruction of American families today

By David R. Usher

The politics of contemporary feminism cannot be understood without realizing that it was founded within the Women’s Ku Klux Klan. (Full story)

I rest my case for now.

–Walter

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