May 8, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

Found at http://antimisandry.com:

Men are more visually aroused than women? Fact or fiction?

Research Shows Men And Women Look At Sexual Photographs Differently

[Original source: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/67705.php, 17 Apr 2007 - 8:00 PDT]

A study funded by the Atlanta-based Center for Behavioral Neuroscience (CBN) analyzed the viewing patterns of men and women looking at sexual photographs, and the result was not what one typically might expect.

Researchers hypothesized women would look at faces and men at genitals, but, surprisingly, they found men are more likely than women to first look at a woman’s face before other parts of the body, and women focused longer on photographs of men performing sexual acts with women than did the males. These types of results could play a key role in helping researchers to understand human sexual desires and its ultimate effect on public health.

The finding, reported in Hormones and Behavior, confirmed the hypothesis of a previous study (Stephen Hamann and Kim Wallen, et al., 2004) that reported men and women showed different patterns of brain activity when viewing sexual stimuli. The present study examined sex differences in attention by employing eye-tracking technology that pinpoints individual attention to different elements of each picture such as the face or body parts.

“Men looked at the female face much more than women, and both looked at the genitals comparably,” said lead author Heather Rupp, Ph.D., a fellow at The Kinsey Institute for Research in Sex, Gender and Reproduction at Indiana University, who conducted the study in partnership with Kim Wallen, Ph.D., a Dobbs Professor of Psychology and Behavioral Neuroendocrinology at Emory University and the Yerkes National Primate Research Center.

“The eye-tracking data suggested what women paid most attention to was dependent upon their hormonal state. Women using hormonal contraceptives looked more at the genitals, while women who were not using hormonal contraceptives paid more attention to contextual elements of the photographs,” Rupp said. Although it is commonly assumed males have more interest in visual sexual stimuli, researchers are working to figure out what characteristics are important to men and women in their evaluations of sexual stimuli.

The answer may lie within a small section of the brain called the amygdala, which is important in the processing of emotional information. In Dr. Hamann and Wallen’s previous fMRI study, men showed more activation in the amygdala in response to sexual vs. neutral stimuli than did women. From the fMRI study alone, the cause of the increased activity was unclear, but Rupp and Wallen’s study suggests the possibility that higher amygdala activation in men may be related to their increased attention to faces in sexual photographs.

—————————-
Article adapted by Medical News Today from original press release.
—————————-

Posted in Media Bias, Censorship, Propaganda Exposed | Print | No Comments »

May 1, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

(… even if you don’t know it)

Barbara Kay, National Post

Wednesday, April 30, 2008

Unless you swore off newspapers and TV between April 12 and 19 in Quebec, you were exposed to a carpet-bombing of “sensibilisation” ads on sexual assault against women, sponsored by the Ministere de la Culture, Communications et la Condition feminine du Quebec.

The TV ad featured a fresh-faced woman with flowing tresses framing an angelic face — she could be 17 or 25, hard to say — staring gravely into the camera. Calmly, she intones: “One out of every three women in Quebec will be the victim of a sexual assault during her lifetime.” Pregnant pause, then: “I’m one of them.” Cut. …(Full Story)

______________

Perhaps you wonder why the victimization of women is a men’s issue. It is that for two reasons.

Firstly, as Barbara Kay illustrates in her article, the statistic identified by the Minister de la Culture, Communications et la Condition feminine du Quebec, Christine St. Pierre, is cooked, manufactured and not true. She alleges that “1.5 million Quebec women “will” (not “may”) become victims of sexual assault.”

Secondly, the government-sponsored anti-male hate-propaganda campaign labels as many as 1.5 Quebec men as rapists. That is quite an accusation by a minister who was surely elected not only by women but by many of the more than a million Quebec men whom she falsely accuses of being and assuredly becoming rapists.

Christine St. Pierre will most likely never admit that she deliberately lies, even though the sexual assault figures she sponsors and promotes are without a doubt deliberate lies in the eyes of anyone still possessing a modicum of common sense.

Many of Barbara Kay’s articles are pro-family, pro-male and pro-fathers. She has done a lot during her career as a journalist to oppose feminist propaganda and to debunk feminist statistics. However, even she appears to have been taken in somewhat by the decades-long, all-pervasive anti-male propaganda campaign that reigns throughout all developed nations. She states: ” The U.S. National Institute for Justice puts the lifetime risk of sexual assault for women at 14.8%, less than half [of] Mme. St. Pierre’s figure of 33%. Quebec women don’t live more than twice as long as American women. Whence the disparity?”

The problem with even that U.S. statistic is that it is bunk and from a feminist-dominated and -controlled source (as now virtually all government institutions and departments are).

Here are more reasonable calculations of rape-incidents statistics:

1. Advocacy information: 1-in-4 of college women are raped annually A review of Oklahoma University enrolment data and information supplied by campus police yielded the estimate that the annualized rape risk for 1996 freshmen women at OU was 1 chance in 476. [Source: Deflating the Date Rape Scare: A Look At Campus Police Records by Michael P. Wright, Scientific Social Research, Norman, Oklahoma]BJS report NCJ-151658 notes that there are 2 rapes or attempted rapes reported per 1,000 US citizens, which is 530,000 reports of rape per year. There are 15,000 rape convictions annually. Based on new DNA tests, a third of those convictions are now found to be false. Therefore, there are potentially 520,000 false rape allegations a year. (Debunking Domestic Violence Statistics, by Eeva Sodhi)
2. FBI Rape Statistics and DNA Testing “…consider that the FBI program of DNA testing of rapists didn’t begin until 1989, and that therefore it is very likely that about 25 or perhaps as many as 40 percent of men convicted before 1989 of and serving time for rape are innocent.” (Full Story)
3. False Allegations of Rape In the US, there are an estimated 520,000 false rape allegations a year — 98.1% of all reported cases. — Eeva Sodhi, Debunking Domestic Violence Statistics; Rape

So, let’s do what Barbara Kay did, measure the false allegation by Mme. Christine St. Pierre, Minister de la Culture, Communications et la Condition feminine du Quebec, by the standards of U.S. reality. 98.1 percent of rape allegations are false. That adjusts Christine St. Pierre’s exaggerated assertion of 1.5 million rape victims down to a mere 28,500, which is still substantially more than the Canadian total number of rapes over the average life time of women.

Over the years there were on average in the order of 100 rape conviction per year in all of Canada. That works out to 8,000 rape convictions over an 82-year interval. That was until about 1972, when Canadian rape statistics became so absurd that they lost virtually all meaning.

So, how come that Christine St. Pierre can use tax revenues (about 70 percent of those come from men) to promote her monstrous lie? Why does any man still bother to vote for her and her party? If a man were to engage in propaganda tactics like those used by Christine St. Pierre, those would be considered hate crimes and sexual harassment. He would assuredly be hauled into court, and he would without a doubt be convicted of a hate crime.

Things weren’t always so. They became that way in about 1972, when feminist jurisprudence became reality in Canada and in many (now all) developed nations.

Within feminist jurisprudence, the boundaries between sexual harassment and sexual assault became blurred and largely obscured.

…”rape statistics” in Canada now encompass uncorroborated allegations of - including criminal convictions for - offences that range from uncorroborated charges of leering at a woman in a public swimming pool to rape with aggravated assault and murder. That had a fine effect. It raised statistics for incidents of “rape” to dizzying heights, all the more so because feminists in non-government organization and in government make no distinction between reports of rape or of sexual assault (allegations of crimes - innocent until proven guilty) and rape or sexual assault convictions (the alleged offender is being found guilty and sentenced accordingly in about 1.9 percent of allegations).

That is then taken by feminist activists in non-government and government positions alike as a permission to exaggerate and grossly distort statistics relating to criminal offences of a sexual nature - of course, only in relation to offenses against women.

The reality of sexual assaults in Quebec is that an allegation is overwhelmingly often false and is not admissible evidence that a criminal offence did take place, unless the alleged offender is found guilty in a criminal court, and that the number 1.5-million victims of sexual assault allegations by far exceeds the Canadian total convictions for sexual assaults for perpetrators of both sexes. The average of such convictions in the 1994 - 2002 interval in Canada was 1,828 per year, of which Quebec’s share would have been in the order of no more than 460 a year. The vast majority of the convictions would have been for minor offences, such as unwanted sexual touching (e. g.: pinching a waitress, or a student snapping the bra of his peer).

This is not a trivial problem, as the following comment and quoted link show:

Woman Who Made Five False Rape Allegations Walks Free

A woman who made a string of false rape claims, leading to the arrest of five different men and wasting massive amounts of police time, has walked free from court.

Note that these demonstrably false allegations will be called ‘rapes’ by the police and the Home Office when they compile and publicise their various bogus statistics. And that these five false allegations will also be multiplied upwards by a factor of somewhere between 5 and 20 when ‘working out’ how many women allegedly failed to report their ‘rapes’ to the police. (Source: Angry Harry)

According to Statistics Canada:

Sexual offences defined

The term sexual offences encompasses a wide range of criminal acts in the Criminal Code of Canada. Such conduct ranges from unwanted sexual touching to sexual violence resulting in serious physical injury or disfigurement to the victim. It also includes special categories of offences designed to protect children from sexual abuse.

In this Juristat, the term sexual assault includes the following Criminal Code offences:

(a) Sexual assault level 1 (s. 271) - an assault committed in circumstances of a sexual nature such that the sexual integrity of the victim is violated. Level 1 involves minor physical injuries or no injuries to the victim. This is a hybrid offence and may be prosecuted as an indictable offence (with a maximum sentence of 10 years imprisonment) or by way of summary conviction (with a maximum sentence of 18 months imprisonment or $2,000 fine) ³

(b) Sexual assault level 2 (s. 272) - sexual assault with a weapon, threats or causing bodily harm. Level 2 is an Indictable offence carrying a maximum sentence of 14 years imprisonment. A mandatory minimum sentence of 4 years In prison is imposed If a firearm is used.

(c) Aggravated sexual assault (level 3) - sexual assault that results In wounding, maiming, disfiguring or endangering the life of the victim. Level 3 is an indictable offence carrying a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. A mandatory minimum sentence of 4 years in prison is Imposed if a firearm is used.

As per those definitions allegations of sexual offences reported by police and “guilty” decision by Canadian Courts in the 1994 - 2002 interval were as follows:

Source: Source: Statistics Canada, Juristat, Sexual Offences in Canada; Cat no. 85-002-XIE, Vol. 23, no. 6

Note that the court decisions for a given “judicial” year do not necessarily correlate exactly to the number of reported allegations of sexual offences in a related calendar year (an allegation may not result in a trial and a finding of “guilty” until more than a year has gone by). For the purposes of the argument presented here, the conviction rates for the averages worked out from the totals of the eight-year interval are held to be reasonably close to reality.

Posted in Media Bias, Men's Issues, Feminist Jurisprudence, Propaganda Exposed, Women's Violence | Print | 1 Comment »

April 30, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

By Marty Nemko

What do the following people have in common: Aristotle, Plato, Jesus, Leonardo da Vinci, Beethoven, Monet, the Wright Brothers, Jonas Salk, Steven Spielberg, 98% of the Nobel Prize Winners for science, the key scientists behind the development of every drug from aspirin to breast cancer breakthrough Herceptin, from anesthetic to heart bypass surgery, from refrigeration to heating, from the electric light bulb to the radio, the television, the computer, and the mapping of human genome? They’re all men.

And in the five decades since the women’s movement began, 97% of science, 92% of literature, and 100% of economic Nobel Laureates still are men….(Full Story)

Posted in Media Bias, Men and Women Work, Men's Issues, Feminism | Print | No Comments »

April 29, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

From http://marriage.rutgers.edu/Publications/pubtoptenmyths.htm

The Top Ten Myths of Divorce

Discussion of the most common misinformation about divorce

David Popenoe

1 Because people learn from their bad experiences, second marriages tend to be more successful than first marriages.

Although many people who divorce have successful subsequent marriages, the divorce rate of remarriages is in fact higher than that of first marriages.¹ [Sources]

2 Living together before marriage is a good way to reduce the chances of eventually divorcing.

Many studies have found that those who live together before marriage have a considerably higher chance of eventually divorcing. The reasons for this are not well understood. In part, the type of people who are willing to cohabit may also be those who are more willing to divorce. There is some evidence that the act of cohabitation itself generates attitudes in people that are more conducive to divorce, for example the attitude that relationships are temporary and easily can be ended.² [Sources]

3 Divorce may cause problems for many of the children who are affected by it, but by and large these problems are not long lasting and the children recover relatively quickly.

Divorce increases the risk of interpersonal problems in children. There is evidence, both from small qualitative studies and from large-scale, long-term empirical studies, that many of these problems are long lasting. In fact, they may even become worse in adulthood.³ [Sources]

4 Having a child together will help a couple to improve their marital satisfaction and prevent a divorce.

Many studies have shown that the most stressful time in a marriage is after the first child is born. Couples who have a child together have a slightly decreased risk of divorce compared to couples without children, but the decreased risk is far less than it used to be when parents with marital problems were more likely to stay together “for the sake of the children.”⁴[Sources]

5 Following divorce, the woman’s standard of living plummets by seventy three percent while that of the man’s improves by forty two percent.

This dramatic inequity, one of the most widely publicized statistics from the social sciences, was later found to be based on a faulty calculation. A reanalysis of the data determined that the woman’s loss was twenty seven percent while the man’s gain was ten percent. Irrespective of the magnitude of the differences, the gender gap is real and seems not to have narrowed much in recent decades.⁵ [Sources]

6 When parents don’t get along, children are better off if their parents divorce than if they stay together.

A recent large-scale, long-term study suggests otherwise. While it found that parents’ marital unhappiness and discord have a broad negative impact on virtually every dimension of their children’s well-being, so does the fact of going through a divorce. In examining the negative impacts on children more closely, the study discovered that it was only the children in very high conflict homes who benefited from the conflict removal that divorce may bring. In lower-conflict marriages that end in divorce—and the study found that perhaps as many as two thirds of the divorces were of this type—the situation of the children was made much worse following a divorce. Based on the findings of this study, therefore, except in the minority of high-conflict marriages it is better for the children if their parents stay together and work out their problems than if they divorce.⁶ [Sources]

7 Because they are more cautious in entering marital relationships and also have a strong determination to avoid the possibility of divorce, children who grow up in a home broken by divorce tend to have as much success in their own marriages as those from intact homes.

Marriages of the children of divorce actually have a much higher rate of divorce than the marriages of children from intact families. A major reason for this, according to a recent study, is that children learn about marital commitment or permanence by observing their parents. In the children of divorce, the sense of commitment to a lifelong marriage has been undermined.⁷ [Sources]

8 Following divorce, the children involved are better off in stepfamilies than in single-parent families.

The evidence suggests that stepfamilies are no improvement over single-parent families, even though typically income levels are higher and there is a father figure in the home. Stepfamilies tend to have their own set of problems, including interpersonal conflicts with new parent figures and a very high risk of family breakup.⁸ [Sources]

9 Being very unhappy at certain points in a marriage is a good sign that the marriage will eventually end in divorce.

All marriages have their ups and downs. Recent research using a large national sample found that eighty six percent of people who were unhappily married in the late 1980s, and stayed with the marriage, indicated when interviewed five years later that they were happier. Indeed, three fifths of the formerly unhappily married couples rated their marriages as either “very happy” or “quite happy.”⁹ [Sources]

10 It is usually men who initiate divorce proceedings

Two-thirds of all divorces are initiated by women. One recent study found that many of the reasons for this have to do with the nature of our divorce laws. For example, in most states women have a good chance of receiving custody of their children. Because women more strongly want to keep their children with them, in states where there is a presumption of shared custody with the husband the percentage of women who initiate divorces is much lower.¹⁰ [Sources] Also, the higher rate of women initiators is probably due to the fact that men are more likely to be “badly behaved.” Husbands, for example, are more likely than wives to have problems with drinking, drug abuse, and infidelity.

_______________

The information shown above is from The [US] National Marriage Project:

Leadership

The project is co-directed by two nationally prominent marriage experts. David Popenoe, Ph.D., a professor and and former social and behavioral science dean at Rutgers, is the author of Life Without Father, Disturbing the Nest, and many other scholarly and popular publications on marriage and family. Barbara Dafoe Whitehead, Ph.D., an author and social critic, writes extensively on issues of marriage, family and child wellbeing. She is the author of Why There Are No Good Men Left: The Romantic Plight of the New Single Woman (Broadway Books, 2003), The Divorce Culture (Knopf, 1996) and the widely acclaimed Atlantic Monthly article “Dan Quayle Was Right.”

The list of the Top-Ten Myths of Divorce attracted my attention because of the comments provided in Item #10 in the list. Somewhat more comprehensive and to-the-point views of the cited Brinig and Allen report provide more relevant information. For example:

The proportion of divorces initiated by women ranged around 60% for most of the 20th century, and climbed to more than 70% in the late 1960s when no-fault divorce was introduced….The Brinig-Allen study also explodes the myth of the brutish husband, finding, for instance, that cruelty is cited in only 6% of divorce applications in Virginia, one of the few states that still uses fault grounds for divorce….adultery cases are evenly split between men and women…. (”Look who doesn’t want a divorce,” Alberta Report, January 11, 1999, page 30)

Brinig and Allen, the authors of the report “These Boots are Made for Walking: Why Wives File for Divorce,” found that “who gets the children is by far the most important component in deciding who files for divorce, particularly when there is very little quarrel about property, as when the separation is long.” They found that to have or to be assured that they will get the children (and “child-support” payments) “the probability that she’d file increases to .69,” while “if the husband got custody, the probability that the wife files would decrease to .32.” (Table 7. How much do the numbers matter?)

In divorcing families with children, depending on locality, wives file for divorce in between 75 percent to 85 percent of the cases.

Note also the last statement under Item #10 in the list: “Also, the higher rate of women initiators is probably due to the fact that men are more likely to be “badly behaved.” Husbands, for example, are more likely than wives to have problems with drinking, drug abuse, and infidelity.”

That statement is pure speculation and not corroborated by any research nor by any citations of such research. The statement appears to be based on another myth, namely that women always tell the truth. That “truth” is largely debunked in the report by Brinig and Allen and in a variety of similar studies (e. g.: Divorced Dads : Shattering the Myths : The Surprising Truth About Fathers, Children, and Divorce (Hardcover - 288 pages (October 1998) J P Tarcher; ISBN: 087477862X ) Review).

For example, in the vast majority of cases wives file for divorce, and they file not because of adultery by their husbands or because they were being physically abused (the latter is theleast important reason of all stated by wives - alleged in only about six percent of the reasons given for divorce) but because they are bored with their marriages.

The myths and slander of men who are “badly behaved” and “are more likely than wives to have problems with drinking, drug abuse, and infidelity” are most likely founded in the myth that women don’t lie. However, even supposedly objective social researchers are not yet quite ready to examine the true circumstances of that reality. The impact of decades of incessant and all-pervasive indoctrination by feminists is often difficult and sometimes impossible to shed by those who are members of the captive audience of the feminist-controlled and -dominated education system.

Posted in Education, Media Bias, Divorce, Child-Custody Awards, Family, Feminist Jurisprudence | Print | 1 Comment »

April 14, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

This morning I listened to Charles Adler discuss with callers to his radio show the case of the Jamaican woman in Ontario, Ms. Mowatt, who had been jailed for a few days because it looked as if she would not show up as a witness in the domestic violence trial she had launched against the man whom she had alleged abused her, a Mr. Harbin.

Charles Adler and his callers outdid each other on his show in an all-out competition as to who was able to show more sympathy for the (alleged) victim of domestic violence who had been punished twice, once (allegedly) by her abuser (as the alleged victim alleges),  and once more by forcing her to appear as a witness in the trial against the man whom she alleged abused her, but whom she, prior to being jailed, refused to testify against.

Charles Adler and his callers need a dose of reality.  They should, for instance, read Christie Blatchford’s April 12, 2008 article in the Globe and Mail, “A witness in need of a blankie, soother“.  There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that Christie Blatchford’s opinions regarding the sham of the trial in which Ms. Mowatt made her public appearance is many times more valuable and realistic than the media-hype and show of phony outrage that Charles Adler and his supporters could muster during the sympathy orgy on the Charles Adler show this morning.

What’s the moral outrage really all about?  As Christie Blatchford points out, the young woman most certainly lied, either as a witness or as an accuser.  Which of the stories she told is the right one?  Even if she - as per the feminist assertion that women never lie - told the truth, two contradicting stories can’t possibly both be true.  It seems to me that she perhaps did not wish to appear as a witness to her own lies and be exposed as a perjurer and liar.  She is perhaps yet too young (although her handlers aren’t) to understand that as a woman who alleges that she had been abused she is permitted to lie with impunity, even in our courts.

The “accused” Mr. Harbin pleaded “Not guilty.”  As of now he is legally innocent, but even though his accuser and simultaneously lying witness against him or for him, whichever the case may be, and the court process have not yet established his guilt,  Charles Adler and his callers are quite certain that Mr. Harbin is without any doubt and absolutely guilty.  Moreover, Charles Adler implied that there is good reason to believe that all innocent people like Mr. Harbin are “piece[s] of human garbage” and capable and liable of killing their accusers by shooting them in the head.

That is not news reporting or even commenting with any trace of objectivity or truthfulness.  It is propagandistic hype, used to paint all men with the same broad brush.

Odd, Charles Adler is a man, I suppose.  His voice sounds like the voice of a man, although his words don’t.  I wonder whether any woman ever accused him of abusing her.  Perhaps that is still to come.  It is entirely possible, for any man, even for Charles Adler.  The likelihood of that happening is far greater than Charles Adler ever living up to his assuming his share of the guilt that he assigned to all men, namely that if he is ever accused by a woman of abusing her - whether the abuse took place or not - Charles Adler then becomes in his own words “a piece of human garbage” capable of killing his accuser by shooting her in the head.

Charles Adler should consider this: false accusations are as old as humanity - even the Bible tells us so.  It takes collaborators like Charles Adler to make them stick, and they almost invariably cause far more serious harm than the alleged abuse did (allowing in the process for good incomes to be earned by a lot of people in the resulting theater plays (a.k.a. court hearings) and associated industry surrounding them).

False abuse allegations are serious acts of interpersonal (often domestic) violence.  They often destroy the lives of the falsely accused.  It takes people like Charles Adler to have them come out that way or, at the very least, to have them stick to an individual like you-know-what to a blanket.

Posted in Media Bias, Men's Issues, Feminist Jurisprudence, Propaganda Exposed, Women's Violence | Print | No Comments »

April 7, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

Dr. Albert Mohler’s blog features an entry today that is very favorable of Stephen Baskerville’s book “Taken into Custody”, a damning expose of the widespread corruption in the government-designed and -run divorce industry: a conglomerate of racketeering involving not only legislators, judges, prosecutors, social workers, police and bureaucrats but also a host of private-industry adjuncts to the government’s sector of the divorce industry, namely: child-support enforcement and similar agencies (in whom many politicians have a vested interest); psychologists; psychiatrists; mediators; lawyers; bar associations; law societies; universities; journalists; reporters and other interests in the media, and so on.

As Professor Stephen Baskerville describes in his book, all of those parties, especially those connected with the family-court system, conspire to intrude and insert themselves into families - even into the most intimate parts of family life - to expunge loving fathers from their families and their children’s lives, to apprehend and control children for the purpose of financially and emotionally devasting fathers (but not exclusively just fathers), to control women (for example, so as to dictate to women that they must choose between being married to the fathers of their children or to lose their children).

“Taken into Custody provides overwhelming evidence that a major reason for the existence and cancerous growth of what Dr. Albert Mohler calls the “Divorce Industrial Complex,” is the overwhelming greed and corruption that permeates the divorce industry.

“Taken into Custody” was popular from the time the first printing was released in the summer of 2007, but even now, quite a few months later, its popularity and appeal are still growing.  Last night the reader reviews at amazon.com for “Taken into Custody” numbered 37. This morning their number had increased to 41, all of them favorable and five-star rated. The most remarkable thing about those reviews is that amongst them is not a single one written by a family- or father-hostile feminist.  Just a few years ago that would have been unimaginable, while a dozen years ago Stephen Baskerville would have had a very serious problem with finding a publisher willing to produce and distribute his book.

The vast majority of the reader reviews originated in the USA, but quite a few are from reviewers in other countries, such as the U.K., Sweden, Australia and one with an origin identified as “International”.

There is apparently as of yet no review by a Canadian reader. I should have written one, but have not yet finished reading the book, having received it, finally, and after two inexplicably failed attempts, just a couple of days ago.  I will make up for my missing review as soon as I am through reading “Taken into Custody.”

The fundamental issues discussed in “Taken into Custody” are not exclusive to the USA.  They are endemic of all English-speaking nations (as Stephen Baskerville identified with numerous examples and citations pertaining to many of those nations).  Still, they are applicable to - to mention a few such nations other than the USA - Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Finland, the countries of the former Soviet block, India, Japan, Egypt, Spain, Italy, France, Holland, Germany, Canada, South Africa, and so on.  The preceding list of countries is based on what is being reported to and discussed with me by fathers and by pro-father- and pro-family activists from around the world.

If you haven’t yet obtained a copy of “Taken into Custody”, get one, and you will find out that - if you dare to dream of having a family - civil rights and liberties are only an illusion.  You will also find out that families make up the fabric of society, and that society is being destroyed when governments engage on a deliberate war designed to rip families apart.

As I am reading “Taking into Custody,” I cannot help but feel that the views I have held for years are confirmed.  We managed in the ostensibly “free” West to install absolute totalitarianism by the government bureaucracy.

Posted in Shared Parenting, Men's Issues, Divorce, Media Bias, Child-Custody Awards, Family, Propaganda Exposed, Feminism, Feminist Jurisprudence, Child Abduction | Print | No Comments »

March 24, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

It is Easter Monday, 2008 03 24. I am reading the Edmonton Journal, specifically the front page containing two articles.

One of the two articles recounts the end of the first solo ski trip by a woman to the North Pole. After skiing for the first 60 km, she fell into a crevasse on an ice pressure ridge and was rescued. She was solo, but the men who rescued her were only a phone call and hours away, having man-designed, -manufactured and -transported rescue equipment at the ready to come to her rescue if the damsel fell into distress.

The other article, taking up twice as much space on the front page of the newspaper, discussed the issue of the incidents and consequences of antibiotic-resistant superbug infections (methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus - MRSA - infections) in Canada and specifically in Canadian hospitals.

The article mentions that the superbugs are around everywhere, especially in places where lots of people live, eat and share space, and not only in hospitals. It mentions that “One in 10 people that acquire MRSA in hospital get an infection; community-acquired strains sicken two out of 10.” The article does not mention that community-acquired strains cause something that is very new and of great concern to health-care providers, a substantially elevated and escalating infection rate amongst men who have sex with men. According to “Homosexuals Squelch Facts About MRSA Outbreak, Conservatives Say“, by Pete Winn, CNSNews.com (published about on or just before Jan. 28, 2008), the USA 300 variant of “this MRSA infection is 13 to 14 times more prevalent in homosexual men than for the general population.”

Still, even though that information is quite likely being censored by google.com (see search results for “this MRSA infection is 13 to 14 times more prevalent in homosexual men”) that omission is not my major concern about the Edmonton Journal article on MRSA infections. Of far greater concern is the article’s white-washing of the quality of the health care provided in Canadian hospitals. The article states that,

An estimated 220,000 people across Canada suffer from hospital-acquired infections each year, and 8,000 die, says the Canadian Nosocomial Infection Surveillance Program….It’s worse in the United States, where the bacterial infection killed 19,000 people in 2005, reports The Journal of the American Medical Association.

Whether that was written inadvertently (extremely unlikely for anyone of even only average intelligence) or not, it is a very serious misrepresentation of the relevant facts. It appears to be even more serious if one considers that the whopper slipped by the Edmonton Journal’s editors without being detected. Even if all of the 19,000 people killed in the USA in 2005 by MRSA infections were to have acquired their fatal infections in hospitals (the quote from the Journal of the AMA used by Jodie Sinnema is not specific on that), for the situation in the USA to even match the severity of the Canadian fatality rate of hospital-acquired MRSA infections, the USA would have to have had at the very least about 80,000 hospital-acquired MRSA fatalities in 2005.

It follows that, going by the statistics collected and provided by Jodie Sinnema in her article, far from being less serious than that in the USA, the fatality rate from hospital-acquired MRSA infections is at the very least more than four times worse in Canada than it is in the USA.

Update 2008 03 27: If you were at all worried about the Edmonton Journal’s front-page report, 2008 03 24, on the dire state of the quality of health care with respect to MRSA infections and -fatalities caused by Canadian hospitals, you can rest much easier after reading another article on “Superbug spreading outside hospitals” (Edmonton Journal, 2008 03 27, top of A6).

While the Edmonton Journal’s March 24 article on MRSA infections reported that “an estimated 220,000 people across Canada suffer from hospital-acquired infections each year, and 8,000 die…”, the Edmonton Journal’s March 27 article reduces the size of that calamity to “5,787 “newly identified” MRSA cases during the 2006 surveillance period, of which 3,561, or 62 per cent, were  acquired in the hospital, seven per cent in other acute care hospitals and eight per cent in long-term care facilities.  Community-acquired MRSA accounted for 893, or 15 per cent, of the reported cases….”.

That is most certainly welcome news and perhaps the most outstanding health improvement in any nation in the history of mankind.  In the space of a mere three days the Edmonton Journal reduced the number of MRSA infections in Canada from 220,000 a year to 3,561 in 2006, by a whopping 98.4 per cent.  If anything, that should have received front-page coverage.  I don’t know what the Edmonton Journal was thinking.

Mind you, my personal concerns about the MRSA statistics presented by the Edmonton Journal have not been alleviated the least.  It seems to me that the Edmonton Journal needs to get the services of someone able to interpret medical statistics and the differences between those from different sources.  If not, I am inclined to believe that the Edmonton Journal has given up on trying to dazzle with brilliance and began to attempt to baffle with B.S.

Posted in Media Bias, Health, Propaganda Exposed | Print | No Comments »

March 22, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

For some years now it has been customary in the media to designate pederasts as pedophiles.

Some of the reasons for that would be:

1. A pederast is definitely someone interested in homosexual activities with children, something that society abhors more than heterosexual child abuse by adults. A homosexual who abuses children of his own sex, what could be worse than that?
2. A pederast would have as victim a child of a specific sex, a child of his own sex. Given that women and girls are, according to the feminist-dominated media, the primary victims in our society, it would not serve the goals of the anti-male and pro-homosexual media propaganda war to identify boys as the primary victims of sexual child abuse.

For those reasons it should not surprise anyone to see articles like the following, in which a man who sexually abused boys — a pederast — is being depicted as a pedophile.

Convicted paedophile kicked out of Australia arrives in Britain as experts warn: ‘He’ll strike again’ (Daily Mail, 2008 03 08)

Convicted serial paedophile Raymond Horne landed in London today to a tide of protest after he was deported from Australia for abusing
children, sparking fears that British children are now at risk.

His head covered by a blanket and his distinctive white beard still visible, the 61-year-old was met by police at Heathrow before 6am.

He was deported to the UK after serving a 12-year jail sentence in Australia for 14 sex offences after he lured two homeless boys to his
apartment while volunteering for a charity….

In spite of the high incidence rate of pederasty (e.g.: in social work, Boy Scouts, sports teams, etc.), it is curious that it receives so little mention in specific terms in the media.

That is not so when one contemplates the respective volumes of explanations and descriptions (especially when it comes to illustrations) of pederasty and pedophilia in something like Wikipedia. It is is hard to comprehend why the Wikipedia entry for pedophilia shows not a single illustration, while Wikipedia deemed the entry for pederast to be in need of eleven of them.

Obviously there are some people whose interest in pederasty is enormously greater than their concern about pedophilia. However, the differences between the Wikipedia entries for pederasty and pedophilia extend beyond the presence of illustrations in one and the absence of illustrations in the other.

As with homosexuality itself, so pederasty (homosexual child abuse) is sought be be made acceptable, while the situation is somewhat different with respect to the Wikipedia entry for pedophilia.

From the Wikipedia entry for pederasty:

Today, while there is greater public acceptance of homosexuality in many countries, adult erotic relations with boys are generally viewed with disapproval, even when the youths are of legal age.

And the comparable quote from the Wikipedia entry for pedophilia:

The ICD-10 and DSM IV, which are standard medical diagnosis manuals, describe pedophilia as a paraphilia and mental disorder of adults or older adolescents, if it causes clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning.^[2]

Curiously, the entry for pedophilia contains 12 instances of the term “child sexual abuse”, while the entry for pederasty contains not a single instance of that term.

It appears that, going by “public opinion” as reflected in the general media and in Wikipedia, pederasty — a homosexual form of child sexual abuse — is morally acceptable, if not desirable, while pedophilia is a mental aberration that is as a matter of course an offence only if it causes discomfort for the perpetrator.

As our social and moral evolution in the context of the sexual revolution progresses, it remains to be seen whether pederasty can be successfully excluded from the category of child sexual abuse and whether all forms of pedophilia (its promoters more commonly call it “intergenerational sex”) can eventually be decriminalized and even be made to be generally desired. That appears to be the plan, does it not, the legalization of statutory rape, right?

Posted in Media Bias, Censorship, Education, Propaganda Exposed, The New World Order | Print | No Comments »

February 15, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

Free Internet Press

War Torn: When Strains On Military Families Turn Deadly
2008-02-15

A few months after Sgt. William Edwards and his wife, Sgt. Erin Edwards, returned to a Texas Army base from separate missions in Iraq, he assaulted her mercilessly. He struck her, choked her, dragged her over a fence and slammed her into the sidewalk.

As far as Erin Edwards was concerned, that would be the last time he beat her.

Unlike many military wives, she knew how to work the system to protect herself. She was an insider, even more so than her husband, since she served as an aide to a brigadier general at Fort Hood.

With the general’s help, she quickly arranged for a future transfer to a base in New York. She pressed charges against her husband and secured an order of protection. She sent her two children to stay with her mother. And she received assurance from her husband’s commanders that he would be barred from leaving the base unless accompanied by an officer.

Yet, on the morning of July 22, 2004, William Edwards easily slipped off base, skipping his anger-management class, and drove to his wife’s house in the Texas town of Killeen. He waited for her to step outside and then, after a struggle, shot her point-blank in the head before turning the gun on himself….(Full Story)

___________
F4L: The article, published in the NY times, paints a picture of male soldiers being ticking time bombs, ready to explode and to put members of their families through misery and deadly violence, yet,

…the New York Times found more than 150 cases of fatal domestic violence or child abuse in the United States involving service members and new veterans during the wartime period that began in October 2001 with the invasion of Afghanistan.

In more than a third of the cases, the Times determined that the offenders had deployed to Afghanistan or Iraq or to the regions in support of those missions. In another third, it determined that the offenders never deployed to war. And the deployment history of the final third could not be ascertained.

It is being stressed that it is male soldiers (virtually all soldiers in combat positions are men) who loose it and cause havoc in their families.  Still, in 2007 there were about 2.2 million men and a few women in the US Armed forces.  DV murders amounted to about 20 a year.

Is that an extraordinary number of murders?  2.2 million soldier employed in the military industry. plus another four million is equal to about six million people, the equivalent of a good sized city.

So, how do 20 DV murders a year in a population sector that size measure up against the murders that occur in a normal city that size.  The mayor of any city of a million people or more would be proud to have no more than 20 murders a year.  If the media concentrate on the suffering of individual victims of member of the Armed Forces and provide no reference to the size of the population group in which those murders happen, any such calamity turns into a massive disaster on a personal level.  However, in reference to the population group in which the murders happen, they are not as big a problem as they are made out to be.

Still, there should be no doubt in anyone’s mind that someone who is repeatedly away from his family for extended periods of time will find that rejoining that family can be problematic, especially if he comes back to find a child at home that he could not possible have fathered, or if he finds that he is being expunged from a family for whom he thought he was putting life, limbs and his health at risk.

The NY Times article distorts reality and is a very effective piece of propaganda.

Posted in Media Bias, Men's Issues, Propaganda Exposed | Print | No Comments »

January 14, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

Barbara Kay, National Post  Published: Saturday, December 08, 2007

No other topics I write about so consistently provoke passionate personal response as those dealing with systemic discrimination against men. When, for example, I point out double standards for boys and girls in the health care system, or expose the use of bogus statistics around domestic violence, my inbox fills with male gratitude simply for acknowledging an obvious fact: Our culture is profoundly misandric.

Of the myriad forms of discrimination men cite, one looms over the rest: The egregious treatment meted out to fathers in the throes of contested child custody following the “no-fault” divorces most of them did not initiate or desire. My files bulge with stories of disenfranchised fathers ripped from their children’s arms and lives. They have lost their homes, their careers, fortunes, friends and reputations, often on the basis of false allegations of abuse (for which their female accusers are virtually never punished). I wouldn’t mention such anecdotal evidence, if the anguish in these testimonials didn’t jibe with objective data confirming the shameful gender bias that dominates the family law system….(Full Story)

In her commentary, Barbara Kay makes reference to the new book (but does not provide a link to ordering information for “Taken into Custody: The War Against Fathers, Marriage, and the Family,”) by Stephen Baskerville, president of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children.

Barbara Kay’s comment focuses on Canadian circumstances of divorce.  It may not seem right that she mentions a book written by a US author about the plight of fathers in the circumstances of divorce and separation.  However, the aspects of fathers who are divorced, divorcing and in any way separated from their children are not particular to US fathers.

The feminist war against fathers, marriage and the family is an international war fought intensively in all nations, especially in the developed and developing nations.  It is the key strategy for the implementation of the international agenda for the planned destruction of the family.

Barbara Kay urges that all men should read books like that by Stephen Baskerville — especially those fathers who look down upon divorced, separated or expunged fathers as being losers.

No one is immune:

First they came for the fathers, then for the mothers, and now for both parents in intact families. In the end all children will be in the care, custody and control of the State.

— Walter H. Schneider

In her article, Barbara Kay states: “If the system does not become equitable, don’t be surprised if men choose increasingly, and with reason, to play their trump card: Voting for equality with their condoms.”

That consequence should not merely be expected or feared.  It already is reality.  It is a desired consequence that the social engineers who have the world in their grip wish to use to achieve their ultimate goal, namely an 80% reduction of the world population.

–Walter

Posted in Men's Issues, Divorce, Media Bias, Shared Parenting, Child-Custody Awards, Feminism, Feminist Jurisprudence, Family, The New World Order | Print | No Comments »