In Defense of Men

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 »

Drivers-licence removal as criminal punishment

April 15, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

The international networking by English-speaking jurists, judiciary activists, activist judges, and by their adjuncts (non-governmental organizations) is fast and - if not efficient - extremely effective. Therefore it frequently happens that innovative laws and forms of punishment for ostensible criminals make their appearance simultaneously or only separated in time by extremely short intervals in many different English-speaking countries throughout the world.

For instance, in English-speaking countries, drivers-licence removal is a popular and longstanding form of punishment (it has been around for a decade and more) for minor crimes, primarily the “crime” of falling into arrears with child support payments - not necessarily through any personal fault. In English-speaking countries, drivers-licence removals as a form of punishment spread like a wildfire.

Curiously, as Sanford Braver reports in Divorced Dads : Shattering the Myths, where reasonable child access exists for fathers expunged from their families (in the majority of the cases through no fault of their own), child-support payments are voluntarily made in more than 90 percent of cases and often in excess of the specified amounts. About six percent of fathers ordered to pay child-support default on some or all of their payments. At most half of those (about three percent of all divorced dads) are truly “deadbeat dads”. The others are often unable to pay all or pay only part of what they are ordered to pay - because they can’t make ends meet. They have fallen on hard times, such as having become under-employed, unemployed, sick, disabled, hospitalized, incarcerated (very often for outstanding child-support arrears), and even having died (quite often through suicide) and having been buried - as child-support obligations extend in many jurisdictions even beyond the grave.

Germany appears to lag a bit behind in the application of drivers-licence and professional licence removal for the enforcement of compliance with sentences for minor crimes that very often are not crimes at all but nothing other than the inability by idividual (amost exclusively men) to conform to government-imposed financial liabilities.  What will be coming next for a German man so unfortunate will be a life in which he, as a “criminal” (often a debtor with unpaid compulsory child-support obligations), is hobbled by the lack of a drivers licence, by the lack of professional licences and by seriously restricted abilities to earn a living and to pay obligations, instead of having to live a life shackled to the walls of a debtors prison. Is the imposing of the lack of freedom of movement or the freedom to earn a living any more humane than having one’s freedom of movement restricted by the walls of a debtors prison? One so sentenced is always assured good meals and a bed in debtors prison. Moreover, the place is heated and is a lot more comfortable than a cardboard box at -35°C in a back alley.

The appended translation of a German-language news item and of the related introductory comment shows that Germany is in the process of taking the important first step in the removal and denial of the constitutionally guaranteed right of freedom of movement in the cases of perpetrators of minor criminal offences. The step to extend the form of punishment that we have become accustomed to for the so-called crime of having fallen on hard times and defaulting on child-support payments will surely follow soon in Germany, too. Let’s hope that the German people will not experience the escalating oppression by the divorce industry to such an extent that it drives up the suicide rates for men even more, as happened in all English-speaking countries.

The remarkable aspect of such outlandish and illogical forms of punishment is that they are invented by bureaucrats and by judicial activists. There never has been, and is not now, any public clamour by the general public to implement novel punishments for so-called crimes that never were and still aren’t a concern of the public. Those crimes, and especially the “crime” of being guilty of having caused a “no-fault” divorce and its consequences or the “crime” of having fallen into arrears on payments that finance the government-sponsored filching of the children one never wanted to be deprived of, are entirely caused by the crazed ideology that drives our governments. It is not that the public has become so depraved that it now is intent on destroying society, but that our governments create “crimes” by manufacturing the conditions that allow the governments to rationalize that the inevitable “crimes” that are the consequence of government-manufactured conditions need to be fought and punished to make the people comply with undemocratic government edicts. That is not a condition of freedom, it is an escalating spiral of causes and consequences in an increasingly totalitarian society.

In the English-speaking countries there is a growing awareness that idiotic allegations of so-called crimes and even more idiotic forms of punishment, such as the removal of the means to make a living, are being driven by an insane ideology that calls for the world-wide implementation of the agenda for the planned destruction of the family and even of the whole Western cultural heritage and traditions.

German people will have to learn that, too. As the comments identified in the appended translation show, some Germans are well on the way to understand what is going on. Let’s hope that, to fully understand, Germans will not have to go all the way to chaos. One would almost think that people who were not all that long ago ordered to fight to the last bullet - until all would turn to rubble and ashes - would by now have enough of radical ideologies that invariably lead to totalitarianism.

–Walter Schneider
http://fathersforlife.org
____________
Translation of German Text

The drivers licence is for the majority of people the foundation for earning money through a job, thereby to pay for taxes, social insurances and the necessities of life, and through that to be enabled not to become a burden on the pockets of the taxpayers. This “prestige value” is so negative that it is possible to implement drivers-licence removal as a form of punishment, so that those that are sentenced are even less able to participate in an acceptable manner in our society.

When young people experience the removal of the basis of their capability to earn money trough jobs, they will no longer be able to create personal wealth and will be unable to pay fines. Therefore monetary fines will become inappropriate. Furthermore, those children won’t be in a position that enables them to become the necessary role models for their children that will motivate the latter to become productive and self-satisfied adults. Later, those children cannot become good parents. They either will have no children, or their children will become a burden on orphanages and foster homes, with all of the well-known consequences.

Is it then that our ministers lost all touch with reality and with realistic-practical thinking? Is that a sort of declaration of bankruptcy of spirit and morality? How much stupidity and moral turpitude can we accept from our lawmakers (in the majority jurists)?

Greetings,

Herbert Greipl

The German Federal Council [Upper House] intends to implement drivers-licence removal into list of punishments in penal code

Berlin: (hib/BOB) The Bundesrat [Upper House] intends to anchor prohibition to drive as part of the penalties provided in the penal code. It presented a draft of a law to that extent (16/8695). The States Chamber expects from that a noticeable impact, on those sentenced, of the [withholding of the] “definitive prestige value” provided by a drivers licence. The Bundesrat argues that, time and again, it happens that there are cases in which the imposing of a monetary fine will, under the personal and economical circumstances of those sentenced, not result in the desired effects. Alternatively, incarceration would in the circumstances of specific cases be disproportionately hard. Drivers-licence removal could thereby be classified as an independent major punishment, without the necessity to have to impose incarceration or a monetary fine. A further example would be not-so-serious deeds with extremist backgrounds - often with application of violence. A relatively large portion of young offenders are affected, according to the government. For such people the removal of the drivers licence could be “a shot across the bow”. The Federal Government agreed to evaluate the proposal.

Mailinglist papa-info - always well informed
e-mail: papa-info@listserv.shuttle.de
web: http://listserv.shuttle.de/mailman/listinfo/papa-info

Original German text

Der Führerschein ist für die Mehrzahl die Grundlage mit beruflicher Tätigkeit Geld zu verdienen und somit Steuern und Sozialversicherung und auch Unterhalt zu bezahlen und nicht dem Staat auf der Tasche zu liegen. Und dieser “Prestigewert” ist so negativ, dass man ihn als Strafe wegnehmen kann, sodass sie dann noch weniger in der Lage sind, in zumutbarer Weise am Wesen unserer Gesellschaft Teil zu nehmen?

Wenn jungen Menschen schon die Grundlage zum beruflichen Geld verdienen genommen wird, so können sie keinen Besitz schaffen und auch keine Geldstrafen bezahlen. Damit sind Geldstrafen für sie ungeeignet. Aber sie sind so auch nicht in der Lage für ihre Kinder das Vorbild zu sein, das notwendig ist, damit diese sich zu tüchtigen, für die Gesellschaft nützlichen und selbst glücklichen Erwachsenen entwickeln können. Diese Kinder können später selbst keine guten Eltern sein. Entweder sie haben dann selbst keine Kinder oder ihre Kinder werden zu Wirtschaftsobjekten zur Belegung von Heimen und Pflegefamilien mit allen bekannten Folgen.

Haben unsere Minister schon jeden Realitätssinn und realistisch-praktisches Denken verloren? Ist das eine Art Bankrotterklärung für Geist und Moral? Wieviel Blödheit und Schlechtigkeit müssen wir Bürger uns noch von unseren Gesetzesmachern (die Mehrzahl sind Juristen) bieten lassen?

Gruß

Herbert Greipl

Bundesrat will Fahrverbot auf Zeit in das Strafgesetzbuch aufnehmen
Recht/Gesetzentwurf

Berlin: (hib/BOB) Der Bundesrat will ein Fahrverbot auf Zeit im Strafgesetzbuch verankern. Er hat dazu einen Gesetzentwurf vorgelegt (16/8695). Die Länderkammer verspricht sich davon eine deutliche Wirkung auf den Verurteilten wegen des “deutlichen Prestigewerts”, die ein Führerschein mit sich bringe. Der Bundesrat argumentiert, immer wieder kämen in der Praxis Fälle vor, in denen die persönlichen und wirtschaftlichen Verhältnisse des Verurteilten für eine Geldstrafe nicht geeignet seien, die mit ihr verfolgten Zwecke zu erfüllen. Andererseits erscheine eine Freiheitsstrafe nach Lage des Falles oft unangemessen hart. Das Fahrverbot könne hierbei als selbstständige Hauptstrafe aufgewertet werden, ohne Geld- oder Freiheitsstrafe verhängen zu müssen. Ein weiteres Beispiel seien nicht ganz so schwerwiegende Taten mit extremistischem Hintergrund - oft unter Anwendung von Gewalt. Ein verhältnismäßig hoher Anteil gerade junger Täter sei betroffen, so die Regierung. Für solche Menschen könne der Entzug des Führerscheins ein wirkungsvoller “Schuss vor den Bug” sein. Die Bundesregierung hat zugesagt, die Anliegen zu prüfen.

Mailingliste papa-info - immer gut informiert
e-mail: papa-info@listserv.shuttle.de
web: http://listserv.shuttle.de/mailman/listinfo/papa-info

Posted in Divorce, Men and Women Work, Men's Issues, Family, Feminist Jurisprudence, The New World Order | Print | No Comments »

The Dumbing-down of the Hard Sciences

March 26, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

There is no doubt that some women excel in the hard sciences (e. g.: math, physics, computer science, and engineering) to the same extent as do men.  However, it is a fact that the hard sciences are being dominated by men, by far.

That irks feminist social engineers.  They assert that sexism against women is the cause of that disparity, and they intend to do something about it.  The solution to the “problem” that they intend to bring about is Title IX equalization in the whole field of education, so as to adjust education in the hard sciences to bring about educational achievement for the sexes in a fashion that will match the progress and achievement of the better learners (predominantly male students) to that of the slower or less adept learners (predominantly female students).

In that manner, they hope, there will eventually and in short order be as many female graduates in the hard sciences as there are male graduates.  The reality of that will of course be that, just as it happened in sports, that the number of male achievers will be adjusted downward to match the number of the few female graduates that chose subjects in the hard sciences.

It seems to me that just as we have seen over the years the elimination of male sports teams at universities and colleges, so we will get to see the elimination of courses in the hard sciences that presently are being dominated or exclusively attended by male students.

Of course, the consequence of that will be, just as it has been experienced in the field of sports, that any country that in that fashion downgrades its progress and achievements in the hard sciences will lose whatever advantages it may hold or may have held in scientific achievements.

Christina Hoff Sommers discusses the circumstances of these latest suicidal goals of the American feminist social engineers in “Why Can’t a Woman Be More Like a Man?” (The American, March-April 2008 issue).

Here are a few excerpts from that article.

While Title IX has been effective in promoting women’s participation in sports, it has also caused serious damage, in part because it has led to the adoption of a quota system. Over the years, judges, Department of Education officials, and college administrators have interpreted Title IX to mean that women are entitled to “statistical proportionality.” That is to say, if a college’s student body is 60 percent female, then 60 percent of the athletes should be female—even if far fewer women than men are interested in playing sports at that college. But many athletic directors have been unable to attract the same proportion of women as men. To avoid government harassment, loss of fund­ing, and lawsuits, they have simply eliminated men’s teams. Although there are many factors affecting the evolution of men’s and women’s college sports, there is no question that Title IX has led to men’s participation being calibrated to the level of women’s interest. That kind of calibration could devastate academic science.

Harvard’s legendary Math 55 class does not look like America. The class roster at semester’s end? ‘45 percent Jewish, 18 percent Asian, 100 percent male.’

Women comprise 19 percent of tenure-track professors in math, 11 percent in physics, and 10 percent in electrical engineering. The pipeline does not promise statistical parity.

‘Our goal,’ says the deputy director of the National Science Foundation, ‘is to transform…the entire culture of science and engineering in America, and to be inclusive of all.’

Baron-Cohen believes that men are, on average, wired to be better systematizers and women better empathizers. It’s a daring claim, but he has the data to back it up.

If numerical inferiority were sufficient grounds for charges of discrimination, Congress would be holding hearings on the underrepresentation of men in higher education.

Professor Emanuel said that although the discrimination report was ‘widely praised in public, it was privately deplored and disparaged in the hallways of MIT.’

It is odd that a single study of postgraduate fellowships at a Swedish university should play such a prominent role in a campaign to eliminate ‘hidden bias’ in American universities.

‘We don’t accept biology as destiny,’ says Valian. ‘We vaccinate, we inoculate, we medicate…I propose we adopt the same attitude toward biological sex differences.’

‘At bias-awareness workshops, physicists and engineers watch skits where overbearing male faculty ride roughshod over hapless but intellectually superior female colleagues.

Most scientists have no idea of the power and scope of the equity crusade. The business community and citizens at large are completely in the dark. This is a quiet revolution.

It is a very long article, but it argues unfailingly that the application of Title IX equalization in the hard sciences will be deadly to the nation’s economy.  One would do well to memorize Christina Hoff Sommers’ concluding paragraph:

American scientific excellence is a precious national resource. It is the foundation of our economy and of the nation’s health and safety. Norman Augustine, retired CEO of Lockheed Martin, and Burton Richter, Nobel laureate in physics, once pointed out that MIT alone—its faculty, alumni, and staff—started more than 5,000 companies in the past 50 years. Will an academic science that is quota-driven, gender-balanced, cooperative rather than competitive, and less time-consuming produce anything like these results? So far, no one in Congress has even thought to ask.

Full Story

With increasing frequency we hear that women’s studies programs are dying and even being eliminated in some countries due to lack of student enrolment.  To conclude from that circumstance that feminism is dead or dying is surely as false and dangerous as it would have been to conclude that Marxist communism was not the dominating and driving ideology of the USSR.

Posted in Censorship, Men and Women Work, Education, Men's Issues, Propaganda Exposed, Feminism, The New World Order | Print | No Comments »

Men Wanted…

February 13, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

…Skilled workers, that is.  Skilled work always has been and still is the domain of men; relatively few and insufficient instances of a few women who wish to be like men excepted.

In all developed nations a serious shortage of skilled workers is developing (see appended examples).  That is not an unforeseen or unexpected social development.  It is a condition that was deliberately created in a political evolution that put ideology over common sense.

Unfortunately, the noble dreams of feminists and liberal social engineers to the contrary, the reality of the economy is that the welfare and growth of national economies cannot be based on the outcomes of affirmative action policies and hiring quotas, it must be based on rewarding excellence…. (Full Story)

_______________
Fathers for Life: The article identified above discusses the upcoming and catastrophic shortage of skilled workers that is developing world-wide and will begin to be the cause of serious multi-year delays in major, critical construction jobs.

Posted in Men and Women Work | Print | No Comments »

Building the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge

February 5, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

Click to load and play

Posted in Men and Women Work | Print | No Comments »

Request for help with excessive child support

January 6, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

We often receive help requests such as that by Lisa and George (not their real names) quoted here.

To Whom it may concern,

My husband and I met 10 years ago. He was briefly married to a women for 1 year and they had a baby boy.

After $30,000 and 3 years later in court fees, my husband finally received joint legal custody.

We have my stepson (now 11) on a one-week-on, one-week-off basis.

The week that we have him we must still pay the ex wife $120.00 and she spends this on herself. (FYI, she has remarried and has 2 more children of her own.)

She wanted my stepson to attend private school and took us to court to pay her more money. Of course she won, and the tuition 5 years ago was $6,500/yr (we pay 60%).

Now that my stepson is going on to highschool (Quebec starts in grade 7) the tuition is $10,500. My husband and I have 2 other boys. This is ridiculous.

Could a judge possible make us pay more? Can my stepson not go to a public school? We have no more money to give and we cannot afford to go back to court unless we are sure we can win this case.

My husband is so distraught.

Is it possible to guide me and my husband to any website, document or even someone we can telephone for more info?

Thank you so much for taking the time to read this.

Lisa

I offer generic advice in such situations and I did so now.

Unfortunately I cannot hold out much hope for you that you or any lawyer can get the injustices against George, against you and against your common children corrected.

The reason for what you experience is not so much a miscarriage of justice that can be corrected than it is a consequence of the implementation of the international agenda for the planned destruction of the family.

One may argue that if that is so, then such injustices should equally befall men and women.  However, the way this starts is that men and fathers are the weakest link in marriages and are therefore the easiest to be removed (and punished for wanting to be fathers in families).  The idea is to prevent the formation of marriages by scaring men (and women) away from forming marriages.  As that objective was promoted for two-hundred years and more by feminists (male and female - there are more of the former than of the latter), it stands to reason that first wives will not lose as much through the culture of divorce as their husbands do.  However, one of the biggest motivators for the creation of the devastation and privation caused by the divorce industry is no longer so much the goal of the complete and total destruction of the institution of the family as it now is - plain and simple - profit.  (See Stephen Baskerville’s articles on the nature and consequences of the war against fathers and families.)

The only ones who consistently win through divorce are the lawyers and the adjuncts of the divorce industry.  Let there be no mistake, judges are lawyers, too, and they win because the divorce industry has grown into a major sector of the legal industry.  Therefore they have become and continue to become increasingly more powerful and richer.  Be clear on this as well, the financial burdens placed upon you by what you call “court fees” are actually minimal.  The majority of your court costs that you had to pay as time went by were in fact fees that had to be paid by you not to the courts but to the lawyers you hired.  Furthermore, it happens very often that divorcing or divorced husbands are being ordered by the courts to pay their ex-wives’ court costs and lawyer fees as well.

Yes, women who are being financially rewarded for having become divorced cannot and will not in any way be held accountable for how they spend their alimony payments in the disguise of “child support”.

You explained that you have become financially exhausted and can no longer fight court battles.  That is bad news, because it is not very likely  that without a lawyer you can manage to get your court-ordered financial obligations disentangled and adjusted so that they become manageable.

I cannot point you to anyone in particular who can help you, but I can direct you to some organizations in Quebec that can help you with advice.  Check these links:

• Fathers Are Capable Too: Parenting Association  (F.A.C.T.)

Their links page (the links page contains listings for Quebec)

Pick organizations that have regular meetings of their members.  By getting in touch with those members at those meetings you will gain from the experiences of others who are going through troubles like yours or who went through them and got them resolved somehow.

You will not only learn what works and what doesn’t, but you will also be able to determine what your chances are and with which lawyers you can make the best progress.

You will quite likely learn far more from working with such an organization than you can from any lawyer.  Be careful with using a lawyer.

Lawyers generally work primarily for themselves, not for you.  Never forget the nature of your relationship with a lawyer you hire: you are the boss, and he (or she) is the contractor you hired to solve your problem.

Therefore, you need to know how lawyers work, what standards they use, what you want them to do for you, where, when and how and - most of all - how well it all needs to be done.

Just as with any other contractor (e. g.: a construction company for building a house), you need to be careful about how to select a lawyer:

1. Have a “blueprint”;
2. Present that to more than one contractor;
3. Ask for an estimate of the costs and of the probability of success;
4. Ask for references as to similar jobs done;
5. Compare the answers you get, and
6. Make your selection.

Things don’t end there.  You need to monitor:

7. Start dates and locations of court actions and be certain that the lawyer is prepared and will be there;
8. That your intentions are properly translated into legal actions, and
9. You need to have included in a court order for visitation or custody that the police will be required to enforce the provisions of the court order issued if the mother of the child obstructs the court order in any way or manner.

Here is another recommendation that I give to all men who come to me with problems similar to yours.  As crazy as that may seem to you, you must have a paternity test done before you do anything else (or as soon as possible and concurrently with anything else that you feel needs to be done right now).  The reasons for that are explained in the following:

• Paternity
• Paternity Fraud
• The Henry-Report on Paternity Fraud (2007)

Hope that helps (but write if you need more pointers).

Walter Schneider
http://fathersforlife.org
http://blog.fathersforlife.org

Posted in Divorce, Men and Women Work, Shared Parenting, Child-Custody Awards, Feminist Jurisprudence, Family, The New World Order | Print | No Comments »

FOXbusiness mortgage calculator

January 6, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

Everyone must borrow money now or then.  If so, he should use a mortgage and loan calculator to help him make the right decisions.

Here is a link to the FOXbusiness mortgage calculator.

The FOXBusiness mortgage calculator requires Java to be enabled on your PC, but is very easy to use.

Amongst the things it can do for you, the FOXBusiness mortgage calculator lets you calculate by how much the term of your mortgage or loan will be reduced if you make an extra payment of any desired amount at any given time, or if you wish to increase the amount of your monthly loan payment.

Of course, none of that will matter if you like contributing to the record profits our banks are making each year, or if you don’t mind if your government is squandering the taxes you pay.

Isn’t it odd that many people complain about the ever-increasing taxes they must pay to the government, but that very few people ever mention the far higher interest payments they make to the banks?

I suppose that if governments were as adept at public relations work as the banks are, we could even get to like paying taxes.

Some people quit working or don’t work overtime because they wrongly feel that paying the taxes for that makes that work unprofitable.  The reality of that is that as long as one pays taxes he is making it worth-while for him to go to work.

On the other hand, few people will quit working because they must make interest payments to the banks.  I suppose that is because the possession of personal things (that are in reality owned by the banks for the duration of the loans the banks provided for them) is deemed to be more important than to enjoy the goods and services provided through the government out of our tax contributions — goods and services that we ostensibly own and get to share equitably.

–Walter

Posted in Men and Women Work, Education | Print | No Comments »

The War on Women (book) is a hoax

November 10, 2007 by Walter Schneider.

Excerpt from The War on Women:

Compare the raw numbers. In the same seven-year period when 4,588 U.S. soldiers and police officers were killed by hostiles or by accident, more than 8,000 women – nearly twice as many – were shot, stabbed, strangled, or beaten to death by the intimate males in their lives. In Canada, compared to the 101 Canadian soldiers and police officers killed, more than 500 women – nearly five times as many – met the same fate….

Original article (Toronto Star, Nov. 3, 2007)

It is a common and cheap propaganda trick by feminists to make such comparisons in successful efforts to draw attention to “women’s plight”.

In my mind, but not in the mind of many readers of the article, the comparison of all of the wars is wrong, for as long as the “war on women” is compared to other causes of fatalities that are completely incompatible and even incomparable. If there must be a “war on women”, then let’s compare its consequences to the consequences of the “war on men”.

The whole feminist argument vanishes as soon as one makes the correct comparison, that of comparing the plight of women with that of the plight of men. When that is done, a totally different picture - the true one - is immediately apparent.

Women live on average (in the whole world) five more years than men do, 10 to 12 more years in the member countries of the former communist block, 7 more years in socialistic Canada, and 6 more years in the not yet so socialistic USA.

There is no biological reason at all for that large and still growing gender gap in the life expectancies of the sexes. The reason for men dying sooner than women do is simply the consequence of society’s “war on men”. However, for anyone, including feminists, it is wrong to make use of hyperbole like that. The phrase “war on men” is wrong and the phrase “discrimination against men” must be substituted.

When it comes to the respective sexes losing their lives in the real wars that are being fought right now, the Toronto Star article already fails to make any comparison at all. There is a very good reason for that. The proportions of men and women dying in combat always differed. Let’s face it, there are three major reasons for that. Firstly, men are expendable and women need to be protected. Secondly, no woman in her right mind will want to be equal to men to the extent that she is as likely to die as men are. Thirdly, no man in his right mind will let any woman expose herself to risks such as those he must take.

Not all that long ago virtually no women died in combat. Combat fatalities were comprised almost exclusively of men (e. g.: 58,169 American servicemen and 8 American servicewomen died in Vietnam). That has changed now, but true equality between the sexes in the area of combat in war is far from being reached and probably will never be reached. The latest figures I saw on that indicate that less than one woman died in combat for every ten men who did so.

But let’s go one step farther into an area where affirmative hiring of women has made greater inroads into equality of the sexes. All feminist assertions to the contrary, even though virtually equal numbers of men and women work in the service professions (police, protective services, guards, firefighting ) in the US, in the years from 1992 through 2001, 262 women and 4,774 men had fatal occupational injuries (details).

That is a ratio of one woman for every 18.2 men, not too different from the average of men’s and women’s respective fatalities in the general job market, where the ratio is one women fatality for slightly less than every 19 men fatalities.

Most interestingly, those ratios have seen no change for as long as statistics have been kept. There is absolutely no indication of any change at all, even though one would expect one, especially when having been indoctrinated by feminist propaganda to the contrary throughout most of one’s life.

Now let’s look at murder victims. The proportions differ a little from country to country but have remained virtually unchanged over the years. For example, in the US, for every woman who got murdered there were about 5.8 men who met their demise in that fashion.

The conclusion: “The War on Women” is another feminist hoax. The truth is that anti-male discrimination is extensive and seriously deadly for men, not for women.

–Walter

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

Feminism and families are as old as civilization

October 27, 2007 by Walter Schneider.

Deep down, more or less buried under a layer of chivalry that varies in thickness from man to man, every man knows either openly (a few) or subconsciously (most) that he is being shafted, that ongoing and escalating anti-male discrimination has, in the eyes of society, turned virtually all men into sub-humans, through a process that is not driven centrally, as in other totalitarian regimes, but is steered and motivated by an all-pervasive, totalitarian and state-promoted ideology, a religion. In effect, today’s men are the equivalent of the Jews during the late 1930s in the Nazi regime. Men are being vilified and slandered by much the same but far more pervasive and effective methods as those used in other totalitarian regimes. Today’s men are the Jews of the third millennium, and they are not happy with that.

Feminism has become a state-promoted and state-sponsored religion. That, in a closed world-society, makes opposition by men about as effective as it was for them to oppose the priests in ancient Egypt. Nevertheless, men are as much the slaves now as they were then, with one important difference. Men are no longer led and directed by men, they are being led and directed by women, and - let there be no mistake - this time not by their mothers, the mothers that at one time stood by their husbands and fathers of their children.

The social institution of the family is as old as civilization, and so is feminism. When women and men were still united, when families were still important and the building blocks of our civilization, opposition to feminist oppression was still possible. The successful war against the family put the ax to that, and the eradication of the traditional nuclear family is almost done.

Men weren’t defeated, they resigned - once the protection of their families was gone. They are not so much retreating and fighting a rear-guard action now as they are negotiating from the position of the defeated the terms of their surrender after the war against the family is almost over.

We don’t have much time (some people say, no more than two years in the US) before we run out of a chance for saving the family, the restoration of the status of men and of the respect society once had for men, before the social chaos and damage brought about by feminist liberalism becomes irreversible. Here in Canada there are no discussions like that in the mainstream media. There are few discussions like that in any of the developed nations. There are most definitely very few discussions like that in the men’s movement.

As far as saving our families is concerned, the members of the men’s movement seem to be busy scrabbling to salvage for themselves what they can amongst the ruins, rubble and ashes of what once were our families.

Yes, men do get riled up already, openly and in practical ways. They insist on getting their share of the equality that feminism had promised men would get by women assuming their fair share of the work and the risks formerly carried by men alone.

Just last Wednesday a man told me that a woman he had been living with and whom he had intended to marry refused to work, and that she had instead constantly partied. He “fired” her because she would not work! He was quite clear and adamant on that. He considered her not to have lived up to what was her duty, namely to contribute her equal share of work to their consumer group of two.

I think that’s great, he had every right, and I am sure that there are many more men like that. He thought of equal shares in terms of sharing expenses and had to assume all, instead of sharing them. She thought of her equal share in terms of what she considered to be her rightful share of what she thought to be enjoyment, by acquiring and using up all of it and by consuming all of the money he brought home. Neither of them had been willing to exercise their primary function and the responsibilities and duties that arose out of their union, to produce and raise children in the safety and comfort of the family. That they broke up was a good thing under their circumstances, but not a good thing for society. It is an evolutionary dead end for civilization and for the population in that civilization.

We need functioning families, not happy consumer groups of men and women.

If consumerism is the primary goal of society, then it will be better for men and women not to share anything at all and to live in individual isolation. That will drive the frenzy of consumerism and production of consumer goods to the max, but without families and children the economy and society will collapse, and we will all be gone within two generation.

- Walter

Posted in Men and Women Work, Men's Issues, Family, Feminism, The New World Order | Print | No Comments »

Re: Warren Farrell interview - Oct 2007

October 26, 2007 by Walter Schneider.

Dear Robert,

With me having read most of his books over the years, Warren Farrell opened my eyes about many of the misconception I had for most of the many years of my prior life. Those misconceptions related to the respective appreciation we as a society have and that I had with regard to the inequalities of the sexes. I am very grateful to Warren Farrell for that.

I should have known better about many things relating to women:

• Having been, like virtually every other man, abused by girls and women - physically and emotionally, but in my case not sexually;
• Having been discriminated against in favour of women and girls;
• Seeing women in power in many different companies, corporations and businesses act as absolute tyrants, without compassion and being absolutely ruthless;
• Experiencing the failed attempt of my teacher (Fraulein Krapot) in Grade II to send my buddy to the concentration camp (”fortunately”, his mother and he - his father already was in camp - had committed suicide just before I came next morning to pick him up for school);
• Seeing that many women possessed less and often much less or none of the sense of fairness inherent in men, and so on.
• Having seen many men study and work hard to achieve success, only then to marry women who did nothing of the sort, men who then became divorced against their will and had those women take those men’s children and almost every cent they had and destroyed those men’s careers to boot, turning loving fathers and even loving and doting husbands into “criminals” because they were then dead-broke and automatically were labelled deadbeats.
• Having experienced, as many of us did, that a good number of good men amongst our friends, acquaintances and co-workers committed suicide because of the insurmountable despair and depression they were in, as they could no longer live without the means to make a living.

Warren Farrell also gave me a lot of information with which to debunk feminist propaganda. I am just as grateful to him for that.

Many fathers rights activists (and I truly hope that the vastly larger number of people in the general public did so) learned from Warren Farrell to be objective when making claims about sex-discrimination against one sex or the other. Many fathers rights activists learned that, but virtually no women’s rights activists ever did, at least none of the ruling ones that came to power. That is no surprise, and there is life after Warren Farrell, or, better, there is life outside of Warren Farrell’s hoped-for Paradise on Earth. There is reality.

Generosity, fairness and honesty are hammered into men, along with “boys never hit girls” (chivalry, that is), beginning when they start walking, but there is absolutely no equivalent or corresponding female virtue that is hammered into women - at least not now anymore.

Women are no longer taught to be feminine. Yes, I know, subservience is said to have been taught along with that, but I never saw any subservient women in my large family and very large extended family or in any of the families of my peers in the neighbourhood I grew up and lived in for the almost 30 years of the beginning of my life. All of them were the undisputed managers, treasurers and rulers of their families, even though virtually all of them respected men and loved their husbands, whom they made sure were the heads of their families. It has been that way since antiquity.

But what difference does it make whether women rule, or the rulers are ruled by women? The result is the same.

— Aristotle (Politics)

To my knowledge, no one ever found a substantiated fault with any of the comparisons Warren Farrell made in any of those many, many “gender” comparisons he made (they most definitely are not comparisons of the genders - there are seven genders, with more to come - they are comparisons of the two sexes) in his books. The facts presented in them are objective and well-reasoned, their interpretations not quite so much, and sometimes hardly at all. Mind you, interpretations are to varying extents opinions. Opinions are driven by feelings and facts but not necessarily by facts as much as by indoctrination and ideology, and often are based on no facts at all.

Although I promote Warren Farrell’s books and some of his other writings, I never forget that he is a feminist, in his own words, an “empowerment feminist”.

Much of what is being discussed in the Questions and Answers you forwarded is reasoning based on and promoting feminist objectives for the re-engineering of humanity. Of course, most of what Warren Farrell uses in those Questions and Answers is allegory, but let me apply my reasoning to just one allegory he used (the rowboat) as an illustration of what he wishes humanity would achieve to bring about Paradise on Earth.

What is the reason for manning a rowboat? There could be many, all dealing to some extent with effective use of energy and resources to achieve a goal. Let’s say that we want to stage a race. The goal is to have one boat win the race. We will get four boats ready, all crewed with an equal number of people of average strength and skill — average within their sex groups; men are on average a lot stronger than women are.

1. One boat is manned by men;
2. One boat is crewed by an equal mix of men and women, equally distributed on both sides of the boat;
3. One boat is crewed by an equal mix of men and women, with women on one side and the men on the other side of the boat, and
4. One boat is “womanned” by women.

No one with even only a bit of common sense will doubt that the order in which the different combinations of crews and boats are listed above will also be the order in which they will cross the finish line. I estimate that No. 1 will be way ahead of all the others, that No. 2 and 3 will come in next, with No. 2 followed closely by No. 3, and with No. 4 coming in dead last, about as far behind as No. 1 will be ahead of 2 and 3.

It is all nice and good for Warren Farrell and others like him to promote equal rights for women and men, but that will and has come at a cost with respect to performance.

I stopped reading Warren Farrell’s Questions and Answers after I came to his reasons for demanding that women should be in the armed forces.

Well, I am convinced that just as boat No. 1 will come in first in the race, so an army that is “womanned” by women in the front lines (even only partially or, worse, 50:50) will come in a distant 2nd or 3rd. It will lose every battle with an opposing force comprised only of men.

It is on record in a number of nations that women in fighting forces caused a variety of havoc and calamities of varying extents. That’s the reason why all such attempts to bring about “equal rights” for women were canned in the USSR and even in Israel, except in the modern progressive nations that listened for too long to the ideology that causes Warren Farrell to state what he did in the Questions and Answers you forwarded.

The lower performance when enforcing equal rights for women (it never is “equal rights for men”) is also true of society in general, in which women have every right that men have but few (if any) of men’s obligations and duties, and most definitely fewer of the capabilities of average men. True, that is a major bone of contention that bothers Warren Farrell.

However, most women are far too smart to want to be truly equal with men. That is the way things are going, because women have the power and will get their way. For one thing, they would live on average much shorter lives (ten percent shorter), and women would have to give up far too many comforts that they became accustomed to and that men provide to them - often for free, except at often great costs to men. That is why many women state outright that they don’t want to be feminists - but they nevertheless avail themselves of every possible advantage at the expense of men that feminism provided for them. Can anyone blame them for that? They do nothing other than what is natural for women. They go bargain-hunting; and people like Warren Farrell certainly have a lot of bargains on offer for women, except that some of what is being offered to women is no bargain - and women know it.

There is still no military draft registration for women anywhere. That is something that Warren Farrell keeps harping on.

Notwithstanding all of the harping by the Warren Farrells of this world, women don’t take what they don’t want. There is only a smattering of women in the trenches (combat positions, that is, about 200 or so in the Canadian Armed Forces, even though the Canadian taxpayers - as did taxpayers in many other “progressive nations - paid billions of dollars, the lion’s share, about 70 percent of that, paid by men, to entice women to want to voluntarily be be equal with men and kill and be killed).

However, women now roughly comprise 10 percent of the armed forces in Canada and in any other developed nations that let women join. That is about exactly the percentage of women who were in safe service positions in world war one and world war two. They do much the same jobs, except, for most, for much higher wages, and they rise three times as fast through the ranks than men do who actually do or will do the real fighting. That is “equal rights for women”, not for men.

When it comes to men and women laying their lives on the line for the good of society, you may wish to see where the progress is that gender-equality activists demanded for women for two decades and more. Take a look. (I sent that to you once before, although for different reasons.)

All of that does not mean that women are inferior. Women can excel in many fields. Some of those fields are not accessible to men (e. g.: bearing children) and some of them are barred to men (e. g.: women’s locker rooms, bathrooms and clubs). However, it does mean that men and women can work well with one another and become more productive and effective than as if they compete in many fields for which men are on average better qualified.

It does mean lower overall performance of any system in which men must, just to enable women to function on an equal level, lower their performance, just as they must in the boat race in boats No. 2 and 3, for no other reason then that women should in the name of equality hold “their own” with men.

When women successfully hold their own in traditionally male fields, men most often must hold back to let women measure up. At best, the system’s performance will be mediocre, at worst, disastrous.

I agree with Queen Victoria.

I am most anxious to enlist everyone who can speak or write to join in checking this mad, wicked folly of ‘Women’s Rights,’ with all its attendant horrors, on which her poor feeble sex is bent, forgetting every sense of womanly feelings and propriety. Feminists ought to get a good whipping. Were woman to ‘unsex’ themselves by claiming equality with men, they would become the most hateful, heathen and disgusting of beings and would surely perish without male protection.— Queen Victoria, March, 1870
http://www.ladiesagainstfeminism.org/index2.htm

We all know that the predictions made by Queen Victoria came to be true, except for the perishing of women - although men still protect and often are now even forced to protect women (something they formerly did voluntarily and eagerly). It is not just women that perish, but all of society is perishing. However, some equal rights activists will fight to the last bullet on this until nothing but rubble and ashes remains.

Here is a quote from Warren Farrell for the last word on all of that. Although it is not quite fair to use that quote now, it is revealing and explains a lot, and he made it far from being secretive about it.

Soon I began distinguishing among the feminism I loved (what I now call empowerment feminism) and the two forms of feminism I feared (victim feminism and competitive feminism).
Empowerment feminism empowers a woman by encouraging her to develop all of her potential without regard to gender. It is the feminism I shall always support.— Warren Farrell
in Women Can’t Hear What Men Don’t Say:
Destroying Myths, Creating Love, p. 2

I wonder whether that means that the other 40 and more different brands of feminism don’t bother Warren Farrell.

No, thanks, I will not promote feminism and women’s equality in Warren Farrell’s sense. It’s a dream that will never come true. It is deadly for men to pursue it, and it would be deadly for women if we ever would get true equality - and women know it! However, it is being enforced and rammed down our throats. Why? For no other reason than to extort more taxes, just as in the child support enforcement systems. And then we wonder why men’s suicides are four times those by women, close our eyes and ears and say nothing.

Equality ueber alles until the last bullet? Not this man, but when it comes to equitability, not necessarily equality, for women and for men, I am all for it. Too bad that almost no feminists are honest enough to see it that way. They forgot all about the important difference between the equitability and equality: fairness.

Those feminists who brought about the state of our current affairs and created the widening rift between the two sexes that is ever more widening have no excuse for forgetting. They didn’t forget. They deliberately excluded fairness and equitability, for the simple reason that if you use those two constraints, feminism will fall flat on its face.

No nation, no civilization and definitely not humanity can function well without the complementarity of the sexes that the differences in the sexes provide. Only by using that complementarity can we hope that any group, family, community, nation and civilization can thrive by being more effective, respecting, loving and productive than the sum of its parts. That turned savages into civilized people.

Competition between the sexes and the war between the sexes do the opposite and turn civilized people into savages. Why do taxpayers need to fund that?

–Walter
http://fathersforlife.org

Robert wrote:

This very recent article re from Warren Farrell would make a good web page, perhaps ?

He has given his permission for us to use it.

RW
———-
Q&A /

WARREN FARRELL, author: ‘The flip side of feminism’

By HYPERLINK:
A new book asks whether lifting women up means taking men down

By HYPERLINK Maureen Downey, The Atlanta
Journal-Constitution, Published on: 10/21/07

Warren Farrell is a leader in the men’s movement who contends that the culture cares more about saving whales than males. James Sterba is a University of Notre Dame philosophy professor who believes that the feminist ideal of equality has yet to be realized but remains a moral imperative.

The two face off in a provocative new book called “Does Feminism Discriminate Against Men?” While the book is aimed at students of gender studies, most women and men can relate to the topics it discusses, from who does more housework to who gets custody of the kids in divorce.

The book is more a friendly skirmish than a war, with both men agreeing that discrimination based on gender is wrong. They disagree strongly, however, over which gender suffers the greater discrimination today.

In a telephone interview with editorial writer Maureen Downey —- who admits to siding far more with Sterba’s position —- Farrell shares his views on the gender divide.

Q: In questioning women’s assigned roles, didn’t the feminist movement also question men’s fixed roles? You seem to argue that feminism didn’t try hard enough to answer those questions about men’s roles, but was that the responsibility of feminism?

A: Historically, we taught women to row, metaphorically, on the right side of the boat, and men on the left. Fortunately, feminism taught women how to row on both sides. Unfortunately, no one re-socialized men to row on both sides. Until we do, we also limit women’s flexibility, because when women row on the left, if men can’t also row on the right, the boat goes in circles. And men and women are in this boat together.

Q: You contend that one of the institutions whose sexism benefits women is the military, because of male-only drafts and combat exclusion of women. But can’t these exclusions hurt women who choose the military, since it’s through combat that officers win the most prestigious positions in the military?

A: First, if we registered only blacks, Jews or women for the draft, we would immediately recognize that as racism, anti-Semitism, or sexism. When we require only our sons to register, we call it responsibility. Thus the U.S. Post Office’s slogan to register our sons is “A Man’s Gotta do What a Man’s Gotta Do”; our slogan for women is “A Woman’s Body, A Woman’s Choice.”

Women are the only group who get the right to vote without responsibility.

Only adolescents expect rights without responsibilities. Adults know they go together.

Second, women are 14 percent of the military but only 2 percent of those killed. Women get administrative and other jobs that are more easily transferable to civilian life than is killing. They become officers at equal rates to men. This protect-the-woman attitude is reinforced by both sexes in all hazardous professions. However, this protection of women also hurts women. It is hard to place women equally at the very top of responsibility if we prevent women from equally sharing the toughest responsibility: death.

Q: You maintain that men die younger than women and that it’s really men’s health that’s been ignored by the medical establishment. Yet aren’t most of the trials for new drugs in this country based on men’s heath conditions and metabolism?

A: Medical database searches show that during the past 40 years women have been studied more than men. Prior to that, drug companies tested new drugs more on men (especially male prisoners) for the same reason they tested them more on rats. They tested them most on what they valued least.

Q: You cite the 5.2-year advantage in life expectancy that women have over men as your best example of discrimination against men in health care. But aren’t many of those early deaths among men due to higher levels of smoking, drinking and car crashes?

A: Yes, speeding is a symptom of our approval for male risk-taking behavior:

We teach boys playing football to call abuse “glory”; we teach girls to call the police. We are unaware that men who divorce are 10 times as likely to commit suicide as their wives; so we take the children away from them, leaving them without purpose and leaving children without dads. We still expect our successful men to repress feelings rather than express feelings, yet success is still his best preventive medicine for avoiding the cancer of female rejection.

Ignoring men’s health is like ignoring global warming. We are all interconnected. When either sex wins, both sexes lose.

Q: You maintain that many date-rape policies on college campuses are unfair to men, specifically those that say a rape can take place if a woman is drunk and thus incapable of expressing unwillingness. Yet if a man signed away his car or his home while drunk, would you say that he should be held to that contract?

A: If a man signs a contract and he is drunk, contract law says he should be held responsible. He made the decision to drink. But the real question here is when a man and woman drink together, why is the woman not held responsible for saying yes to sex and the man is? We either hold them both responsible or we hold neither. More important, why are we treating our daughters like children and treating our sons of the same age like adults?

Q: If men are so powerless, why do they still dominate the nation’s critical institutions —- the U.S. Supreme Court, the Congress, the CEO positions in most companies?

A: To me power is about control over one’s life. I discovered that, when women earn about $100,000 per year, they say, “I have enough money; I need time — for my family, friends, myself, to travel, and for exercise.” Men need to learn this from women. Psychologically, men are about where women were in the 1950s. We need to help our sons question the traditional male definition of power —- feeling obligated to earn money someone else spends while he dies sooner. That’s powerlessness.

ELIZABETH LANDT / Staff Illustration of a woman.

Posted in Men and Women Work, Men's Issues, Feminism, The New World Order | Print | No Comments »