August 3, 2011 by Walter Schneider.

It is difficult to find a better introduction to the issues addressed in this Facebook album on Justice for Men than the following YouTube video (7 minutes, 37,468 views as of 2011 08 03) http://www.youtube.com/wat​ch?v=57EWApOypIQ&feature=p​layer_embedded

Regardless of whether you are a woman or a man, whether you have or are a husband, father, brother, son, uncle or granddad, you need to watch the video.

From the introduction to the YouTube video: “…Societal forces like chivalry, misandry and the onerous male sex role of provide and protect have been having the unfortunate consequence of obscuring the needs of men. This short video will give you an introductory glimpse of some men’s issues.”

Men’s Issues

www.youtube.com

What are men’s issues? Watch this short flash video to get a beginning idea. Societal forces like chivalry, misandry and the onerous male sex role of provide…

Posted in Paternal Rights, Social-Destruction Enterprise, Suicides, Media Bias, Civil Rights, Judiciary, Single-Parent, Marriage, Books & Films, Men and Women Work, Abortion, Feminism, Propaganda Exposed, Child Abduction, Feminist Jurisprudence, Child-Custody Awards, Divorce, Health, Men's Issues, Paternity Fraud | Print | No Comments »

April 18, 2011 by Walter Schneider.

Mail Online

My wife was sweet and demure - then the fashion industry made her a monster

By Zoe Brennan
Last updated at 11:48 AM on 17th April 2011

More

Quotes from the article, with comments by Dads & Things:

‘When I met my wife, she was sweet and demure. I believe she’s become egotistical and self-centred. The fashion world has turned her into something of a monster.’

If I read this right, she was a model already when she decided to have him for a husband, whereupon she could legally and without complications use him as a sperm donor — quite possibly on the advice of her handlers or her peers in the modelling industry.  Without a doubt, having a child is an asset for a model.  That sort of asset does not peter out as fast as her looks will.

Her campaigns have included Ungaro, Cavalli, Gucci and Paul Smith.

Those were not her campaigns.  The were campaigns designed and launched by advertising agencies that used her modelling agencies to supply a key ingredient for successful advertising, namely the image of Ujjwala Raut.

‘It has broken my heart to be apart from my daughter.’

Welcome to the world of the expunged fathers.  There are hundreds of millions of them.  If misery seeks company, he’s got more than enough of it now.

She, …has accused him of threatening behaviour.

Allegations of violent behaviour are standard fare in such cases.  He should consider himself lucky that as of now she has not accused him of sexually abusing his daughter. As far as false allegations are concerned, child-sexual-abuse allegations are the ultimate silver bullet, because they always get their man.

He blames the fashion world for turning his wife’s head…

That is an unjustified allegation, no matter how correct it may seem.  He, having been a part of that world, should know better.  She sold her soul the moment she decided to become a model.  He had rocks in his head for falling for her.

Sterry states that he still loves his wife. ‘If she said, “I made a mistake,” I would accept her back, even though she has done some really nasty things.’

Of course he would.  That is how men are made.  That is how they get suckered, time and again.

‘Her judgements have been wrong, but she is not inherently bad.’

Of course she is not inherently bad, no more so than a gun is, not until it is aimed and someone pulls its trigger.  “Wrong” is a relative concept, flexible, and always relates to someone’s standards.  From her perspective, everything she has done works out well and produces the desired results.  Don’t knock success.

For her part, Ujjwala has flatly denied both her husband’s claims of assault and the allegation that she has influenced the deportation proceedings in an improper way.

She has said: ‘If Maxwell is alleging abuse and intimidation, why is he not resorting to court procedures, which is how things should be?

‘This matter is sub judice [before a court, not yet judicially decided]. I don’t wish to comment on it. When the time comes, I myself will make an announcement.’

Smart move on her part.  He should have had advice like that a long time ago and followed it.  He should not have publicly commented on the collapse of his marriage, because what he told the Mail Online is more than enough to allow them to have constructed a long article.  Moreover, even though he is most likely correct with everyone of his observations, everything he said can and will be used against him in the courts.

He should now concentrate on what he will do during the rest of his life to be able to cope with the handicap of having to pay his daughter’s mother for a child he will most likely never get to see anymore, commensurate with the life-style his soon-to-be-ex has become accustomed to.

Posted in Civil Rights, Maternal Rights, False Allegations, Paternal Rights, Men and Women Work, Feminist Jurisprudence, Men's Issues, Divorce, The New World Order | Print | 1 Comment »

April 16, 2011 by Walter Schneider.

This relates to a discussion of the principles of the Manifesto of the Communist Party, a.k.a. The Communist Manifesto.

During the last week there has been a large drop in the number of visits brought to Fathers for Life through website searches via google.com.  During the week preceding last week there were 8,905 visits as a result of Google searches.  This week there were only 5,618 visits from google.com, a drop of 34 percent.  That is even though traffic from Bing increased by over seven percent.

It is not due to a drop in traffic volumes (those were on the rise).  It can only be due to Google having arbitrarily lowered either the ranking of, or the ease of finding information at, the website of Fathers for Life. I strongly suspect that the drop in traffic from google.com has something to do with someone complaining to Google about my conservative stance.

Ever since I became a bit more active on Facebook, a month ago, I became astounded about the extent to which many individuals actively promote socialism, especially the sort promoted by Karl Marx and Frederick Engels.  Here is an example, namely a portion of an exchange between me and someone who, along with many others, wishes for nothing but to stop working for money, to abolish the obligation to work, and to establish the right of everyone to have his basic needs provided by the State.

Linda wrote (after I had pointed out to her that her ideas read as if taken straight out of the Manifesto of the Communist Party): “Walter I never read any marx or communist manifesto,…”

It boggles the mind.  Is that an example of “women’s way of knowing”?  If that is so, then why does anyone worry about the doctrines expressed by Marx and Engels?  Let’s just use “women’s way of knowing” to guide us by, and then the whole world will be happy and in eternal bliss.

I told her the following:

That is too bad, because you are doing a lot of needless work.

There is no need for you to re-invent the wheel. Your wish to abolish the obligation to work and to establish the right to be provided basic needs was expressed by Marx: “From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_each_according_to_his_ability,_to_each_according_to_his_need

That is right down your alley.

Here are the main planks of the Communist Manifesto that every modern communist regime was or is built on (from “The Socialist Phenomenon”, by Igor Shafarevich):

1. The Abolition of Private Property

The fundamental nature of this principle is emphasized, for instance, by Marx and Engels: “The theory of Communism may be summed up in a single sentence: ‘Abolition of private property,’” (Communist Manifesto).  (p. 195)

2. The Abolition of The Family

The majority of socialist doctrines proclaim the abolition of the family. In other doctrines, as well as in certain socialist states, this proposition is not proclaimed in such radical form, but the principle appears as a de-emphasis of the role of the family, the weakening of family ties, the abolition of certain functions of the family. (p. 195)

3. The Abolition of Religion

It is especially easy for us to observe socialism’s hostility to religion, for this is inherent, with few exceptions, in all contemporary socialist states and doctrines. Only rarely is the abolition of religion legislated, as it was in Albania. But the actions of other socialist states leave no doubt that they are all governed by this very principle and that only external difficulties have prevented its complete implementation. (p. 195)

4. Communality or Equality

This demand is encountered in almost all socialist doctrines. Its negative form is seen in the striving to destroy the hierarchy of the surrounding society and in calls “to humble the proud, the rich and the powerful,” to abolish privilege.  (p. 196)

____________
The comments that follow each of those quotes are short, one or a few paragraphs each.  Just follow the links I identified.

The complete Manifesto of the Communist Party is here (PDF file, 539kB)

Then there is the context out of which Linda’s wish emerged during the discussion.  It emerged out of the proposal to work only enough to produce what is absolutely essential (without anyone specifying what they consider to be essential) and to do so without any money exchanging hands.  In other words, many of the people in the discussion thread in all seriousness contemplate that to solve the problems that bother many now living in the once-upon-a-time proud and wealthy U.S. of A. requires nothing less than to abolish money as a means of exchange and to substitute a barter system.

Hold on to your seat and consider this:

Allen (many others stated similar things) said: “stand up and stop working for money.”

To which I responded:

Okay, I’ll bite.  So, explain to me how you can exist without money. If you don’t make any mortgage payments, you will be paying rent. You need to pay for food, clothing, utilities, gas for your car, and even for Internet access and the PC or laptop you use, the software to run the applications on your PC, your cell phone, etc.

What about the infrastructure you are using, the roads, the sewer lines, the water for cooking, bathing and doing the laundry, the electricity you use, the fuel that is brought to your home to heat it, the education system that taught you and will teach your kids how to read, write and do arithmetic? How can any of that be supplied to you and anyone else without money?

What will you use as a means of exchange when buying goods and services — peanuts? Even if that were possible, how will you be able to get the peanuts? Did you ever try getting a ride on a bus by offering to pay with peanuts for the ride? Do you know of anyone willing to work for peanuts?

Here is a dose of reality. Even the cavemen had money. They used cowrie shells, flint stones and salt for money.

Kids used to learn about those things, if not before they went to kindergarten, then at least during the first two or three years in school.

At any rate,  it is not worth it to continue participation in that discussion.  As they say, the lights may be on, but no one is home.  The scary thing about it is that there are many people who are like that.  There are far more of them than there are voices of reason, and the clueless majority decides who gets into power to rule us all.

There is little doubt in my mind that this will play out throughout the world until the bitter end that is not all that far off, when everything will be in ruin and chaos.

The cavemen had more sense.  At least they provided the foundation on which our civilization was built, whereas now clueless people are hell-bent on tearing down all of what civilization achieved by voting accordingly and having no shortage of clueless “leaders” to vote for.

When I was younger, I had often thought that it would be nice to live a long life to see how things will turn out.  Now I am just about 75-years old, happy that most likely I won’t live long enough to see the the bitter end of it all and hope that that will hold off until after I meet my maker.

Posted in Men and Women Work, Censorship, Family, The New World Order | Print | No Comments »

April 9, 2011 by Walter Schneider.

Today I ran across a short video that no one should miss watching.

Hans Rosling and the magic washing machine
By Gapminder, featuring Prof. Hans Rosling

“What was the greatest invention of the industrial revolution? Hans Rosling makes the case for the washing machine. With newly designed graphics from Gapminder, Rosling shows us the magic that pops up when economic growth and electricity turn a boring wash day into an intellectual day of reading.” — Gapminder

Watch the video (nine minutes).  It is a fascinating and spell-binding presentation, as all of Hans Rosling’s presentations are, but this one is one of his best.

Prof. Hans Rosling concludes his presentation with:

Thank you, Industrialization!

Thank you, Steel Mills!

Thank you, Power Stations, and thank you, Chemical-Processing Industry, that they [his mother, his grandmother and all other women of the world] got time to read books.

Thank you very much.  (Which was followed by a very large round of well-deserved applause)

It is an impressive presentation about the wealthy in the world, the plight of poor women and their respective levels of energy consumption.

It stresses the power of democracy and that the poor suffering women in Brazil, for example, were able to elect a woman, the former energy minister of Brazil, as their prime minister, but it does not mention that, in doing so, they established an increasingly oppressive, corrupt, communist, totalitarian regime.

It stresses, with very likable humour, that the wealthy of the world need to reduce their energy consumption and replace half of their remaining energy use with energy from green sources.  However, it does not stress that in doing so right now, food prices escalated in the poor nations so much that hundreds of thousands of people now no longer can afford to eat and therefore starve to death.

It praises the advances brought about by industrialization, steel mills, power stations, the chemical-processing industry (which would include many other technological inventions and processes — including the washing machine that gave Hans Rosling’s mother the time to begin to read books)  and that they were inventions that made women’s lives easier, but it does not praise the innovators, men, whose innovations primarily made women’s lives easier and safer.

In all of the presentations by Hans Rosling that I watched over the years, I noticed that he seems to speak about his mother far more often than Liberace used to speak about his, but he never once mentioned his wife and perhaps only once mentioned his dad, and I wonder why that is.  Does his wife not deserve his concern as much as his mother does?  Is she not a mother, too?  Hans Rosling does have a son.

And what about his dad?  Was it not his dad who brought home the money that his family saved to buy the washing machine that gave his mother time to read?

What about all of the men who worked so hard to improve the living standards for all, who made it possible for all to increase their life expectancies by many years throughout the world, but primarily and far more so for women than for men?

To come back to washing machines.  I had a mother, too, as we all had or have, but I also had a father, just as Hans Rosling and everyone else had or has.  My mother used to wash by hand.  I know, I helped her, and so did all of my siblings.  Our family was very poor.  There was not the chance of a snow ball in Hell that we could ever have saved enough to buy a washing machine, as much as we all would have wanted to, not for as long as we were mired in poverty.

My mother was a very smart woman, she read a lot and studied, but she never once thought of building her own washing machine.  My Dad did.  The agitator for that washing machine he built was driven by water pressure from the water tap, using a two-cycle cylinder and piston on the washing machine.

And yes, my mother read and studied even more, thanks to my Dad, and she thanked him for that.  It is something that apparently never once entered Hans Rosling’s mind and that so many of us forget because we take what men do for granted.  For that reason neither Hans Rosling nor most others ever bother to thank men for making the things and the sacrifices of their lives that make women’s lives so much safer and easier.

Posted in Economy, Men and Women Work | Print | 1 Comment »

April 6, 2011 by Walter Schneider.

What is the men’s movement (MM) trying to achieve?  That is a bit hard for anyone to determine.  It seems that after decades of the existence of the men’s movement, no unified aim or objective for the men’s movement has emerged.  There is nothing the main stream media (MSM) has picked up and consistently presents to the public as the major goal of the men’s movement.

The MSM had no trouble picking up and popularizing women’s causes when the long-simmering radical feminism came to the fore in he 1960s and became the dominant and controlling force not only of feminism but of politics.  Then it was that one could not avoid images (real or mental) of bra-burners, sex-discrimination that allegedly kept women down, pay-discrimination that had women do men’s work for half the pay men were allegedly earning for similar work, and so on.  The MSM had no trouble to present such images on the tapestry it wove according to the feminist design:

• “The dreaded patriarchy oppressed women throughout the millennia.”
• “Women are good.  Men are bad.”
• “The family is a patriarchal tool for the oppression of women.”
• “Logic is patriarchal linear thinking.”
• “There is no job that a man does that a woman cannot do better.”
• “A woman’s body — A woman’s right”

Lapel buttons displaying the slogan “WHY NOT?” became very popular.  The MSM, aided from within by increasing numbers of women journalists indoctrinated through women’s studies programs taught by feminist lecturers who openly declared themselves to be Marxist-feminists, helped things along, while politicians fell over themselves to give “women” most of what they wanted as soon as women’s groups asked for it.

Women’s studies programs emerged in virtually all colleges and universities of the developed nations and usurped much of the funding formerly lavished on male-dominated sports programs.  More and more all-male institutions, even locker rooms, were invaded by women and even abolished, if so demanded, while women’s institutions and clubs remained pristine, if not necessarily feminine, unspoiled by the presence of any man — unless he was someone like a plumber needed to get a toilet going.

Government women’s departments sprouted up like mushrooms after a warm rain in summer in all developed nations. In some countries (e. g.: Canada) they were given names that brazenly declared their Marxist origin: Status of Women.  Still, whether or not they gave away their ideological roots through their names, the feminists that ran them and whom they employed had no problem with openly declaring their Marxist intentions.

New family legislation hostile to fathers emerged and was soon applied through a novel branch of the judiciary, the family-court system, and civilization soon had to cope with the fall-out from that: men and fathers expunged in unprecedented, escalating numbers from their families, losing contact with their children  Lawyers and judges experienced a boom of cases where men tried to regain (quite often unsuccessfully) some of the contact with and influence over their children, and where women tried (almost invariably successfully) to get men to pay for the sin of having dared to be fathers –with the aim to keep women in the style they had become accustomed to while their marriages were still intact.

Incredibly, the excesses of the feminist revolution in relation to expunged fathers were invariably justified by liberal doses of the application of the slogan: “In the best interest of child.”

The rout of the dreaded patriarchy was complete.

Right from the start of the feminist revolution a so-called men’s movement made itself known, but also right from the start it became obvious that men, the patriarchal oppressors of women, would never be able to gain as much sympathy and compassion as women did.  The MM floundered and many attempts to launch it successfully foundered. Quite simply, men were bowled over because women make more appealing victims.

Men, divorced men, and especially fathers expunged from their families, have well-justified grievances, but the well-deserved respect and appreciation that western civilization once had for men appears to be gone for good.  Feminist logic and women’s way of knowing have done their work, but, as the saying goes, women’s work is never done, and the persecution of men continues.

The persecution of men that started with the radical-feminist revolution in the West is alive and well and is being spread through feminist missionary work into developing and underdeveloped nations throughout the world.

__________
Part 2 will follow.

Posted in Education, Men and Women Work, Paternal Rights, Civil Rights, Divorce, Men's Issues, Feminism, Feminist Jurisprudence, Family, The New World Order | Print | 2 Comments »

April 3, 2011 by Walter Schneider.

There are few people today who know what the family wage was.

Three decades before ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act), President Kennedy recognized the need for an amendment to the Social Security Act. He suggested improvements to benefits—including benefits for the disabled—in February 1961. His argument was persuasive, and he succeeded in signing the amendments on June 30, 1961. At the signing, Kennedy called the changes “an additional step toward eliminating many of the hardships resulting from old age, disability or the death of the family wage-earner.”

From Call to Action — the Sixth Floor Museum — Disability Rights
http://www.jfk.org/go/exhibits/call-to-action/disability-rights

I earned a family wage supplement in Germany, before I emigrated to Canada in 1962.  Prior to the early 1960s, it was in place in the USA but also in many nations in Europe, but it was one of the first issues on the agenda of the radical feminists that they had vowed to get abolished, because they claimed it was a symptom of patriarchal oppression.

In 1963 JFK had to give in to pressure by radical feminists, and family wages came to an end in the USA.

The women’s movement of the 19th Century struggled to establish not a male but a family wage. It did not favor men; it favored breadwinners. This policy derived from their primary concern that mothers should be able to devote full time to raising children and managing a home. To do that they had to be provided for, and it was the husband and father who had to do the providing, which meant that he had to earn a wage sufficient to support not only himself but his entire family.

The long enduring effort to institutionalize the family wage eventually succeeded. Robertson writes that “it has been estimated that by 1960 a family wage was paid by 65 percent of all employers in the United States and by 80 percent of the major industrial companies.” He adds, “Although feminist historians today call the family-wage ideal a “myth” designed to keep married women oppressed, few myths have come closer to becoming reality.”[4] He later states that “the family-wage economy that prevailed from 1945 to 1970 was the product of an ideal pursued deliberately, primarily by women’s organizations, through the political process….”[5]

The reversal of the traditional family order, the work of countless family women and men during the previous century, quickly accelerated. By 1963, President Kennedy had established a Women’s Commission which was stacked with career oriented women and in the same year Congress passed an Equal Pay Act, which dealt a blow to the family wage concept.

From “Recovering the American Past with Brian C. Robertson”
A review by Frank Zepezauer
http://fathersforlife.org/hist/all_the_past2.htm

It would be interesting, although that is more than I can handle by myself, to determine the exact time and date when the family wage was brought to an end in each of the developed nations.  I am fairly certain that anyone discovering those dates will get a very astounding surprise.

At any rate, thanks to socialist feminism (a.k.a. radical- or Marxist-feminism), now neither men nor women nor the families they provide for get a family wage, but there is now government assistance funded by taxpayer largesse for all destitute single parents in need, the vast majority of whom are single mothers.  Socialist feminism has done much to give us the welfare state, for which we are supposed to be eternally grateful.

Posted in Economy, Single-Parent, Civil Rights, Men and Women Work, Propaganda Exposed, Feminism, The New World Order | Print | No Comments »

November 24, 2010 by Walter Schneider.

A fathers rights activist wrote to me about the feminists having discovered a meeting of 160 FR activists in Switzerland.  I responded to him:

Unfortunately, the comments on the posting at your blog are closed.  Therefore I will respond directly to you.

It is not as important for you to wonder how the author (Suswati Basu) of the article at thefword.org found out about you having posed as Batman as it is to debunk her assertions of historical factoids that clearly come out of the rummage bag of feminist “herstory”, the re-writing of history as we once knew it, and that the IGAF is addressing exactly those sort of false assertions by feminist propagandists.

Take just a few of the propagandist assertions by Suswati Basu.

1. Now, I am not quite sure how far back IGAF are proposing to go. Perhaps 50 years ago when women were still considered ideal for housework and rearing children or better still, …

That lie is easily refuted, and that has already been done.

Recovering the American Past with Brian C. Robertson

A review by Frank Zepezauer

---

The Liberator (Mar/Apr issue 2000)

Recovering the American Past with Brian C. Robertson

by Frank Zepezauer, resident philosopher

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

I learned about the National Congress of Mothers in a short but highly informative book, There’s No Place Like Work by Brian C. Robertson. It has a provocative sub-title: How Business, Government, and Our Obsession with Work Have Driven Parents From Home. [1] The title pretty well tells you what the book is about, an account of how the workplace has replaced the home as the center of our lives.

I found it particularly instructive because Robertson’s account challenges recently formed misperceptions about our gender political history since the founding of the nation. It is in that sense an effort to recover the American past.

Robertson makes it clear who formed the misperceptions of our past 200 years. He writes that – “in order to propagate the notion (central to their ideology of women’s liberation) that before the dawn of modern feminism mothers stayed at home to raise their children only because they had no alternative – feminist writers have been forced into a tortuous and self-contradictory interpretation of the pre-1960s women’s movement, its goals and its guiding principles.”[2] (Full Story)

2. before women obtained the vote, and were voiceless ‘second-class’ citizens.

That is laughable.

• Working on the Railroad — in the Victorian Age

  How much oppression by men could there possibly have been?  The vast majority of men didn’t have the voting franchise (it was tied into assets, of whom most men didn’t have any), and men were generally treated like slaves.  How could history possibly have been re-written so much that the products of our education system became indoctrinated with the belief that men were oppressors of women?  Full Story
  

• The Victorian Age

  As seen through the comments by Michael Crichton in “The Great Train Robbery” (It took place in 1855) (Full Story)

• The Voting Franchise for women, as seen through feminist eyes

Already under Ottilie Baader and Clara Zetkin, the most prominent fighters of the proletarian and later socialistic women’s movement, the original, all-encompassing concerns of the association were reduced to focus on the labour movement.  The Leading principle expressed in the slogan “Woman and Worker have in common that they are oppressed,” identified the political liberation of the proletariat in connection with the political and labour-laws liberation of the woman — although what was meant by that weren’t all women in general, but merely women who were employed.  The main goal of the efforts was the voting franchise for women.

England became the fighting example to be emulated by the German women’s movement.  German women noticed with angry pride the first arrests of women’s right activists in England in the last years of the 19th century.  From 1903 on, under the leadership of Sylvia Prankhurst, the suffragettes became visibly more aggressive.  An external sign was the war of the fashion over the substitution of the more clinging suffragette-silhouette for the traditional crinolines.  Malicious cartoons of goat-faced, skinny women without bosoms and bottoms amused the male world and those women who were excluded from the women’s movement — namely the non-employed housewives.

Lastly the voting franchise for women materialized, although not at first in the England of the suffragette pioneers, and in addition at a different time.

Finland became the herald in 1906.  Germany approached the issue in small steps and introduced in 1908 the Reich Union Law.  That permitted women to participate in political meetings and rallies.  Even though the English women continued to fight vehemently, it was Russia which in 1917 became the first country to introduce the voting franchise for women.^[5]   Germany followed in 1918 at the end of World War I;^[6] the USA joined in 1920.  Great Britain was still a laggard.  Although in  1918 it granted all women over 30 the voting franchise, it wasn’t permitted until 1928 for all English women to vote.  France delayed women’s right to vote until 1944.  Switzerland became the tail light in 1971.  (quoted from The Wife at his Side, by Karin Jaeckel)

Still, remember what Hitler had said about effective propaganda.  Never present the truth in academic fairness.  Although Karin Jaeckel’s writing is largely pro-male and pro-family, even she is not totally immune to the damages caused by feminist propaganda.

The reality of the voting franchise by the masses is that men did not have it much better than women did, once it came to voting.

In essence, it was based on proportional representation based on assets owned by voters — a system that until just a few years ago existed even in Canadian municipal elections, preventing anyone who wasn’t a property owner from voting.  According to The Penguin Atlas of Recent History (by Colin McEvedy),

“One in every eight Englishmen had the vote in the early nineteenth century, a proportion that the Reform Bill of 1832 raised to one in five. ^[1] …only one in 300 Frenchmen had the vote in the 1820s …the Belgians …with a British-style Parliament elected a one-in-fifteen franchise.Note 1.) Things were not so good in the other parts of the United Kingdom: the post-Reform Bill proportion in Scotland was one in eight, in Ireland one in twenty.  (Source)

3. Women’s organisations such as the Fawcett Society are campaigning on issues such as equal pay. In the UK, women get paid, on average, 16.4% less than men….

That is just as wrong and as easily debunked.  For one thing, all developed nations now have very strong laws that make all attempts to pay women less for equal work done illegal, but let’s look at some of the truth about the lie that women are getting paid less.

Pay equity for women doesn’t exist?

All evidence to the contrary, feminist “researchers” continue to claim that women earn less than men do.  It used to be said that “A woman earns 59¢ to a man’s dollar,” or, more recently and today, “Women earn 72¢ for every dollar earned by men.”

As with all feminist “research”, in this area, too, the truth is stranger than fiction.  That the feminist fiction is being maintained as “the truth” is the strangest part of it all.  The evidence that feminist researchers have not been telling the truth about the lack of pay equity for women has been around for decades.

Well, what can one say?  To understand that mystery, one has to go back all the way to what Hitler said about what makes propaganda successful.

…all effective propaganda must be limited to a very few points and must harp on these in slogans until the last member of the public understands what you want him to understand by your slogan.

Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Chapter VI

Hitler made it quite clear that with successful propaganda it will not do to present the truth in academic fairness, but that what needs to be presented is what you wish the masses to accept as the truth.  That is quite obviously what feminist “researchers” have been and are very good at doing.  Moreover, aren’t all feminists women (not true; there are more male than female feminists, and we are likely to call them chivalrous), and are not all women incapable of lying? (Full Story)

4. And the placards held at this year’s Million Women Rise stated “End Male Violence against Women”. 

Yes, that is true, and even the placards held at this year’s Million Women Rise (at which considerably less than a million women rose) are true.  There is violence against women.

However, remember what Hitler had said about effective propaganda.  One should never present the truth in academic fairness.  That is exactly what the feminist propaganda about violence against women does.  It does not present all of the truth and nothing but the truth.  Most of all, it does not present the truth about violence against men, absolutely no truth at all.  It does not even mention violence against men.

Presenting the truth about violence against people of both sexes shows that without a doubt there is far more violence against men than there is against women.  Irrefutable figures on that are relatively easy to come by, and here are just a few.  The preceding link will take you to a list of links to articles on violence against men.  To cut through the chase, look at just one of the articles and sources identified in that list:

REFERENCES EXAMINING ASSAULTS BY WOMEN ON THEIR SPOUSES OR MALE PARTNERS:

AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Martin S. Fiebert
Department of Psychology
California State University, Long Beach
Last updated: September 2008

SUMMARY:  This bibliography examines 275 scholarly investigations: 214 empirical studies and 61 reviews and/or analyses, which demonstrate that women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their relationships with their spouses or male partners.  The aggregate sample size in the reviewed studies exceeds 365,000.

(Full Text)

There is no doubt that more men than women die on account of violence, roughly two men for every woman, but the feminist assertion about violence against women implies that we have an epidemic of violence by men against women.

It may help to give the last word on this to Warren Farrell, Ph.D..  After explaining in Chapter 12 of his book The Myth of Male Power, titled “Women Who Kill Too Much and the Courts That Free Them: “The Twelve “Female-Only” Defenses”, how those 12 female-only defences cloud public perceptions about women’s violence, Warren Farrell stated:

In brief, it is impossible to know the degree to which the sexes kill each other.  The only thing we know for certain is that both sexes kill men more than they kill women. (p. 282)

That leaves the last wrong claim in Suswati Basu’s feminist polemic that caught my eye to be debunked.

5. According to an IGAF member, the feminist message clearly implied here is “male slaughter, female supremacy”.

Well, yes, the IGAF member is right.  There is the slaughter of men, and it is being done to bring about female supremacy, even if that is not exactly what the polemic by Suswati Basu wanted to bring across.  In short:

and as per the words of a somewhat longer comment:

Remembrance : The status of men

By Walter Schneider, 2010, 11, 11

There is absolutely nothing the feminists state that you can or must accept at face value.  Nevertheless, what they say about you means virtually nothing compared to their objectives in their larger scheme of things.

All the best, and keep doing the right things,

Walter

Posted in Media Bias, Social-Destruction Enterprise, Civil Rights, Men and Women Work, Men's Issues, The New World Order, Propaganda Exposed, Feminism, Women's Violence | Print | 1 Comment »

November 11, 2010 by Walter Schneider.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Consider a few of the observations presented by Igor Shafarevich,

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

and

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

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

and

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

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

Walter Schneider

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

November 1, 2010 by Walter Schneider.

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

Did you hear this Walter?

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

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

[a men’s-rights activist]

[Name omitted],

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Feminism in the evolution of civilization

• Antiquity

Various articles on feminism in antiquity

• Recovering All the Past with Amaury de Riencourt

By Frank Zepezauer, resident philosopher

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

• Recovering the American Past with Brian C. Robertson

by Frank Zepezauer, resident philosopher

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

• The Beginnings of the Women’s Movement

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

• The Beginnings of Feminism

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

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

• Did Women Really Want To Go Out To Work?

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

• THE NATURE OF WOMAN

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

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

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

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

Carey Roberts column

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

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

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

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

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

By David R. Usher

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

I rest my case for now.

–Walter

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

October 31, 2010 by Walter Schneider.

Many thanks to George Rolph for pointing me to this.

Man Woman & Myth

Truth, Lies and the War on Men

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

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

About the Video Project

The Project

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Principal Interviewees

• Angry Harry

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

• Erin Pizzey

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

• Stephen Fitzgerald

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

• Michele Elliott

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

• Oliver Curry

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

• Professor Colin Francome

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

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

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