May 27, 2011 by Walter Schneider.

It puzzles me why Teri C. Stoddard from SAVE insists that we should thank Dr.Phil for running a show on domestic violence against men when that show derives entertainment value by showing battered men as whining idiots and demeans them.

Thank Dr. Phil for “Angry Women, Scared Husbands”

Today, Dr. Phil ran a show on Angry Women, Scared Husbands. Below is the show description from his website — http://drphil.com/   Angry Women, Scared Husbands   You may know that one in four women will become a victim of domestic violence, but did you know that one in nine men will too? Violence against men is rarely talked about and under-reported. Dr. Phil continues his campaign to end the silence on domestic violence with two couples willing to open up about their abusive relationships. Steve says his wife, Monica, punches him and recently pushed him down a flight of stairs. He says he’s not only afraid of her abuse, he’s afraid of how he may retaliate in the heat of anger. The couple has nine children between them — two of whom are severely disabled — and they’re worried about the effect their explosive arguments have on their kids. Then, Charlie worries she’ll get so angry at her new husband, Gary, that she’ll lash out and inadvertently kill him. Gary says that everything he does makes his wife mad, and he just can’t win. Can these women learn to control their tempers and before something tragic happens? Learn more about Dr. Phil’s End the Silence on Domestic Violence campaign and pledge to become a silence breaker!   Please send Dr. Phil an email TODAY to thank him for courageously covering this important topic:

SAVE for Victims and Survivors

Teri Stoddard asserts that the Dr. Phil website states, “You may know that one in four women will become a victim of domestic violence, but did you know that one in nine men will too? Violence against men is rarely talked about and under-reported.” (Original source: http://www.drphil.com/shows/show/1661 )

I see no reason why anyone should thank “Dr. Phil” for that, because it is not true, but I heartily agree that we should thank him for telling the truth about domestic violence (DV) against men as soon as he begins to tell not just some but all of the truth about it and tells it correctly. Aside from that, I am reasonably certain that Teri Stoddard knows of many sources of information that proves beyond any doubt that, when it comes to partner violence, women are as likely and even a bit more likely to be violent against men as men are to be violent against women (e.g.: here is a list of abstracts of hundreds of such sources, at http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm ).

Contrary to what Dr. Phil asserts, when it comes to partner violence, DV is without a doubt an equal opportunity employer. Nevertheless, the website at http://drphil.com/ spares no effort to raise concern about DV against women and most certainly is not silent about the need to “end the silence” about that.

Even that is an erroneous assertion, namely that there is a need to end the silence about violence against women. I wonder which planet Dr. Phil lives on. There is no evidence on the one we live on of anyone being silent anywhere about DV against women. There most certainly is a lot of evidence that Dr. Phil and his employer (HARPO Productions) do all they can to raise awareness about violence against women and that they keep silent about the largest sector of women’s DV victims, children (but they do go on about violence by “parents” and “grandparents” against children, while they do not mention at all that most DV against children occurs in single-mother households).

The DV that causes so many children to become victims of violence is in the majority of the cases (70%) being committed by their mothers, with other women being the perpetrators in the majority of the rest of violence against children in families. Yes, the Dr. Phil Show and HARPO Productions most definitely need to end the silence about that. If they did, we should all thank them for it, but I am not holding my breath waiting for such thanks being deserved any time soon.

Posted in Battered Men's Shelters, Civil Rights, False Allegations, Child Abuse, Single-Parent, Media Bias, Censorship, Feminism, Propaganda Exposed, Family, Men's Issues, Child Murder, Women's Violence | Print | 1 Comment »

May 25, 2011 by Walter Schneider.

Many feminists allege that testosterone is more dangerous.  For that reason they assert that men hurt women more often than the converse, therefore “Men are bad, Women are good.”

Are things really that simple?  The objective reality of inter-personal violence is that women are somewhat more often violent against men than men are violent against women.  All hype aside, domestic or family violence between spouses or “partners” is just a very small portion of interpersonal violence.  Children who are victims of that sort of violence comprise a large sector of that, and most violence against children, by far, is committed by the children’s mothers — an inconvenient fact, which is why feminist propagandists never mention it or at best rarely touch on it.

Still, regardless of whether women or men are more likely to be violent against the other sex, only a minuscule fraction of women or men engage in it.  The vast majority of women and men are quite peaceful, harmless and live in peace with one another, if only the feminist propagandists let them do that, and even though the feminist propagandists do their very best to incite open war between them.

Some feminists go so far that they assert that women can be safe from men’s violence only if the sexes are completely segregated.  To their chagrin, they have difficulties coping with the reality that “domestic partnerships” by lesbians are the ones that experience on average far greater incidence rates of domestic violence than do all others. (Re: Female DV)

Just the other day, a woman insisted that it is a well-known fact that men are more violent than women are, and that men’s violence is caused by testosterone.

I promised that I would provide her with a few facts on what the truth is about that.  The following is from what I sent to her.

What she had asserted reflects the consequences of a considerable extent of feminist indoctrination.  Therefore I can’t resist setting the record straight.

I have no doubt that, someday, the distortion of truth by the radical feminists of our time will be seen to have been the greatest intellectual crime of the second half of the twentieth century. At the present time, however, we still live under the aegis of that crime, and calling attention to it is an act of great moral courage.

— Professor Howard S. Schwartz, of Oakland University in Michigan, USA, 2001

Professor Howard Schwartz once explained to me the difference between objective and subjective reality, between absolute and relative moral standards, with the radical feminists (a.k.a. Marxist- or socialist feminists) using the latter to destroy the truth.

That was about a dozen years ago, when Prof. Schwartz was working on the book that is mentioned in the following.  As profound as the quote I showed above is, it would be better to identify not only brilliant thoughts and sayings but also the context in which such things were expressed or published.

Howard Schwartz’ opinion on the crime of the feminist distortion of the truth in the latter half of the twentieth century was expressed in his book, “The revolt of the primitive: an inquiry into the roots of political correctness,” p. 15 (in the beginning of the fifth full paragraph on that page, accessible via this link).

With respect to the ideas the woman had expressed, here is the truth in relation to that, as reported by Prof. Howard Schwartz; and let me assure you that he is reporting it accurately.  I am fully aware of the details of every one of the incidents he describes, including having been in touch with some of the individuals he mentions (especially Drs. Lupri and Dutton and their respective research mentioned by Dr. Schwartz — for obvious reasons — as their research was done right here in Alberta), but here go the details of the research by Lupri and Dutton and how it was spun by the feminists.

That is as far as the excerpt shown on Google Books goes, but I should receive a copy of the book within a few days.

I told the woman that I will be happy to lend the book to her, whereby she will be enabled to address some of the impact that feminist propaganda has had over the years.  Of course, that will work for her only if she wishes to learn about the absolute truth and not just the edited, feminist version of it.

Here is another item that will interest you.  It is a copy of a draft for an article that the Report Newsmagazine had asked me to write for them (for reasons explained in the introduction to the article — the Report Newsmagazine stopped publishing at that time — the article did not appear in print, although the Internet version that you can access via the preceding link has been read many thousands of times and has been accessed 108 times at my website during the past 30 days alone, while it has also been posted at or linked to from a total of at least 77 web pages on the Internet).

Last, but not least, you may wish to have a look as well at this: “The big list: Female teachers with students: Most comprehensive account on Internet of women predators on campus,” WorldNetDaily Exclusive, May 17, 2011.

I told the woman furthermore that in case she thinks that the people I mentioned and whose work the cited material identifies present just isolated and distorted views, I have a book here that she may wish to read, “When She Was Bad: Violent Women and the Myth of Innocence,” by Patricia Pearson (a feminist, by the way), 1997, Viking.  Here is a book review.

It has happened that some people asked me “Why should I believe you?“.  The commentary at the preceding link explains that no one has to take my word for anything, but that the truth is out there whether I tell it or not.  Unfortunately, feminist sources of information on the sexes and on what they do to one another are most often anything but truthful.

–Walter

Posted in Media Bias, Books & Films, False Allegations, Child Abuse, Censorship, Health, Propaganda Exposed, Feminism, Family, Men's Issues, Women's Violence | Print | 2 Comments »

May 11, 2011 by Walter Schneider.

Another book that should be on your book shelf is Stephen Baskerville’s “Taken Into Custody: The WarAgainst Fathers, Marriage and the Family“.

The book covers considerably more than just family law. It is primarily about the systematic deconstruction of our society, but it does show the consequences of using family law to achieve that through the criminalization of fatherhood.

I have known Stephen Baskerville for many years. since he first made contact with fathers rights activists. He differed then already substantially from many other FR activists, in as much that right from the start he was not just angry about what had been done to him and to other fathers who had been expunged from their families.  He asked not only what had happened but why it had happened.

That soon led to the question of whether it was by accident or design that it was happening. Stephen Baskerville at first thought that the criminalization of fatherhood had to be an error in judgment, even though it was real, because no nation in its right mind would deliberately destroy what made it function well, namely to have fathers within families, rather than having families without fathers. However that was only a fleeting thought, and he did not dwell on it.

Many FR activists helped with the book over the years, even though there was at first not even a thought of producing one, but there were discussions, identification of facts and sources, suggestions for clarifications on many of the articles by Stephen Baskerville that were published over the years, and eventually Stephen Baskerville did more than just thank people “too numerous to mention” in the Acknowledgments of his book when it got published, by listing the names of all who had contributed over the years. I am proud of the fact that my name is on the list and that it is in good company.

Years ago, many of the people mentioned in the Acknowledgments of “Taken Into Custody” actively networked. If there was ever a moment in modern times during which a functioning FR movement was in the process of emerging, it was then, during the years “Taken Into Custody” was in the making. I am not proud of the fact that that was only for a moment and that a functioning FR movement did not come into existence, to pursue a common goal in a systematic, effective and organized fashion. However, not all is lost and there is reason for great hopes.

Feminism has fallen into disrepute, and a renewed, much more massive movement for the restoration of traditional moral standards is growing from the grass roots, to compete for a place in the sun of public respect and appreciation, if not admiration.  Feminism fell victim to its success.  People have become bored with it.  After all, feminism’s success is built on the myths that women are not equal and that they are victims of oppression by men.  Outrageous claims like that cannot be maintained for very long in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, after which only one possible conclusion is possible, namely that feminism is not about equal or equitable rights.  It is about something else. perhaps to make women “more” equal than others.

“Taken Into Custody” was published in 2007. Feminism’s popularity steeply increased from the 1960s until 1970, maintained itself (even declined a little) from 1970 to 1988 and rose steeply once more in 1992, declined somewhat and steeply rose once more in 1998 (link), after which it began to decline in earnest. The decline of the popularity of feminism took on serious proportions during 2008 (link), and that is even though in 2008 the media doubled its efforts to promote the ideology of feminism (link).  Mind you, along with the escalation of the media effort to praise feminism there came also increasingly more articles critical of feminism.  That helped to accelerate feminism’s decline, because all along it was clear that the giantess, feminism, had clay feet whenever she engaged herself or was forced to participate in open debate.  There is no effective defence against the truth:

Posted in Civil Rights, Paternal Rights, Judiciary, Books & Films, False Allegations, Maternal Rights, Social-Destruction Enterprise, Divorce, Feminism, Propaganda Exposed, Feminist Jurisprudence, Family, Men's Issues, The New World Order | Print | No Comments »

May 1, 2011 by Walter Schneider.

An organization that propagates anti-male propagandist misinformation like that in the indicated article should not call itself “The Good Men Project”. A better name would be “Supreme Misandry”.

Are Men Natural-Born Cheaters? — The Good Men Project Magazine
goodmenproject.com

Men are more promiscuous than women, but that doesn’t mean we should buy the cultural fallacy that men are programmed to cheat. The vast majority of men are happily, naturally monogamous.

The last few years brought several headline stories about the cheating behavior of guys like John Edwards, (former) South Carolina governor Mark Sanford, and Tiger Woods. The public—or at least the pundits’—reaction included outrage but little surprise. After all, here in the U.S., we expect guys to cheat on their partners. Research on male sexual behavior confirms what we know—that men are more likely than women to have an extramarital affair.

The information in the article presents a pile of findings from feminist advocacy research served on unadulterated B.S. Adultery is not abuse when women do it, but it is bad only when men do it? Women do not lie?
If you believe that, you better have a look at this:
http://fathersforlife.org/divorce/women_do_not_lie.htm

Why do we need misandrist websites like that launched by The Good Men Project? You better consider how much funding such a thing gets and where that funding comes from.

Consider also why the hatred against men needs to be intensified. Do men need it? Does it do them injustice? Thinks about this and play around with comparable and comparative search terms at the following links:

1.) Misandry (hatred of men) vs. Misogyny (hatred of women)

http://www.google.ca/trends?q=misandry%2C+misogyny&ctab=0&geo=gb&geor=all&date=all&sort=0

2.) Jack the Ripper (he killed five prostitutes) vs. Elizabeth Bathory (she killed about or close to 650 girls and young women by torturing them to death) vs. Jane Toppan (a nurse and contemporary of Jack the Ripper who killed as many as or more than 90 patients for no other reason than that she wanted to set a record)

http://www.google.ca/trends?q=Jack+the+Ripper%2C+Elizabeth+Bathory%2C+Jane+Toppan&ctab=0&geo=gb&geor=all&date=all&sort=1

Although you probably know all you want to know about Jack the Ripper (unless you grew up on a different planet), you most likely know nothing about Elizabeth Bathory or Jane Toppan. The following links will help you to learn something about those two women (and there is a large lot of more women like that, as the first of the following links shows).

http://www.michaelnewton.homestead.com/BadGirls.html

http://fathersforlife.org/hist/elizabeth_bathory.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Toppan

No one in their right mind will think that men need something like The Good Men Project to help out with promoting the good image of men. It won’t come from that place and organization.

Men need something like The Good Men Project Magazine like they need Ms Magazine or additional holes in their heads.

Posted in Social-Destruction Enterprise, False Allegations, Men's Issues, Feminism, Propaganda Exposed, Women's Violence | Print | No Comments »

April 27, 2011 by Walter Schneider.

In the early days of the Internet, when web browsers first came on the market, I found that I had problems finding information about advice for fathers who are being put through the wringer.  There were then few websites, but there were bulletin boards.

The first time I looked for whether there  was a fathers rights organization in or near Edmonton, Alberta, it took me about six months for someone to put me on the right track.  The lead came to me in a round-about way, in the from of advice from someone in the USA.

That experience led me to start the website for Fathers for Life.  I figured that it was wrong that any man in need of help and advice would have to look for months to find it.

Now I get help requests from all over the world, but mostly from the USA and from Canada.  Most of those come through e-mail, but some of them come by phone.

Early this morning I had a call from a man in Michigan whose boys had been placed in foster care because of a drug charge.  He is holding a good job now and his life is on the straight and narrow, while he had the misfortune to be a passenger in a vehicle the driver of which was charged with possession and transporting drugs.  Of course, he got charged and now mentioned that he had been advised to plead guilty, so as to get off easy.  Well, for one thing, getting off easy involves having another offence added to his criminal record.  Guilty or not, the charges he faces are at least legally warranted.  That is not the case with the woman who called me last night.

The woman called because she wanted to know whether there is any way by which her son can protect himself against false allegations of domestic violence.  He apparently went through a separation and divorce, and his ex got custody of his boy, of course, while he has standard visitation rights.  Now his ex is charging him again with domestic violence in connection with an assault she alleges he committed when he came to pick up his son.

It appears that there were witnesses who will testify that no assault took place at the time of the exchange of the boy, but now the mother of the father asked what he can do to protect himself against further wrongful allegations of violence by her son, and how an end can be put to that apparently widespread practice of women making such allegations against men and fathers whom they want out of their lives for good, except for the child-support money they will be forced to fork over.

We got into a little bit of a discussion on that, during which I provided a run-down of the causes and history of the evolution of Canadian feminist jurisprudence.  She still wanted to know what can be done to put an end to the widespread practice of making false allegations of violence and the associated injustices perpetrated by the courts.

I told her that there is no protection against that, no magic bullet, no remedy but to abolish feminism as the driving political force for the policies that make false abuse allegations so exceedingly effective and so often used effectively by women.

I explained to the woman that we live in a country that is becoming ever more socialistic, and that the evolution of Canadian feminist jurisprudence has the same Marxist roots that brought about increasingly oppressive feminist jurisprudence in the USSR.  Her response was that she came from [one of the nations] in the former USSR, but that terrible injustices such as those we have here now in relation to false abuse allegations never were a problem in the area of the USSR she came from.

I disagreed with her on that, but I will let you be the judge.  Have a look at Matriarchy in USSR.

See also:

• The Russian Effort to Abolish Marriage, The Atlantic Monthly, July 1926, and
• History of the evolution and destructive social impact of Soviet divorce laws

Posted in Divorce, Civil Rights, False Allegations, Men's Issues, Child-Custody Awards, The New World Order, Feminist Jurisprudence, Women's Violence | Print | No Comments »

April 26, 2011 by Walter Schneider.

AdelaideNow, April 13, 2011

Penis-burning wife Rajini Narayan walks free

It was predictable and predicted accurately. Again, a murderess or (if you don’t want that sexist term) a murderer walks, proving once more that women are incapable of committing crimes, especially the crime of murder.

She murdered her husband. She did it deliberately. It was premeditated.

However, in the latest hearing in a series that was nothing more than a travesty of justice, the murderer was set free, because — and you better believe it as it surely must be so on account of a judge assuring it on the basis of the true victim’s unsubstantiated assertions — she is the real victim, and not the husband whom she deliberately murdered by throwing gasoline on him and setting it on fire,

Therefore:

In sentencing today, Justice Sulan said Narayan had “deified” her husband and was “shattered” by his betrayal.

He said there was “no doubt” her thinking at the time was “unrealistic, muddled and illogical”.

“For the first time in your life you had confronted your husband, had found the courage to be assertive to the person who had mistreated you for 20 years,” he said.

“His response was to treat you with disdain, dismiss you and turn his back to you (and) you snapped.”

Justice Sulan further ordered Narayan be under Correctional Services supervision for two years, and undertake psychological counselling as ordered.

More

There you got it, straight from the judge’s mouth: women are not possibly capable of murder.

There is never an excuse when men murder. When women murder, no excuse is necessary. It is a waste of the valuable time of our courts to even have to contemplate excuses when women murder. Women cannot and do not commit murders.

More on the history of this case

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

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 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 »

March 2, 2011 by Walter Schneider.

On 01/03/2011 8:45 PM, [name omitted] wrote:

Many thanks for your information. I have contacted my [elected representative] (a woman. . . lol) so I’ll let you know what transpires. Thanks again….

Let’s hope that she can do something for you.  Chances are better than 50:50 in your favour that she will.  After all, you are a potential vote for her.  The more shaky her position, the more likely it is that she will help you.  On the other hand, civil servants are not bothered by such considerations.  They can use their positions to further their pet-ideologies with impunity, provided they toe the party-line of their respective organizations or departments.  It follows that real political power resides in government bureaucracies, not with our elected representatives.

There is nothing wrong with a woman being your representative, as such.  Being a woman does not necessarily mean that she is a feminist or unwilling to help you.

The reality is that being a feminist is a condition that is independent of sex.  Moreover, the pro-feminist bias in individuals produces somewhat more male than female feminists.  For many men who are feminists, being feminists gives them the illusion that their affliction earns them more respect in the opinions of women whom they wish to impress.  That works well for the women who can be impressed.

On the other hand, women generally feel that they do not need to impress men (but, generally, women most definitely have a great need to impress other women).  They are more practical than that.

For many truly honest women, wanting to be feminists poses a great dilemma. They know full-well that being feminists implies the obligation to be fully equal to men.  That means, that to be able to reach full equality, they would have to give up too many of the advantages that feminism provided them with.  However, most being extremely practical, virtually all women — feminist or not — are very reluctant to forgo any of those advantages.

Let there be no mistake.  Those tendencies are ingrained and have been re-enforced through selective breeding throughout evolution.  Feminism is older than civilization and predates the advent of humanity.  For instance, you can observe feminist tactics in action when watching the movies that anthropologists have made of the social interactions in the daily lives of troupes of chimpanzees.

It would not be wise to discuss any of those observations with [elected representative].  :-)

Posted in Civil Rights, Men's Issues, Feminist Jurisprudence, Feminism | Print | No Comments »

February 2, 2011 by Walter Schneider.

If you are a man and are married, live with a spouse or contemplate marriage, you better have a good look at the ruling by the British High Court.

Fathers & Families

British High Court Expands ‘Domestic Violence’ to Include Shouting and Criticizing

January 27th, 2011 by Robert Franklin, Esq.

It’s hard to overstate the reach of the British Supreme Court’s ruling in this case (Daily Mail, 1/27/11).  It was decided on Thursday and from that date all aspects of domestic violence law have been completely changed….

Seventh, let no one be deceived into believing that this ruling will be applied in a gender-neutral way.  Domestic violence law hasn’t been to date and this ruling will be more of the same.  For over four decades, men and fathers have been demonized in law, education and popular culture.  The result is that, when women bring a claim of domestic violence, they are often believed whether they back up their claims with objective evidence or not.  Men, having been demonized, get no such privilege.  So the consequences of this ruling will be sexist, overwhelmingly used by women at the expense of men.

Don’t believe me?  Just look at the photo in the linked-to article.  Who’s depicted shouting?….(Full Story)

h/t Roger Eldridge

Robert Franklin concludes his article by stating, “If Parliament fails to immediately correct this travesty of “justice,” the consequences to British society will be incalculable.”

That, of course, will not happen, therefore the damage will be incalculable.  If you wonder why that is so, then you are part of the problem.

At any rate, the article describes nothing other than feminist jurisprudence in action.  Feminist jurisprudence is driven by misandry and enables women to commit violence by proxy without having to soil their hands and without having to exert themselves in any other fashion.

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