August 16, 2011 by Walter Schneider.

 Prison Planet.com » Police Were Ordered To Stand Down As London Burnedwww.prisonplanet.com

Precisely as we reported yesterday on the back of numerous eyewitness reports, it has now emerged that police were ordered to stand down and let London burn during the first few nights of rioting, an action that quickly led to a frightened public to demand troops on the streets, rubber bullets, …

Marcus Simon’s commentary in relation to the causes of the London riots makes sense. It fits something I read a long time ago. I’ll quote that in the first comment after the pointer to Marcus Simon’s commentary.

ConservativeHome’s Platform: Simon Marcus: Listen to the children

conservativehome.blogs.com

Simon founded the Boxing Academy in 2006 which is based in Tottenham and Hackney. He was also the Conservative Candidate in Barking in 2010, beating the BNP into 3rd place. Before this Simon was involved in small business management and…

Children in Quebec

SOS Quebec - A children’s gulag. Corruption and collusion in the Quebec Youth Justice System and DPJ

www.sosquebec.com

In 2006 over 30,000 children were seized from Quebec families by youth authorities (DPJ)in 2006, processed in secret trials, and placed in institututions or forced adoption programs. Years of secrecy and a total lack of accountability have created a culture of impunity …

Harriet Harman, Lord of the Flies, fatherlessness, lone-mother households, looting by kids and adults, total breakdown of moral order, … take your pick or any combination of any and all of the causes and consequences.

UK riots 2011: Britain’s liberal intelligentsia has smashed virtually every social value

www.dailymail.co.uk

Those of us who warned over the years that they were playing with fire were sneered at and smeared as Right-wing nutters.

People are waking up to the consequences of fatherlessness.

What lies beneath the social unrest in Britain?

networkedblogs.com

A surprising range of people (from British Prime Minister David Cameron to reporters and social commentators) are all pointing at the same fundamental problems in the wake of the riots in the UK–the loss of foundational morality and self-restraint, the breakdown of the family, and fatherlessness. He….

When there are not enough men…

Armenia’s villages of women

www.bbc.co.uk

The Armenian tradition of men going away to work in Russia is leaving whole villages almost entirely populated by women, the BBC’s Damien McGuinness reports.
_______________
A few comments about that:

It begins with men being slandered and vilified. Then they are being discriminated against and marginalized. They leave their families or shy away from wanting families and will go to where the jobs are and more security for men can be found. But that is not all.

Take a look at the consequence of socialism with respect to the life expectancies of the sexes in countries where socialism and “equal” rights for women have made the biggest advances:

________

Differences in the life expectancies of the sexes (2009)

fathersforlife.org

Life expectancy of the sexes as per data collected in the year 2009
________

Mind you, Armenian men are still relatively well off. Their average lifeexpectancy (66 years) is only eight years less than that of Armenian women (74 years)

It follows that the lack of men in Armenia is not only due to many of them having gone to work in Russia, but that many of the absent men quite simply died in far greater numbers than did Armenian women. That provides women with a great advantage. It is much easier to blame dead men for the hardships that must be endured by women.

The fact that Armenian men die in much greater numbers than do Armenian women is of course not worth or smart to mention when raising sympathy for women. It is alright to say that “women’s work is never done” or “never seen”, but sacrifices made by men must *NEVER* be mentioned! We do not wish to destroy the illusion that women are the targets of society’s deliberate neglect and abuse.

Justice for judges — we need more of that.

Pa. judge gets 28 years in ‘kids for cash’ case - USATODAY.com

www.usatoday.com

Pa. judge gets 28 years in ‘kids for cash’ case…

More on the London riots:

World Blog - The sad truth behind London riot

worldblog.msnbc.msn.com

Posted in Judiciary, Civil Rights, Economy, Child Abuse, Corruption, Single-Parent, Paternal Rights, Social-Destruction Enterprise, Family, The New World Order, Men's Issues, Divorce, Education, Child Abduction | Print | 1 Comment »

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 »

July 18, 2011 by Walter Schneider.

Daily Telegraph
Attention: Christopher Booker

Re: Child protection system tears two more families apart, by Christopher Booker, 16 Jul 2011
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/family/8642651/Child-protection-system-tears-two-more-families-apart.html

The latest official figures show that the number of children being taken into care by social workers (now averaging more than 800 a month) has soared in the past two years by 41 per cent, to its highest ever level. In many of these cases, it seems that children are torn from their parents for no good reason, to such an extent that this has become one of the most disturbing scandals in our country today.

I read the article again, and it still bothers me. I have a lot of respect for Christopher Booker, the journalist who wrote it. Nevertheless, he is not an objective observer.

It is obvious that Christopher Booker cannot liberate himself from the father-hostile bias that decades of feminist indoctrination and strict adherence to the western chivalry code instilled in many but especially in many journalists whose expressions are constrained and formed by feminist censorship of the media organizations they write for.

The photo accompanying the article shows a mother and child, thereby invoking a subconscious image of the Madonna and Child. That is a deliberate choice, probably an editorial decision.

The article mentions the word “mother” 13 times, the word “father” only once (but only “the father of her youngest child”, not the father or fathers of the older two children of the mother), the word “family” (or families) twice, once in the heading and once in the text of the article, and the word “parents” four times.

The impression that leaves, of course, is that fathers don’t matter, that mothers do, that it is deplorable that the government should dare to violate the bond between a mother and child, and that the paternal feelings of fathers don’t matter, that fathers matter so little that they don’t even need to be mentioned.

Things get no better in the article in relation to what constitutes a family. A family only needs a mother and her child. That completes the Madonna-and-Child image. To introduce fathers into that sacred icon would spoil things, wouldn’t it now? It would diminish the appeal to the emotions over the pain of the mothers the article discusses and downplay their struggle against the excessive totalitarian force exercised against the mothers.

Sorry, Christopher Booker, as objective as you may feel you are, the feminist slip that very much influences your thinking and the way you express yourself is showing. If you don’t believe me, just check a few more of the articles you wrote on family issues. They are more akin to promoting a Madonna cult than objective commentaries that do justice to both sexes. I wonder why you do it; did you ever wonder about that? Did you ever feel the pain of having a child ripped from you? Believe me, if you were a father having that done to you, it would hurt very much, and it would matter not a whit whether it had been done by the government, the mother of the child or both in collusion.

One more thing, in relation to the observation in the article “that children are torn from their parents for no good reason, to such an extent that this has become one of the most disturbing scandals in our country today.” Don’t you find it odd that ever since the divorce epidemic began, children have been ripped from their fathers “on the flimsiest pretexts” and often with no excuses at all, and that that never raised the slightest concern with many, let alone apprehension that it might be scandalous?

Sincerely,

Walter Schneider

Posted in Judiciary, Civil Rights, Violence by Proxy, Child Abuse, Single-Parent, Marriage, Paternal Rights, Social-Destruction Enterprise, Feminist Jurisprudence, The New World Order, Divorce, Censorship, Media Bias, Women's Violence | Print | No Comments »

June 17, 2011 by Walter Schneider.

International Business Times US
June 17, 2011 11:55 AM EDT

American Father Self-Immolates To Protest Against Family Courts

On June 15 around 5:30 pm, a 58-year-old New Hampshire father named Thomas Ball self-immolated in front of the Cheshire County Court House.  Ball was pronounced dead at the scene.

Before he died, he sent a letter [to] The Keene Sentinel to explanation his actions.  The full text of the letter can be found here. (Also in PDF format: Tom Ball’s Last Statement; 133 kB)

Ball said he set himself on fire in front of the courthouse because he was “done being bullied for being a man” by the US family court system.

Ball’s troubled started in April 2011.

He said he slapped his then four-year-old daughter, giving her a cut on the lip, when she refused to obey him after three verbal warnings.

His wife then called the child’s mental health provider.  Ball claimed the health provider told his wife that if she did not call the police, both she and Ball would be arrested….(Full Story)
_______________
Note by F4L: That article is full of errors.

• Tom Ball’s problems did not start in April 2011.  They started in April 2001, when the incident with his daughter occurred and he was arrested for the first time in his life, a Vietnam veteran and 48 years old at the time.

• Tom Ball did say that he was “done being bullied for being a man,” but he did not say that he was being bullied just by the family court system.  He did not even single out the family court system, but he felt that his rights were being violated ever since 2001, by the police, mental health providers (not necessarily the mental health provider of the daughter whom he had disciplined, but one for another daughter), the State of New Hampshire, the State Attorney General, the Legislature, the State Governor’s Office, the U.S. Department of Justice, his Congressmen, Senators, the Federal Treasury Department, the Federal Reserve, The U.S. Attorney General’s Task Force on Domestic Violence, the Police department in the nation (at least the 93% of them who are actively engaged in the persecution of men), the police, prosecutors and judges in general, the NH police department, the Jaffrey NH police department, Monadnock Family Services, their lawyer Byron, Judge Sullivan, guardian ad litems, and more, but also the federal government for waging war against men since about 1975 and for running an Office on Violence against Women, even though when the government program for the persecution of men started there were equal numbers of female and male perpetrators of domestic violence.

Tom Ball did his research, and he was no crank. He was a man wronged, wronged like millions of other men (and like some women, as well).

His observations regarding the legal system that put the squeeze on him are right on the mark, and especially his remarks regarding the circumstances, origins and workings of the domestic-violence industry are on target.  Still, I should not have to summarize any of the key point that concerned him.  He wrote a very lucid statement, but obviously not just on the day he killed himself.  That statement is 12 to 15 pages long (depending on the font-size your printer uses).  Read it, you will not regret it.

For instance, did you know that 72 million Americans have been made homeless at one time or another during the 25 years or more that the U.S. Government has been waging its war against men and their families?  As I said, Tom Ball did his work, and he did it well.  Read what he wrote.  I included him in the list of men who broke, at Fathers for Life.  He broke, alright, but he did not crack.  I wish he were still with us.

Tom Ball died for you, for me and for all of our children and grandchildren.

Posted in Judiciary, Civil Rights, Child Support, Economy, Child Abuse, Paternal Rights, Social-Destruction Enterprise, Family, Men's Issues, Media Bias, Suicides, Feminist Jurisprudence | Print | 1 Comment »

June 8, 2011 by Walter Schneider.

Avoiceformen.com
2011 06 07

It is now seriously suggested that women’s prison close

By Paul Elam

Great Britain is about to lend new meaning to the pussy pass.

At least, that is the recommendation in a report issued by the Women’s Justice Task Force which has concluded that offering healthcare services, housing and drug abuse treatment to female criminals is better than holding them to the same standards of punishment to which they hold men….(Full Story)
_________________
Comment by F4L:

If women with children should be at home and not in jail, then the question remains why that should be so. Perhaps the report justified the recommendation by arguing, based on the evidence the authors selected, that it is better for such women’s children to be brought up by women criminals than by the government or by the children’s fathers.

How will that play out in a court of law, in a hearing in which it will be settled what is “in the best interest of the children”?

Millions of anti-father decisions in child-custody cases were rationalized by asserting that they were in the best interest of the children. Still, although there is plenty of evidence that father-custody is almost always better and in the best interest of the children, it has not ever been established in any court of law that obligatorily awarding child custody to mothers is in the best interest of the children.

The reality of the recommendation is that it comes after the fact and only establishes as a rule what is already being done with women criminals. Virtually all women criminals that should be serving time (94% in the US and 99% in Canada) are on the loose. All that will happen when the recommendation of the report is accepted (and that will most surely be not only in the U.K. but in all developed nations) is that the remaining small proportion of women criminals who had the misfortune of being incarcerated will be let loose, too.

Sex ratios of incarcerated prisoners

Unites States: 16 Men for every woman (Note 1)
Canada: 99 Men for every woman (Note 2)
_______
Notes:

1. About 12 years ago, the ratio for federal prisoners in the U.S. was 17.6 men for every woman. I don’t know what it is now, but it is quite likely larger now.
2. That was the sex ratio of prisoners in the Canadian federal prison system about 12 years ago.  The total capacity of all six Canadian women’s prisons then was 258 inmates, while the women’s prisons housed only 150 women criminals, men’s prisons held 13,500 prisoners who were double-bunked.

Those ratios take into account only convicted and incarcerated criminals. The disparity of the ratios exists because, compared to men, women are,

• Far less likely to be suspected of having committed a crime, and, if suspected,
• Far less likely to be indicted, and, if indicted,
• Far more likely to have their crime plea-bargained down to a less severe category of crime, and, when having successfully done that,
• Far less likely to be brought to trial, and, if brought to trial,
• Far less likely to be judged guilty, and, once found guilty of crimes of equal severity to those committed by men,
• Far less likely to be sentenced to being incarcerated, and once incarcerated,
• Far more likely to be serving a shorter sentence for a crime of equal severity, and, once serving a sentence,
• Far more likely to be released early on parole.

We don’t know how many women criminals there are. All we know is that women are as human as are men and are as likely as men are to commit crimes and that vastly fewer women criminals are serving time in jails or prisons.

Judicial crime statistics are the worst possible source of criminal statistics, as they indicate only one of the consequences of judicial bias, namely how many prisoners of either sex were caught, brought to trial, convicted, found guilty and sentenced to serve time in incarceration. Judicial crimes statistics pertaining to both sexes are a good indicator of judicial gender bias.

It is not practical to make judicial bias applicable to an identical extent to men criminals, because then we would have a catastrophic number of job losses in the judiciary, in its adjuncts and in its support and service industries.

There is an aggravating factor that makes it necessary to be absolutely lenient with women criminals. To keep a woman incarcerated costs approximately 2.5 times as much money than to keep a man incarcerated for an equal length of time.

All of those are arguments in support of letting women go free if they have committed crimes.

Of course that promotes chaos and anarchy, and of course it is damaging to all of society and to the well-being of the children by such women criminals, but is it reasonable to argue that the comfort of some women should be sacrificed, so that society can be protected against them and to deter other women from committing crimes? Is that not looking at things the wrong way when it comes to promoting women’s rights?  Should women’s rights and privileges not trump the welfare of society, even the future of civilization?

Those are age-old questions, and the answers to them were expressed and written down more than 2,400 years ago.

For, a husband and wife being each a part of every family, the state may be considered as about equally divided into men and women; and, therefore, in those states in which the condition of the women is bad, half the city may be regarded as having no laws. And this is what has actually happened at Sparta; the legislator wanted to make the whole state hardy and temperate, and he has carried out his intention in the case of the men, but he has neglected the women, who live in every sort of intemperance and luxury.
–Aristotle, in Politics

Posted in Civil Rights, Judiciary, Child Abuse, Single-Parent, Paternal Rights, Child Murder, The New World Order, Feminist Jurisprudence, Child-Custody Awards, Men's Issues, Women's Violence | Print | 3 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 »

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 »

February 2, 2011 by Walter Schneider.

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

Fathers & Families

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

January 27th, 2011 by Robert Franklin, Esq.

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

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

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

h/t Roger Eldridge

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

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

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

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

January 4, 2011 by Walter Schneider.

WND Exclusive
NEWS OUTRAGE!

Psych studies ordered for jailed homeschooling dad

Just wanted to spend time with state-napped son

Posted: January 01, 2011
10:40 pm Eastern

By Bob Unruh
© 2011 WorldNetDaily

Unspecified psychological studies or evaluations have been ordered for a jailed father who, in violation of the procedures of the government-run social services that instructed police officers to abduct his then-7-year-old son because he was being homeschooled, took him home for a visit….(Full Story)
______________
The more things change, the more they are the same.  “Psychological studies or evaluations” is what the prisoners of the KGB in the Lubyanka were being subjected to.  The government held those prisoners for “psychological examinations and treatment”, not that they were being detained for any crimes that they had committed.  If the prisoners had committed any crime, it was then as now most likely that they were not thinking and acting along politically-correct outlines, such as that they insisted upon their individual rights and freedoms.

The government in Nazi-Germany was not quite so sophisticated or fortunate in its choice of reasons for the detention of citizens whom it considered enemies of the state.  The Germans used the device called “protective custody”, to “protect its political prisoners against harm” from sources other than the government, I guess — harm by the government being quite as alright then in Germany as it is now in Sweden.

So, just to jog my memory and to bring it into line with the program, how is the present totalitarian system in Sweden an improvement over what was in place in the USSR and in Nazi Germany to circumvent and abrogate anyone’s civil rights then?

Posted in Paternal Rights, Civil Rights, Social-Destruction Enterprise, Men's Issues, The New World Order, Feminist Jurisprudence, Child Abduction | Print | No Comments »