The divorce industry and fatherlessness

April 17, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

For many people the term divorce industry means absolutely nothing. It does, however, mean something to two minor sectors of the population:

1. Activist and advocates for pro-family rights and pro-fathers-rights consider the terms divorce industry and fatherlessness to be strongly related. They feel that fatherlessness is tearing apart the fabric of our once-functioning society. They have reason to believe that the divorce industry causes fatherlessness, that is: the removal and the consequences of that removal of fathers from the lives of those fathers’ children.
2. For feminists in non-governmental organizations and in government (whether elected or simply employees of the government bureaucracy), the divorce industry and the fatherlessness produced by the divorce industry matter not at all other than that they wish for the epidemic of fatherlessness to escalate and that they feel that the concerns by fathers-rights activists and by pro-family advocates are a nuisance that at the very least needs to be ignored.

Fatherlessness and the consequences of fatherlessness are growing inexorably, year by year. A steadily growing number of children in all developed nations - roughly a third and more of all children - have no fathers in their lives to guide them, to set rules, to be role models and protectors to their children.

Fathers very seldom abscond their families voluntarily. Virtually all fatherlessness of children is caused by the governments’ sponsorship, promotion and enforcement of anti-father and outright father-hostile sentiments and policies that are being actively promoted and put into play by members of the divorce industry.

When children are present in families, women file for divorce in roughly 75-85 percent of the cases (depending upon country), while without children in a family the dissolution of that family is being initiated by a woman in only two instances for every instance of family dissolution by a man.

The chart shown to the right depicts a typical composition of government departments and of government-sponsored private organizations and interest groups that promote and benefit from the government-promoted concept of fatherless families (a.k.a. sole-mother families or single-mother families). The chart illustrates the composition of the divorce industry in the United States (Source: Statement of Bill Wood, and Jay Gell, Children’s Legal Foundation, Charlotte, North Carolina, [US] Ways and Means Committee, 2001 06 28; footnote 69)

Everyone possessing a bit of common sense is likely to have concerns about the escalating trend towards increasing fatherlessness. Those concerns are well-justified and born out by scientifically-valid findings from research studies done by reputable researchers, studies that meet acceptable academic standards, studies like those quoted in the statement by Bill Wood and Jay Gell to the US Ways and Means Committee. Note that those studies are not creations by fathers rights activists, but that fathers rights activists quote from studies by independent and objective researchers.

Nevertheless, the feminists - whose goal it is to destroy the institution of the family, thereby to create massive fatherlessness and the gradual deconstruction of our Christian cultural heritage - dismiss valid social research regarding fatherlessness as myths and substitute unsubstantiated opinions based at best on nothing more than advocacy research done on selective and biased study samples from whom no valid projections to the general population can be made. Nevertheless, they call such opinions “facts” and they call the scientific truth “myths”. (For example: MYTHS AND FACTS About Fatherlessness)

Such feminists apparently feel justified in replacing the scientific truth with a fanciful reality of their own making because they obstinately believe, imply and even assert that feminists never lie, are therefore always right, and that anyone who disagrees with their outlandish and unsubstantiated opinions must quite simply be wrong.

To discern which side in the debate is right - feminists who promote the deconstruction of our society, or people who wish to promote the constructive evolution and growth of the western cultural heritage and society - one should have a look at a few of about 50,000 web pages and articles that address the subject of fatherlessness and not merely buy into the claims regarding fatherlessness promoted by feminists and published by the largely feminist-dominated and -controlled media.

One of the most-important and most-comprehensive compilations of studies of the impact of fatherlessness is the following: Experiments in Living: The Fatherless Family, by Rebecca O’Neill; Sept. 2002, CIVITAS. It wins hands-down in refuting feminist claims that assert positive and constructive consequences of fatherlessness. It is not surprising that such studies do not support feminist claims and are therefore never mentioned by family- and father-hostile feminists.

Posted in Divorce, Education, Censorship, Shared Parenting, Family, Propaganda Exposed, Feminist Jurisprudence, The New World Order | Print | No Comments »

The book that the feminists don’t dare to debate

April 7, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The plight of divorced dads

January 14, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No one is immune:

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

— Walter H. Schneider

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

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

–Walter

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

Request for help with excessive child support

January 6, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

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

To Whom it may concern,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My husband is so distraught.

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

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

Lisa

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Absent Dads: Divorced British Dads at a Disadvantage

January 1, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

Quotes:

1. In the vast majority of cases here, mothers receive residence, regardless of how involved the father was in the children’s lives before the parents separated. Government figures indicate that more than 90 % of the time mothers are awarded residence (custody) of the children. Since 90% of divorce cases never get to court, it is presumed 90% of fathers are satisfied. The fact is, most men know the odds are stacked against them, and don’t have the money or heart to go through a debilitating legal process they are sure to lose.
2. There have even been cases where the courts acknowledged a man has been a good and involved father, but refused contact because the mother says that would make her unhappy.
3. The Children’s Act of 1989 passed by Parliament was intended to promote shared parenting, but with few exceptions, the family courts have interpreted the law otherwise. Joint custody or ’shared residence’ is almost never considered a viable option by family judges, even if that is the expressed desire of the children.

Full Story:

CBS News
29 December 2007

London’s Absent Dads
When It Comes To Divorce, British Dads At A Disadvantage

In the movies, dad ends up being able to see his kids (albeit through the benevolence of the ex-wife), but real life is not like Kramer vs. Kramer and Mrs Doubtfire, that’s why this holiday season, many British children and their fathers won’t be celebrating together.

Posted in Divorce, Shared Parenting, Child-Custody Awards, Family, Feminist Jurisprudence | Print | No Comments »

When motherhood gets you jail time

December 26, 2007 by Walter Schneider.

“When motherhood gets you jail time” (a Dec. 19, 2007 TIME Story) and “Choosing jail over joint custody” (also a Dec. 19, 2007 TIME Story) comprise a two-part series.

The first of those stories was ranked this morning the most popular story, most-often e-mailed-by-readers-of-Time. Half an hour later, at 8:30 a.m., the rank for the story had dropped to 3rd place in the list, right after “Who Is Killing Mexico’s Musicians?” and “Spain’s Holiday Cry: Down With Santa!”.

Given the high level of interest in the price to be paid for motherhood, it is important to note that “When motherhood gets you jail time” is a misnomer.

Still, even though inaccurate, that headline was a good choice by TIME, a choice that was bound to manufacture concern for the mother (who nevertheless wants to use her motherhood for criminal intents) and accounted for the story’s high popularity ranking. The second story with the more objective and mundane title “Choosing jail over joint custody” evoked far less concern and resulted in the second story not even ranking in the TIME’s top-25 list.

Yes, motherhood, apple pie and women’s sole right to possession of their children do it every time, they turn criminals into saints. Women’s obligations and the rights of children and fathers come in distant last.

The mother for whom the TIME manufactered concern chose jail over revealing the whereabouts of a son to the boy’s alleged father. The mother had apparently thought that having a child, if not through immaculate conception but then at least without a father being a part of that child’s life (she even decided that the boy should not have his alleged father’s name) entitled her to government support payments. It normally would, but in Wisconsin not without a paternity test having been done to ascertain that the fingered man is actually the biological father of that boy she had.

The two stories in TIME, neither the popular first one nor the unpopular second one whose headline proclaimed that the budding welfare mom is breaking the law by interfering with a court order, did not report whether the expunged father is in truth the biological father or whether DNA tests proving his paternity were even done.

That would seem to be an extremely important issue from a practical viewpoint, but from the perspective of sainted motherhood, apple pie and Christmas it is not.

Let’s get real. The mother should be in jail at least until she quits breaking the law. Society should be kept safe from such women. It is unfortunate that it costs far more to keep such a welfare mom in jail than it does to simply put her on the dole, but in the long run it would be far cheaper for society to jail her and to keep her there until she no longer engages in her crime of defying a court order that grants a father access to his child. It seems that the vast majority of women would choose freedom of movement over their perceived right to choose to refuse to comply with court orders that grant visitation rights to alleged or real fathers of children.

The name of the criminal mother is April Griffin, not Virgin Mary. No amount of manufacturing concern by Time or by anyone else will change that.

Nevertheless, we should get to know whether the alleged father of the adamantly hidden child is truly the bio-dad. On average, chances are one in three that he isn’t. That is not just a minor detail, it is the major issue in the case. Could that be the reason why April Griffin is hiding the boy — to avoid incriminating herself in having committed the crime of paternity fraud?

–Walter

Posted in Media Bias, Shared Parenting, The New World Order, Child Abduction, Paternity Fraud | Print | No Comments »

Fatherlessness, in “the best interest of the child”

December 23, 2007 by Walter Schneider.

The upgrading of the remaining web pages at Fathers for Life that had to be changed to the standard page design for the website is just about complete now.  It appears that only a single web page still needs to be updated.

During the process of doing that I came across a number of things that had escaped my attention.  One of those was the mysterious absence of a table of contents for web pages relating to the topic Shared Parenting (that has now been corrected; see http://fathersforlife.org/ToC_shared_parenting.htm)

Another one was that a number of links in the index of a web page that discusses the concept of “Fatherlessness, in the best interest of the child” were not changed when the file name of one of the web pages containing that discussion had been changed some time ago.

That web page seems to be an important read for anyone who believes that case law can be used to reverse the evolution of case law pertaining to the changing nature of the legal right to paternity that took place during the past 200 years or so.

If you think that today’s fathers have a right to their children, that “in the best interest of the child” children have rights to have fathers in their lives, and if you wish to find the answer to the question,

Does a child have the right to have its father in its life and to bond with him?,

you may wish to read the discussion pertaining to Fatherlessness, in the “best interest of the child”.

It would truly be appreciated if anyone who feels that the conclusions drawn in that discussion can be disproved were to post his response as a comment to this blog entry.

Thanks, and once more a Merry Christmas to all,

Walter

Posted in Men's Issues, Child Murder, Abortion, Shared Parenting, Family, The New World Order, Feminist Jurisprudence, Paternity Fraud | Print | No Comments »

Eight years later - after losing his son…

September 20, 2007 by Walter Schneider.

Whatever became of Christopher Robin Sr.?

Every once in a while, I receive inquiries about Christopher Robin, but lately those inquiries became more and more sparse.

Few people in the fathers’ rights movement know about Christopher Robin Sr. Fewer yet know that he is the originator of a logo reflected on a lapel button, once very popular and distributed by the tens of thousands, that many years ago many fathers’ rights activists proudly wore, a logo that is today still being used in many different variations on many fathers’ rights websites.

Christopher Robin Sr. had been a singer and vocal coach for most of his adult life. In that capacity he had given lessons and coaching to many singers that were or became quite prominent, singers like “Tony Bennett, Jack Jones, Andy Williams, Vic Damone — and those at Branson.” He was a stay-at-home dad for his son and only child, given that he did most of his work right at home, a home that eventually became for very good reasons known as “The Purple Heart House.”

As a consequence of separation and divorce — Christopher Robin Sr. lost all contact with his son and only child, Christopher Robin Jr. He then became a fathers rights activist.

A few years ago (in 2002) I sent out the last message from Christopher Robin that was intended for public consumption. In that message (accessible at Fathers for Life and well worth reading) Christopher Robin Sr. wishes a “Happy Birthday” to his son (who was to become 18 years of age), writes about some of what happened to his ideals that he pursued while being a fathers’ rights activist, and he also provides the reasons that motivated him to say farewell to fathers’ rights activism, but that is not all. Christopher Robin Sr. gave very important advice to men in situations like his as to what they should do with the rest of their lives.

Christopher Robin Jr. will turn 23 years of age in December of this year. That is the age at which, so the popular wisdom goes, children of separation and divorce begin to gravitate back to their biological fathers from whom they became alienated for many years (often as many as 20 years or more), but as of now that has not yet happened with Christopher Robin Sr. (and quite likely never will). Contrary to popular wisdom, those experiences of Christopher Robin Sr. are the norm for the majority of fathers whose children became alienated from them.

— Walter

Posted in Divorce, Men and Women Work, Men's Issues, Shared Parenting, Child-Custody Awards, Feminist Jurisprudence | Print | No Comments »

Sweden: “politically-correct” vs. “-incorrect” dads’ rights

September 1, 2007 by Walter Schneider.

As the founder of and spokesman for PappaRättsGruppen (a Father Rights Group, http://www.dads-r.us.org) I supported one of my members and fellow fathers at a manifesto/demonstration outside the lower court of Växjö last Friday.

In the newspaper Växjöbladet-Kronobergaren with only 3 000 subscribers (published in 30,000 copies on Friday, August 31st) you could read that a spokesperson for the foundation Pappa-Barn (Daddy-Child, http://www.pappa-barn.se) thinks that PappaRättsGruppen [Ulf Andersson’s organization - F4L] tends to focus on the dads - not on the children.

“I get scared when I enter their website, they are pure woman haters,” says Kim Möller, spokesperson for Pappa-Barn.

Kim is not impressed by PappaRättsGruppen and say that even the mothers should be able to join the struggle [by disfranchised fathers for child access and custody - F4L] and that every father group should invite women from women shelters to work together for equal rights in custody cases.

Maybe no one across the Atlantic heard about what happened in Sweden:

A mom with two boys was given a secret address by women working at a women’s shelter.  The mom claimed that the father of the boys had molested them.

That was was an obvious lie, as the court proved when when it sent the mom to jail for 10 months.

The dad now has the residency for his boys.

The three co-accused women at the woman shelter were acquitted by the Court of Eksjö:

“Women working at women’s shelters don´t have to check the truth behind the mothers’ stories.”

[The irony of that decision is that usually it is women like those at the Swedish women’s shelter who advice women like the sentenced mom to make such horrenduous accusations as part of recommended divorce strategies. –F4L]

According to Mr. Möller from Pappa-Barn, we dads have to co-operate with women like those?!

My question to Mr. Möller is: “What´s your malfunction, numbnut? Didn´t your mommie rock you hard enough?”

The text in the newspaper continues:

Like his rolemodels in Fathers 4 Justice in the UK, Ulf Andersson has taken Batman to his heart. This means that he has appeared in Batman clothing at several demonstrations in Växjö.

The outrageous behaviour above together with statements from PappaRättsGruppen such as “we men are considered to be sperm machines by the Swedish Court System,” makes Kim Möller frown. “You don´t gain anything by fighting extreme situations with extreme methods,” Kim Möller from the foundation Pappa-Barn points out.

The interview with Kim Möller was made on the phone by Mr. Michael Östlund,
reporter at Växjöbladet-Kronobergaren.

______________
Written by Ulf Andersson,
founder and spokesman of PappaRättsGruppen (The Father Rights Group)
http://www.dads-r-us.org

Posted in Men's Issues, Shared Parenting, Feminist Jurisprudence, Women's Violence | Print | No Comments »

How to turn anger to good use

March 15, 2007 by Walter Schneider.

Vern [not his real name],

I’ll put my responses to your observations between your lines. My responses are based on my interpretations of what I observed during the last twenty years or more. They reflect facts of life.

Vern wrote:

Well, maybe we should start small, maybe with building a discussion forum.

The platform for that already exists. Did you have a look at it? Check http://blog.fathersforlife.org

Or spamming the heck out of local radio stations email until they say something,

Even if that could be made to work (it can’t), that in-your-face tactic will at best make enemies. It will never make friends. We need friends and supporters, not enemies.

or paying for ads on their stations.

Virtually no divorced or separated fathers have money to spare. A vast majority of them struggle for survival, to varying extents. Very, very few men’s rights activists have enough money to be able to spare any of it for something like an ad-campaign.

Did you check out the costs of an ad-campaign like that? On the other hand, public-service announcement are quite within the realm of the possible. However, the stations have the last word on what format and content is acceptable. Don’t forget, the stations are generally (with very rare exceptions) controlled by feminists or their camp follower and fellow-travellers.

Feminist censorship is alive and well. It is all-pervasive in all sectors of society, from indoctrinating individuals to affecting individuals in all families and family-”alternatives”, throughout private- and service-organizations, throughout business and all government institutions right up to and including the Supreme Court, but especially in the human rights tribunals. Human rights tribunals are nothing other than a Canadian version of what always has been called “People’s Courts” in every totalitarian regime during the last hundred years or so.

It is not even permissible anymore to speak the truth based on hard and cold facts. The perception by the alleged victims of hate speech or of other hate crimes determines whether a given action or statement constitutes a hate crime.

Men cannot be victims unless they are members of a visible minority, but even then their victim status is inferior to that of any sort of women.

The truth is not a permissible defence. Human rights tribunals glare through their abrogation of the rights an accused has that are supposedly guaranteed through our Constitution, e. g.: the right to a speedy trial, to face one’s accuser, to know what crime one is charged with, to be judged by a jury of one’s peers, to be assumed innocent until proven guilty. Men are generally assumed to be guilty until proven innocent.

Even outright and proven perjury, although still a crime, is now permissible in all of our courts. Especially women can with impunity commit perjury. To prove one’s innocence under those circumstances is often a hopeless task.

Those violations of our human rights are increasingly becoming more frequent in regular courts.

Family courts go one step farther. They no longer use the rules of the court and the rules of evidence. After all, they were set up in the late ’60s and early ’70s to alleviate the enormous backlog of divorce applications when “no-fault” divorce became the law. The purpose of family courts is to speedily dissolve marriages. Nothing would have been gained in that respect if the same rules that apply in regular court would have been made applicable in the family-court system.

The ever-increasing, constantly-intensifying socialist re-engineering of our nation creates a totalitarian feminist system, actually more correctly a gynarchy (rule by women).

I’ve been reading more things today and, wow, all it does is make me more angry.

Anger is a dish best eaten cold. Only then can it be turned into effective and constructive actions.

I personally believe things should be totally fair between mothers and fathers and that if they are then proven to not be doing the right thing they should be reprimanded. that whole innocent until proven guilty thing. I’m not sure what to do, but I’m going to have to do something. As a former IT professional, and now a fire fighter/medic, I have a lot of connections to try out for help. So I will pursue some of those avenues.

Vern, it is always constructive and productive to network, especially to participate and lead in community organizations. Whatever you do, you must not become frustrated by disappointments. Some of the things that someone can do under such circumstances and in the heat of the moment can and will actually makes enemies. They can and will hurt his career.

Still, do not quit. Stick to it like a used wad of chewing gum sticks to the sole of your shoe.

I need to start doing something about it. Ill give you a little back story, I have a 6-year-old daughter that I didn’t meet till she was a month old, and that was due to the fact that I had a paternity test done; there was delay with getting back the results. My daughter was christened within that month without my knowledge which was very upsetting and seemed underhanded to me. I also had to find out through a friend that the baby was born, and never was told by the mother until a week after.

Vern, your civil rights and those f your daughter have without a doubt been violated, but to tell that to your ex will turn her into your enemy. Rather than insisting on your “rights”, taking her to court and having your “rights” enforced through court orders, it would be far better for you to become a convenient babysitter for her that poses no threat to perception that she is the sole owner of your daughter. You are not alone. There are right now many other millions of men in the same predicament you are in.

What we perceive to be inalienable rights are nothing of the sort. They are privileges. No right can be made to work without at least one other individual granting it or even paying for it, so as to make that right a reality rather than just a meaningless formality or concept.

Today it is not so much legislation but political correctness that determines which rights will be granted by society and which legislative acts need to be ignored or capriciously interpreted. Our version of political correctness is formed, dominated and controlled by the feminist ideology. The version of that ideology guiding the radical feminists (a.k.a. Marxist- or socialist-feminists, the currently ruling faction of feminism) is firmly rooted in communist ideology.

Since then the mother has married and has three more children but in the middle of that she was teaching my daughter to call her step father, dad, and that she had two dads. The only thing that did was confuse her more about things. So the last few years I’ve been seeing my daughter on the weekends, which is more than some get however, its always on what days are convenient for her and so I never know what my weekend is like and then during that I miss out on a lot of amazing things with my daughter during everyday life.

The only way either of two parents will not miss some or all of the things that bond his child to him and him to the child is to stay married to the other parent. That is no longer an option for you two. Now you have to learn to respect one another and how to cooperate to do the best you can for your daughter.

You need to read “Father and Child Reunion: How to Bring the Dads We Need to the Children We Love“, by Warren Farrell. It explains the major psychological factors and motivators that bring about situations like yours, but it also will give you a good understanding of what tactics to use to constructively address the consequences of those motivators. I don’t agree with everything Warren Farrell holds to be true, but that is not material. I write that off to his inexperience as a father. He apparently never was married and never had any kids of his own. His only experience as a father was to serve as a father-substitute for the children of women whom he lived with. There were a few of those women in his life over the years; he stated that a few times. Nevertheless, you need to read what he wrote.

You should also read every other book he wrote about men and their involvement in the war of the sexes.

So now I have asked her to have my daughter on a consistent basis every week, either Thursday, Friday and Saturday, or Saturday, Sunday and Monday. As well I suggested a one-week-on, one-week-off rotation, being that we live five minutes away from each other it shouldn’t be an issue. She flat-out refused. I then suggested mediation, and again she refused, saying she doesn’t think it’s best for my daughter’s routine. So, at this point I felt like there was no choice and I’am having her served with papers from the mediation board in Edmonton. I’m not sure what’s going to happen next, but I am very worried about a backlash from her and know that I can’t within the system do anything. Any suggestions or advice from here would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks,

Vern

You cannot successfully solve a problem unless you first understand its nature, causes, circumstances and consequences. “Father and Child Reunion” will help you understand much better what you are dealing with.

You asked for my advice. The best advice I can give you is to read “Father and Child Reunion” and to learn to follow some of the methods for conflict resolution presented in that book. Read also at least one more of Warren Farrell’s books, “The Myth of Male Power.”

Did I already point you to the reading lists at http://fathersforlife.org/sex_politics.htm and http://fathersforlife.org/books/mcg_mens_studies_books.htm ? Some of the books and reading materials identified in those web pages are available for free on the Internet. Follow the links identified at those web pages.

There is no possible way to receive cooperation from someone totally unwilling to cooperate. You cannot force someone like the mother of your child to cooperate. You must make her understand why her cooperation is needed, so as to bring her to the point where she voluntarily and eagerly cooperates. Nevertheless, any attempt by you to make her cooperate or even to make her understand why is bound to make her at first angry at you. You must be ready for that and alleviate it.

However, there is something you must do, even though that will in all likelihood at first intensify her lack of cooperativeness. You need to obtain a visitation order from the court. Perhaps you have one already, but that order must include two statements: 1.) That the police needs to help you enforce your visitation rights if she violates that court order (to violate that order is a criminal offence), and 2.) An order that prevents her from moving away for a distance farther than what will cause you to have more than a half-hour of travelling time to pick up or drop off your daughter.

To get those two statements included in your visitation order may cost you from $8,000 to $30,000 or more. It depends on how cooperative she is likely to be.

Those two things are often overlooked and forgotten by lawyers acting on behalf of fathers like you. Those things are best addressed right from the start. To have them added later is very expensive and often not successful.

Regards,

Walter
http://fathersforlife.org

P.S. Vern, those comments would best be posted at http://blog.fathersforlife.org. I seldom make such extensive comments on an individual basis. If I do, it is because I may be able to use them at Fathers for Life, as they hardly ever relate to a specific situation only but address universal issues that are of concern and interest to millions of people. Begin your activism by contributing to http://blog.fathersforlife.org.

Try to prevent your anger from clouding your judgment. Make your anger a tool for reconstruction, not something that make others angry at you.

–WHS

Posted in Divorce, Censorship, Men's Issues, Shared Parenting, Feminist Jurisprudence, Family, Feminism | Print | No Comments »