October 11, 2011 by Walter Schneider.

Husband-Killing Syndicates (h/t: http://news.mensactivism.org/node/17318)

At the website of The Unknown History of MISANDRY

FACTS which contradict what is taught in the universities and which even run counter to the assumptions made by critics of misandry.

The article by Anonymous at http://news.mensactivism.org/node/17318 begins with,

“Husband Poisoning By Wholesale,” “Women Formed Club To Kill Husbands,” “Exterminating Husbands,” “A New Business; Husband Poisoning On A Scale of a Commercial Enterprise,” “How Wives Gained Power by Mass-Murder of Husbands.” Such newspaper headlines as these popped up with alarming regularity in American newspapers from the 1880s to the end of the 1930s. With the exception for the story of the notorious “Arsenic Incorporated” case of 1939 in Philadelphia – with its gruesome 200-plus body count – all these sensational reports were of European husband-killing covens….(Full Story)

Posted in Men's Issues, Women's Violence | Print | No Comments »

September 28, 2011 by Walter Schneider.

Huffington Post, 2011, 09 23Catherine Kieu Becker Pleads Not Guilty In Penis Slicing

WESTMINSTER, Calif. — A California woman has pleaded not guilty to cutting off her estranged husband’s penis and running it through a garbage disposal….(Full Story)

Here is a bit of background to the case.

2011 07 12: In an undisclosed location in California, according to ABC News: “Nightengale said the couple is going through a divorce, but could not confirm why [Catherine Kieu] Becker wanted to cut off her husband’s manhood.” ….(Full Story)

Comments:

Walter Schneider,  July 12, 2011: Just like kids in a candy store, except that those would be less likely to get away with things. See, they have not yet managed to find an excuse in this case that will work, but rest assured that they will keep considering alternatives until they find a good one.

Here is a tip. When everything else fails, one of these always works, “The devil (or her inner demons) made her do it,” or just simply, “She could not help herself,” will do fine.

The excuse need not be announced right now. There is time enough to think of a whopper until the case goes to trial. http://abcnews.go.com/m/story?id=14055080

Walter Schneider,  July 12, 2011: The search for an excuse is just window dressing for letting her go, eventually. It is ludicrous for anyone to insist they they don’t know why she did it. Of course they know, as surely as Catherine Kieu Becker did. She did it because she could, and because she knows damn well that she will get away with it!

“Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” (Full Quote)

Posted in Divorce, Marriage, Men's Issues, Feminist Jurisprudence, The New World Order, Feminism, Women's Violence | Print | 1 Comment »

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 23, 2011 by Walter Schneider.

Judicial second-thoughts on pussy-pass for killing husband…

Appeal sought on husband killer’s sentence
www.heraldsun.com.au

THE sentence imposed on an Adelaide woman who escaped jail after killing her cheating and abusive husband by setting him on fire would fail to deter others, a court has heard….(Full Story)

__________
She murdered her husband. She did it deliberately. It was premeditated. Still Rajini Narayan was let go, to be under Correctional Services supervision for two years, and to undertake psychological counselling as ordered.

Now the lawyers get another chance to earn more money by talking this case to death, while the outcome is most likely still a foregone conclusion: Women are incapable of committing crimes, because there is always an excuse, while when men commit crimes of equal severity there is never an excuse. (More on the history of this case)

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

June 9, 2011 by Walter Schneider.

Front-page cartoon published in the Dec. 17, 1942 issue of Der Stuermer.

The cartoon shows Jews being afraid of the truth (Purity, manifested by a woman), in relation to the theme of Der Stuermer on racial defilement.  You must realize that even someone who was one-eights Jewish was likely to be sent to the concentration camps and was at the very least barred from holding government jobs or working in any of the academic professions.  His career prospects were finished.  The only work he could have found would have been the performance of menial tasks.

The racial policies of the Nazis were in effect an Affirmative Action program for “Aryans”, with an Aryan being anyone who was obviously not Jewish or who could prove that his ancestors were not Jewish, going back for some generations.

To qualify for membership in the SS, one first of all had to prove, going back for eight generations, that one did not have a Jewish ancestor.

The curious aspect of the Nazi dogma was that women were revered as the spiritual and emotional centres of homes and families, much more so than that has ever been the case in other nations and other times.  Women were important to the Nazis for a number of reasons, such as: to give men something worth fighting for, to give men tangible emotional and physical comfort and support in the home-sphere, and to breed and raise children for the next war that was seen as being necessary and certain to come.

That is where national socialism differed from communism of the kind in place in the USSR and other communist nations who more closely followed the teachings of Marx and Engels.  The Nazis were a bit smarter than the latter, in as much as that they considered the Marxist dream of bringing all women into the workforce and thereby to increase production for the state to be impractical.  It was considered to be impractical because only with a woman in charge of her own children she raised with the support of her husband was it to be expected that the children would grow into worthy members of the State.

Still, women needed to be married to produce children, as illegitimacy and births out of wedlock were frowned upon.  For which reason, towards the end of the war — in the face of the enormous losses of men’s lives experienced throughout the war — Hitler considered to make polygamy legal and desirable and issued a memorandum to that effect through his personal secretary, Martin Bormann, on January 29, 1944.

Now let’s replay that a bit.  Women had to be married to men to have children.  SS-men needed to be married to women to have children.  For women to be able to marry SS-men, they had to become members of the SS and prove, with an enormous amount of digging for documents, birth certificates for their parents and all of the birth certificates of their grandparents and all ancestors, going back for eight generations, that they were not Jewish.  That was only one mandatory requirement.  Another one was that every aspiring member of the SS, including women who wanted to marry SS-men, had to pass a test proving that he was well versed in the doctrine of Nazi ideology.  Only then could marriage to an SS-man be entered into.

No woman could become an SS-member by default, through marriage.  If she wanted to be come married to an SS-man, she had to go through a lot of effort to first become a member of the SS.  The Jews in the front-page cartoon in the Dec. 17, 1942 issue of Der Stuermer had every imaginable reason to be afraid of Purity in the form of a woman, because if a woman would hold them to account, it would quite possibly be an SS-woman and certainly be one of many (nurses, secretaries, cooks, telephone operators, etc., etc.) when they entered the concentration camp.

Gudrun Schwarz, in “Eine Frau an seiner Seite : Ehefrauen in der SS-Sippengemeinschaft,” (”A Wife at his Side: Wives in the ‘SS-Clan-Community’”) reports that, “Between 1931 and 1945 about 240,000 woman married SS-men.” (p. 11)

Not one of those women became an SS-wife by accident.  Read the rest of the story to find out whether or how many of them were held to account.

Posted in Media Bias, Feminist Jurisprudence, Feminism, Propaganda Exposed, Women's Violence | Print | No Comments »

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 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 7, 2011 by Walter Schneider.

The following contains excerpts leading to and from an article identified at the website of the canadiancrc.com:

The sins of the mothers

The Sydney Morning Herald, Sydney, Australia, Adele Horin, September 12, 2008

Unfortunately the article shown there does not identify a link to the original article, but it shows enough (perhaps all) of the text of the article to make me wonder.

When Lindsay Lohan, Paris Hilton and Britney Spears ran amok, the public blamed their mothers. Their fathers - Lohan’s had served time in jail and had addiction problems - escaped rebuke entirely.

Now an Australian study provides some evidence that bad mothering has a worse effect on children than bad fathering….

It shows that mothers who exhibit “toxic” behaviours - from being cold and indifferent to being abusive, manipulative or over-controlling - are far more likely to warp their children’s outlook on life than fathers with similar behaviour.

Wayne Warburton, a research fellow at Macquarie University’s Children and Families Research Centre, said: “Mothers have a really powerful effect on the way their kids view the world and themselves, probably because kids spend more time with their mothers, especially in the crucial early years.”

Dr Warburton asked 441 university students to fill out detailed questionnaires on the parenting styles of their mothers and fathers, and on their own patterns of thinking.

He asked them to recall 72 parenting behaviours, including “making a child feel ashamed”, being unloving or rejecting, and frequently telling the child they were stupid or would fail. He also asked questions designed to uncover destructive thinking patterns in the students, such as being “clingy” out of a fear of being abandoned.

He found young adults were two-thirds as likely to develop unhelpful patterns of thinking if the toxic parenting they had experienced came from their father rather than their mother. [my emphasis –WHS]

If a range of poor parenting behaviours existed, they tended to be found in the same parent, the study found.

Just over 22 per cent of the mothers and 14 per cent of the fathers were classified as toxic.

Dr Warburton said he was surprised that toxic mothers outnumbered toxic fathers. “When I first saw the figure I thought many of the people came from single-parent families but that wasn’t true. I’m at a loss to explain it.”

He said while mothers had more influence on their children, it was surprising that fathers had two-thirds the effect of mothers, given their lower levels of contact. “Fathers still have a significant effect on the development of their kids’ patterns of thinking.”

Of course, newspaper articles often do not accurately reflect the details, research procedures and findings of such studies, but I wonder why Dr. Warburton was surprised by his findings.  I suspect that he does not have children of his own, or that, if he does, he did not spend much time thinking about what sort of messages his children got from either parent about the other respective parent.

In other words, did his questionnaire include anything that addressed to what extent the students he surveyed had become alienated against one or the other parent?  If it did, he could not possibly be as surprised by the results of his survey as he had become.

Parental alienation is as likely to occur in intact families as in divorced families.  Perhaps it is even somewhat of a toss-up whether toxic varieties of parental alienation are more likely to be found in divorced or in intact families.

Let’s hope that Dr. Warburton’s puzzlement about the origins and causes of toxic parenting will eventually lead him to explore the issues of parental alienation, the increasing disfranchisement of paternal influence and the escalating power of maternal influence and control over children.

Perhaps the solution to his puzzlement will then become apparent, namely that the puzzle of toxic mothering cannot be solved through expunging fathers from the lives of their children but must involve policies that will return us to having a much-increased, strengthened, even controlling, presence of fathers.

Nevertheless, Dr. Warburton’s study has left its mark on Australia’s psycho-therapists.  Consider this commentary and advice:

Ask the Therapist

Since I was a teenager, my mother and I have not gotten along. She often makes me feel bad about myself by saying mean and hurtful things. I never feel my best around her. I have tried over and over to make her happy, but nothing works. I am 35 now and she is in her late sixties.

This year, my older sister and brother are planning a Mother’s Day dinner for her at my sister’s home. They asked me to participate in the planning and attend. If I go, I know that I will have a terrible time. On the other hand, they told me that she is not feeling well and may not be with us many more years. If I don’t go to the dinner, I will feel guilty. I am anxious just thinking about this decision. What should I do?

— Alicia in Oak Park

In that article, Susan A. Horen offers, amongst other things, this:

Dr. Wayne Warburton, a researcher at Macquarie University’s Children and Families Research Centre in Australia, confirmed this fact about toxic parenting in a recent study. As much as we hear about fathers who don’t do a good job of parenting, Warburton found that young adults are 50 percent more likely to develop unhelpful patterns of thinking if the toxic parenting they had experienced came from their mother rather than their father.

Toxic parenting can occur when people who have significant personality disorders become parents. The most common disorders are narcissistic, antisocial, histrionic and borderline. All of these disorders have core elements of selfishness, insensitivity to others, narcissism, a refusal to accept personal responsibility for their behavior and a sense of entitlement that allows them to abuse others when their selfish demands are not immediately met.

Damage from toxic mothers often continues into adulthood.

Toxic parenting is never a good thing.  In extreme cases is can lead to serious social dysfunctions in the affected children, such as in the case of a young woman raised from birth by her father.  The woman took a firearm to work and threatened to shoot her boss, after which she was remanded for observation to the psychiatric ward of the hospital where she has been residing for the past few months.

She is now permitted to spend weekends at home with the father whom she supports and who had fashioned her into the twisted individual she has become.  That is quite likely to counteract whatever positive outcomes are to be hoped for from the course of medicating and counseling she is receiving.

Posted in Parental Alienation, Family, Women's Violence | 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 »