Saving the boys raised by single Moms.

Australia abandons its children to abuse..

2012-01-10T04:37:00.000-08:00

January 9, 2012Kyle LovettFEATURED, FEMINIST LIES

Australia abandons its children to abuse

Simply put, the most puzzling thing about the Australian ‘Time for Action: The National Council’s Plan for Australia to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children, 2009-2021′ is that the plan doesn’t address the physical, emotional or sexual abuse of children. In fact, the actual incidence of various types of child abuse, and the profiles of the individuals abusing them have been intentionally omitted from the volumes of information that justify the National Council’s plan.
Understandably, many Australian men have expressed outrage that such a high profile government study would use the possessive pronoun “their,” regarding women, as though fathers did not exist in their childrens lives. But perhaps the government’s failure to include men as caretakers of their own children can be better explained with further investigation into The Plan. Let’s take a look at some statistics and studies about child abuse and neglect in Australia as well as the conspicuous absence of some key information. This may help to guage the severity of the problem, and to determine who is responsible.

THE EXCLUSION OF CHILD ABUSE STATISTICS

While the architects of The Plan often mention how a life in an abusive home is detrimental to a cbild’s well-being, they lack any actual analysis of child abuse and the perpetrators.
In 1996, two quite detailed reports discussing the problem of child abuse in Australia were published, including in-depth analysis of the data that examined the sex and relationship of the perpetrators. Both Angus G & Hall G (1996) [8] and Tomison A (1996) [9] research papers showed an alarming amount of varying types of child abuse, including physical, sexual, emotional abuse and neglect. Indeed, one of the more shocking pieces of information they supplied identified single parent mothers as the largest demographic of perpetrators of child abuse in Australia.
In 1997, the academic researchers Broadbent and Bentley published ‘Child Abuse and Neglect Australia 1995-1996′ for the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, which confirmed what Angus & Hall as well as Tomison showed the year before. The report examined the national figures of child abuse for 1995-96, which showed 29,833 cases of substantiated child abuse or neglect in Australia. The split between the victims sexes, girls(51%) and boys(49%) under the age of 15 who were abused, was split almost evenly. [10-pg19]

(Source: Broadbent and Bentley 1997)

Broadbent and Bentley went on to discuss the prevalence of the natural parent as it related to the perpetrators of the cases of child abuse.

“The data that are available indicate that the person believed responsible in 71% of substantiated notifications of abuse and neglect was the natural parent. This is not surprising given that child abuse and neglect is a child protection issue and that the natural parent is the person most likely to have care of a child. Step-parents were reported as the person responsible in 10% of substantiated notifications and a parent’s de facto partner in 7%. Parents were believed to be responsible for 66% of physical abuse substantiations, 77% of emotional abuse substantiations, 87% of neglect substantiations, but only 24% of sexual abuse substantiations.” [10-pg34]

The researchers further examined the sex and relationship of the responsible parties in which this data was readily available.

“In 1995–96, of finalised investigations in those States and Territories for which data were available (Victoria, Western Australia, Tasmania, the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory), 40% involved children living in single female parent families and 31% living in ‘two parent—natural’ families. A further 15% of finalised investigations involved children from ‘two parent—other’ families (such as families where there is one natural parent and a de facto or a step-parent)”[10-pg35]

(Source: Broadbent and Bentley 1997)

The breakdown of this data for the sex and relationship of child abusers was:

40% single parent female
46% two-parent families (both male and female parental perpetrators)
6% single parent male
8% Other

This means that in 86% of child abuse cases were perpetrated by or with a female offender, while 52% of child abuse cases were perpetrated by or with a male offender. If past years of recorded child abuse in Australia are any indication, between 20,000 and 30,000 cases of substantiated incidents occur each year. This information did not sit well with several of the people inside the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW) nor the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS). In fact, in 1997 the AIHW pulled the plug on recording any further data pertained to the sex or relationship of a child abuser, unless it was sexual abuse.[11]
(Source: Broadbent and Bentley 1997)

Click to enlarge

In 2003, another researcher for the Australian Institute of Family Studies, Fitzroy 2003 ‘The violence of women: Making sense of child abuse perpetrated by mothers’, shed some further light on the statistics which continued to show mothers as the primary perpetrator of child abuse.

“Women commit between 31-50 percent of physical assaults on children. Mothers commit almost 50 percent of the recorded infanticide and women perpetrate between 2-7 percent of sexual assaults against children. It is worth noting that often researchers identify that, for example, 69 percent of perpetrators of such and such crime are men, but then fail to discuss who perpetrated the remaining 31 percent. Within family violence research often a gender-neutral term such as ‘parent’ or ‘care giver’ is used, however there is no further discussion as to whether it was a father or mother who perpetrated the assaults. This absence may reflect a general understanding that men are the majority of perpetrators of child assaults, however it may also reflect a denial of the assault of children by their mothers.”[11-pg2]

While Fitzroy criticizes the AIHW and ABS decision to not keep the data concerning the sex and relationship of child abusers, she gives a brief reasoning why she understands that many feel that women’s violence can be explained away.

“This paper positions women’s use of violence within a social context that includes historical, structural and institutional violence characterised by patterns of domination and oppression. This social context includes patriarchal, racist and classist ideologies whereby some people are defined as superior to ‘others’…..I would argue therefore that an analysis of women’s violence should be positioned within an analysis of the human capacity for violence. We can all desire retribution for perceived harms, experience rage and the wish to inflict pain on another.”[11-pg3]

The National Director of the Joint Parenting Association, Yuri Joakimidis, not only admonishes the Australian government for its refusal to keep these records, he claims that bias within the AIHW, to further a particular ideology, were compromising the integrity of all of its data collection.

“In this context, the decision taken in 1997 by the AIHW (Broadbent & Bentley 1997) to no longer publish data indicating the sex of perpetrators in substantiated child abuse cases must be reversed. The action was taken just one year after the data was first published in 1996 (968 men and 1138 women). The omission was justified on the wobbly basis that only one state (WA) and two territories (ACT & NT) had furnished statistics and a lack of publishing space. Interested parties were advised that they could obtain the data under a Freedom Of Information request at a cost of $200.
Curiously, these reasons did not preclude the publication of these data in 1996. In fact, Angus & Hall (1996) observed that “the information base provide an extra dimension to data previously presented.” Quite obviously, the non publication of these important statistics can negatively impact on child abuse policy and the allocation of resources. If the AIHW decision does indeed represent bias reporting then such slanted views clearly have no place in scientific endevours.” [11]

Indeed, looking at Western Australia’s numbers for 2005-06 and 2007-08 alone, they continue to show the same pattern of perpetrators of child abuse being overwhelmingly single females.

Click to enlarge

For State government, or key members within, to intentionally cover up the sex and relationship of child abusers in reporting important child welfare statistics, simply because 40% of child abuse cases are perpetrated by single mothers, it may well constitute a criminal conspiracy. Particularly if children are harmed as a result. Since Parliament allocates monies to combat child abuse, decisions to stop keeping these crucial statistics must be seen as at least passively endangering the welfare of Australian children.
It is also important to note the hypocrisy of calling this major report on domestic violence ‘Time for Action: The National Council’s Plan for Australia to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children’ when critical information concerning child abuse and neglect in Australia is concealed. Furthermore, there are compelling reasons to believe that the National Council left out key facts regarding women’s violence to satisfy an ideological and financial agenda that hinges on a false paradigm in which only men are violent in the home.
This kind of conduct has been previously identified and addressed in a paper by the internationally recognized expert researcher on Domestic Violence, Dr. Murray Straus. In his paper, Processes Explaining the Concealment and Distortion of Evidence on Gender Symmetry in Partner Violence, he catalogs methods used to conceal and distort evidence on symmetry in partner violence, which has become a widespread corruption issue in western academe. As Straus writes:

Method 1. Suppress Evidence - Researchers who have an ideological commitment to the idea that men are almost always the sole perpetrator often conceal evidence that contradicts this belief. Among researchers not committed to that ideology, many (including me and some of my colleagues) have withheld results showing gende r symmetry to avoid becoming victims of vitriolic denunciations and ostracism. Thus, many researchers have published only the data on male perpetrators or female victims, deliberatcly omitting data on female perpetrators and male victims. This practice startcd with one of the first general population surveys on family violence. The survey done for the Kentucky Commission on the Status of Women obtained data on both men and women, but only the data on male perpetration was publishcd (Schulman 1979). Among the many other examples of respected researchers publishing only the data on assaults by men are Kennedy and Dutton (1989); Lackey and Williams (1995); Johnson and Leone (2005); and Kaufman Kantor and Straus (1987).[24]

Using this method and others, The National Council attempts to paint men as the monsters of domestic violence, who are responsible for almost all of Australia’s problems inside the home. The fact that women, not men, are responsible for the majority of actual child abuse has been intentionally removed from the parameters of their studies. Violence, a human problem, is one which both men and women perpetrate; we are all responsible for putting an end to it, not just in the home, but in society at large. For this council to deny the violence, neglect and other abuses that women commit codemns Australian children to lives of invisible pain, for which no help will be allowed, by edict of the government.
It is not only a disgrace to professional and academic integrity, it’s a slap in the face to those forgotten children of Australia who live the brutal reality of violence and abuse, day in and day out. It is time the men and women of Australia let their voices be heard, and instruct their government that this is not an acceptable situation. And it is time that the members of the National Council Advisory Board be held accountable to the public they purport to serve. The women, the men and the children of Australia deserve better than this. They deserve the truth.

References
(1)The Plan http://www.fahcsia.gov.au/sa/women/pubs/violence/np_time_for_action/national_plan/Pages/default.aspx
(2) http://www.fahcsia.gov.au/sa/women/pubs/violence/np_time_for_action/national_plan/Pages/outcome_4.aspx
(3) http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/bn/sp/DVAustralia.htm#_Toc309798397
(4) http://www.fahcsia.gov.au/sa/women/progserv/violence/nationalplan/Documents/national_plan.pdf
(5) http://www.fahcsia.gov.au/sa/housing/progserv/homelessness/whitepaper/Pages/default.aspx
(6) The Road Home http://www.fahcsia.gov.au/sa/housing/progserv/homelessness/whitepaper/Pages/default.aspx
(7) Australian Bureau of Statistics
(8) Angus G & Hall G (1996). Child Abuse and Neglect Australia 1994-1995. Canberra: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare Series; no 16)
(9) Tomison A (1996). “Protecting Children: Updating The National Picture” in Child Abuse and Neglect Australia 1994-1995, Child Welfare Series No.16, Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, AGPS, Canberra
(10) Broadbent A & Bentley R (1997). Child Abuse and Neglect Australia 1995-1996. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare Catalogue No CWS 1. Canberra: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (Child Welfare Series No 17)
(11) http://deltabravo.net/forum/index.php?topic=229.0;wap2
(12) Fitzroy 2003 – ‘The violence of women: Making sense of child abuse perpetrated by mothers’ Australian Institute of Family Studies
(13)Australian Law Reform Commission’s (ALRC) 2010 Inquiry, Family Violence Family Violence – A National Legal Response.
(14) http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter9.shtml
(15) Headey, B., Scott, D., & de Vaus, D. (1999). Domestic violence in Australia: Are Women and Men Equally Violent? Australian Social Monitor 2:57-62
(16) Dutton D. G. (2007). Female Intimate Partner Violence and Developmental Trajectories of Abusive Families. International Journal of Men’s Health, 6, 54-71
(17) Archer J (2000). Sex Differences in Physically Aggressive Acts between Heterosexual Partners: A Meta-Analytic Review. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 651-680
(18) http://www.deewr.gov.au/HigherEducation/Publications/HEStatistics/Publications/Pages/Students.aspx
(19) http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/PrimaryMainFeatures/3309.0?OpenDocument
(20) http://www.prb.org/DataFinder/Topic/Rankings.aspx?ind=6
(21) http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/rb/2004-05/05rb07.htm#statistical
(22) http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/homicide.aspx
(23)http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2Fe3438d90-354a-4802-8540-6d3a85164a3a%2F0058;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2Fe3438d90-354a-4802-8540-6d3a85164a3a%2F0003%22
(24) http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/V74-gender-symmetry-with-gramham-Kevan-Method%208-.pdf

Written byKyle Lovett

13 POSTS IN TOTALSee Them »

Important Message for All Men: Please Read..

2012-01-08T12:44:00.000-08:00

Here we have an explanation of what feminists, in this case radical feminists and the Gillard Government, have in mind for ALL AUSTRALIAN MEN and this is just an example of what is coming your way as well. This legislation is already in Place in Tasmania, AUSTRALIA and it will ensure that Men are jailed, without any opportunity to claim a fair trial, no opportunity to present any counter argument and will be taken to prison on any claim made by any female under any circumstances..

Fifty percent of all men in jail in Tasmania are there because of this draconian piece of legislation. They are served with a court order for one year to not go within 100 meters his own home or see his children and all his accounts, everything he owns will be confiscated and given to the person making the claim. No proof is necessary, no witnesses required, no doctors reports required, no evidence has to be submitted, only on the word of one individual will ensure this action to takes place..

This action will be enforced even when he is not guilty or if the female is the abuser. There is no comeback whatsoever. Even if the claimant retracted her accusation and informs the Police that she has lied, nothing will change..

This release identifies precisely how this new legislation is going to work and this will become LAW in AUSTRALIA within a very short period of time. Possibly over the next month or two if we do NOTHING. Ignore this at your own risk..

New Legislation Designed to Persecute Men and Deny his basic Human Rights.

If you are male and living in Australia, this is the probably the most important email you'll read this year.

This message is about the highly discriminatory National Council’s Plan for Australia to Reduce Domestic Violence Against Women and Their Children, 2009-2021 (henceforth described as 'The Plan').

The Plan is long (200+ pages), so you might like to save it to your desktop and read it little by little, but it's essential that you do read it as it may affect your freedom. If you don't, you may well find yourself in jail one day - minus legal entry to your house, access to your children and any reputation you think you once had, all without doing a single thing wrong. Please share it with every other responsible men you know so they too will learn how their civil liberties are being dangerously undermined under the guise of reducing domestic violence against women.

The most important liberty that will be lost is the presumption of innocence (for men, not women) - one of the foundation stones of a civilised legal system. If the draconian legislation proposed by The Plan is passed through both Houses of Parliament and into Family Law, the legal system in Australia will no longer automatically protect men from false DV and rape accusations and the government will take control of the family. Adoption of The Plan will, essentially, legalise Apartheid and enforce it if necessary at the point of a gun.

Domestic violence and sexual assault are serious crimes, so any wise and just plan to properly identify and reduce them should be applauded. The Plan, however, is neither wise, just nor worthy of applause. It presumes women have no agency when under the influence of drugs or alcohol and that all men are violent offenders by default. Read the document and learn for yourself what could happen to both men and women if The Plan passes into law. Once you've read it, forward it to others with a copy of this message and get active. Write to your MP, raise awareness, talk to the press, raise some placards at your local shopping centre, take your protest to Canberra. Do whatever suits you, but please do something. If you do nothing, prepare to lose your civil liberties via the most draconian legislation since the anti-semitic Nazi Nuremberg Laws of 1935. Yes, it is that serious.

Here's a summary of what will happen if The Plan is endorsed by both Houses of Parliament:

1. The Australian Government will assume that women never lie about domestic violence or sexual assault, even when child custody is at stake and the temptation to lie is extreme.

2. The definitions of Domestic Violence will be broadened to include acts such as striking inanimate objects, making purchases without consulting a female partner, not listening to a female partner or even disciplining a dog. The same actions will not be considered DV if the actor is female (see item 3 below).

3. The legal redefinition of domestic violence will exclude male victims from that legal definition - i.e. men and boys who are assaulted by female relatives will not have legal rights as victims.

4. DV and Sexual assault cases will go to the front of the court docket (presumably ahead of first degree murder).

5. There will be lower standards for arrest and dual arrest may be forbidden where violence was reciprocal - i.e. police will not be allowed to arrest a woman if both partners were violent (The Plan presumes that female violence is self-defense in almost all cases, despite a substantial and growing body of evidence that indicates otherwise).

6. Protection Orders will be issued with lowered amount of proof, such as an accusation or belief from a specialist that violence "might" occur in the future - i.e. a woman's fear of violence, rational or not, justified or not, proven or not, would be enough to arrest a man and hold him without bail.

7. No-Contact orders will be issued much more often, and for non-criminal cases - i.e. a man could be separated from his children on the whims of their mother, without any proof of danger from him, and even when he is the only source of protection for his children against her own abuse and violent behaviour.

8. The burden of proof will lie with the accused to end a No-Contact order - i.e. the man must prove he wasn't violent, thereby ending the presumption of innocence, but only when the innocent person is male.

9. Ouster/ Exclusion Orders will be issued more frequently to remove an accused man (not a perpetrator, necessarily) from his residence, as well as removed from lease - i.e. make him homeless, even if his earnings paid for the house and everything in it, including the children's food, clothing and education).

10. A father's rights will be removed in cases where the State (read: DV industry specialist) feels that the father should never be allowed to see his children until they are adults - i.e. no conviction will be needed, just the word of a State DV specialist.

11. Men accused of any DV, regardless of conviction or criminal charges, will go on a national registry - i.e. a man's reputation will be potentially destroyed, together with his friendships, family relationships and job prospects permanently on the basis of an accusation alone.

12. Court procedures will change to limit or even disallow cross examination of "victim" (i.e. a woman who lies about DV may never be held accountable by the courts).

13. Cases of criminal accusations relating to DV and sexual assault will not be dropped ander any circumstances - i.e. a lying woman who wants to recant her false accusations before a hearing will be prohibited from doing so.

14. Pre-requests for allowing bail for an accused man (not a woman) will become extremely difficult - i.e. the presumption of innocence would be removed when men are accused of DV or sexual assault.

15. A method in which it is legally acceptable for a man and a women to engage in sexual intercourse will be formalised. A man will have to verbally ask permission, and receive a verbal affirmative answer, and be able to prove it in court, for each sexual act, even with his wife.

16. Broader scope when the state feels that female agency is no longer hers to give consent. Woman can remove consent after the fact if she was under the influence of drugs or alcohol - i.e. a woman would be deemed not to have agency when she is affected by drugs or alcohol, thus it would become the man's responsibility (even if he himself was affected by drugs or alcohol), to know precisely what his partner (or wife) had imbibed, how she was affected and how quickly she would be compos mentis (with medical precision) prior to any sexual encounter with her. NB. Men, however, will be assumed to always have agency when affected by drugs or alcohol at the time of a sexual encounter.

17. An accused man must show proof of consent when using certain defenses such as "mistaken consent" are used. Mistaken consent means he felt that she gave consent, but she denies giving it. In other words, a woman would be able to withdraw consent should she regret a sexual encounter at any time afterwards, and the man would have to provide evidence of a lie or go to jail for 20 years.

18. A "Gendered policy of arrest" will apply for DV and sexual assault cases - i.e. the man will ALWAYS be arrested, even when the woman is blatantly and obviously the guilty party.

19. The State will pay for the mother and children to remain in a residence with "crisis payments" and will pay for high tech security features - i.e. The State will keep children with their mother, under high security, away from their father, even if she lied about DV or sexual assault or if she is the (more) violent and abusive party.

20. The State will have the right to take children into State custody if the mother wants their children to have a relationship with the father, if the "Specialist" feels that this would be detrimental to the children in any manner - i.e. The DV specialist has the power to keep a father from his children until they turn 18, on the mother's say-so, even when the mother has lied about DV or is the greater danger to her children than their father.

Fraud in Australia’s plan to reduce violence against women..

2012-01-08T00:14:00.000-08:00

The introduction of the "Violence against Women" programs has been something that feminists have dreamt up in order to introduce anti-male laws around the world. As usual, feminists and their enablers will use falsified information and any other method they can find in order to convince the law makers, if we can refer to them in that fashion, to change existing laws in order to discriminate against man and boy, while at the same time ensuring their own positions, paid for by taxpayers, are protected and guaranteed..

The hypocrisy that feminists have and continue to introduce is demonstrated once again by the author of this article. The researchers, professors and doctors are the radicals who produced the misandric material are the same women who attended the SCUM Manifesto Conference in Perth, Western Australia in 2011. Those same women who were scheming and planning about removing half of the earth's population, blowing up the Men's Sheds and throwing little male toddlers thru windows while they are closed should indicate their inhumane nature..

They are the "NEW" breed of fanatical feminists that control that hegemony and decide future policies and actions. They are also mostly lesbians, which does not come as any surprise considering their vitriol and malice towards all males..

Behind all this and included in their sullied actions and behaviour, we have the Gillard Government who have turned a blind eye to the recommendations these radicals want to introduce into parliament and make law. The Gillard Government demonstrates again what their intentions are for half of the Australian Population. More bigotry, discrimination and bias..

Fraud in Australia’s plan to reduce violence against women

The 2009 Australian project a ‘Time for Action: The National Council’s Plan for Australia to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children, 2009-2021′, was approved for implementation by the Council of Australian Governments (COAG). The Plan, which is split into several parts, puts forth recommendations for new legislation, changes to judicial processes, requests for funding and ideas for domestic programs targeted at reducing domestic and sexual violence against women. The advisory council has some powers to implement programs through the Office of Women among other agencies, but much of what the government funded program calls for requires approval by Parliament.

The entire premise of the National Plan was underpinned by the belief in this statement:“While a small proportion of men are victims of domestic violence and sexual assault, the majority of people who experience this kind of violence are women in a home, at the hands of men they know.”[27-pg1] But a quick examination of the statistics and data shows a much different picture to the rather sweeping indictment of Australian men the National Council paints.

Indeed, The Plan never addresses the topic of violence that women commit towards men or towards children, nor does it accurately state the facts as they are in Australia.

The Data and Statistics

The National Council’s plan is put forth as a direct response to several academic papers and various activists around Australia, which purport data and statistics that claim to show an epidemic of men’s violence against women. However, the National Council readily admits its data on actual incidences of domestic violence and sexual assault is poor, sporadic and in some cases inaccurate. Nevertheless, the council makes most of their recommendations based on the conclusions of several academic papers and studies, and rarely address any comprehensive analysis of their own. Indeed, The Plan never addresses the topic of violence that women commit towards men or towards children, nor does it accurately state the facts as they are in Australia.

“Data relating to violence against women and their children in Australia is poor. Data on services sought by, and provided to, victims is not readily available, and the way in which information is reported is generally inconsistent and does not allow for a comprehensive understanding of violence against women. Variations in data estimates across Australia are affected by differences in what is captured, counted and reported across States and Territories.
There are also personal and institutional barriers in decision making within and across systems that reduce the extent to which sexual assault and domestic and family violence is disclosed and reported. This affects the capacity of data to accurately reflect the real numbers of women and children who experience this violence. The difficulty [is] in measuring the true extent of sexual assault and domestic [violence].”[1-pg47]

What The Plan lacks in substantial comparative statistical data, it makes up for with hyperbolic references to various academic publications which they imply contain extremely compelling data. However, when direct statistical data is mentioned, it is at best an out-of-context use of very some basic data; and at worst a deliberate obfuscation of the full picture of domestic violence. Here is an example of one statistic The Plan mentions over and over again in several of its various publications:

Violence in relationships remains high in our communities, and most would agree that unless the unequal power relations between women and men are more meaningfully addressed, the incidence will not change. Around one in three Australian women experience physical violence, and almost one in five experiences sexual violence over their lifetime.“[1-pg59]

What they don’t mention is this “1 in 3″ (or 29%) stat isn’t just domestic violence, or even violence men perpetrate against women – it’s all forms of violence women experience. Furthermore, it’s only violence that occurs after the age of 15, which we will examine in a later article, is yet another obfuscation of statistical data. The exact same data set from which the National Council used, shows that over 41% of Australian men experience violence in their lifetime’,(12% more than women)as men are much more likely to be the victims of violence than women.

This conduct, citing research as though it supports claims it does not, was identified and coined with the term, Creating “Evidence” by Citation by internationally recognized expert on domestic violence research Dr. Murray Straus, in his paper entitled “Processes Explaining the Concealment and Distortion of Evidence on Gender Symmetry in Partner Violence, 2007,” which identifies various methods employed by unscrupulous activists and academicians to further assertions that are not supported by valid research.

Here is the complete data from the same Australian Bureau of Statistics(ABS) source, which shows a larger picture of data on violence for both women and men.[7]

Violence experienced since the age of 15:

29% (2,243,600) of women experienced physical assault
41% (3,031,800) of men experienced physical assault
17% (1,293,100) of women experienced sexual assault
4.8% (362,400) of men experienced sexual assault

In the 12 month data prior to the ABS survey:

4.7% (363,000) of women experienced physical violence
10% (779,800) of men experienced physical violence
1.6% (126,100) of women experienced sexual violence
0.6% (46,700) of men experienced sexual violence

Of these numbers:

79,500 men experienced physical assault by a female perpetrator
195,300 women experienced physical assault by a male perpetrator

What does The Plan have to say about violence against men?

“While a small proportion of men are victims of domestic violence and sexual assault, the majority of people who experience this kind of violence are women in a home, at the hands of men they know. Men are more likely to be the victims of violence from strangers and in public, so different strategies are required to address these different types of violence.”[3-pg1]

77% of men (60,900) who experienced physical assault by a female which occurred in a home
64% of women (125,100) who experienced physical assault by a male which occurred in a home

Even if the ABS data is correct, which does not include abuse to children under the age of 15, who are abused at much higher rates by their mother than their father, men constituting one-third of all domestic abuse victims is not a “small proportion” in any sense of the meaning. In the prior 12 months to the survey for sexual assault, men experienced 27% of the incidents of sexual violence; again, not a “small proportion.” The question must be asked why a well funded government study on domestic violence doesn’t even begin to address the victimization of men when they do account for significant portion of domestic violence victims? According to the council:

“Enhanced community awareness and education programs are needed to change violence-supportive attitudes. These initiatives must be always based on the notion of gender equality and the need to shift men’s consciousness from one of privilege to one of mutuality. They need to make men question their own economic, social, and political power over women.“[1-pg47]

Does the National Council believe that the violence men endure is not as important as the violence women endure?

“Attitudes and beliefs about gender are learned, and society often teaches deeply held sexist views. Evidence shows that communities increase the risk of violence against women when they allow norms that support men’s controlling attitudes and behaviour over women, or attitudes that support the notion of male privilege. These norms include:”
“macho” constructions of masculinity
ideas that “a woman’s place is in the home”
notions that men should “wear the pants” as heads of the household and wage-earners
standards that segregate male drinking and encourage excessive or
binge drinking
standards that create peer pressure to conform to these ideas of masculinity and male behaviour[1-pg39]

These definitions of what it means to be a man are from Professor Michael Flood, a person who posed as a member of the father’s rights group Fathers4Equality, and used the groups resources unethically and fraudulently. He sent distasteful and offensive letters to every member of the Australian federal parliament, in an effort to discredit and undermine the group’s efforts and reputation.[24][25][26] But more to the point, these stereotypes which Flood lists as the underlying cause of male violence are shallow and arguably paint an extremely biased and inaccurate picture of the vast variations of masculinity definitions that vary greatly from person to person. But let’s look at the basic statistics of men in Australia in terms of health, education and welfare when compared to women, to see the statistical evidence of “male privilege.”

Men Live on average 5 years less than women - (in 2007-2009 men had a 40.9% chance of surviving to age 85 years compared with women’s 57.3% chance)[20]
Men accounted for 93% of workplace fatalities in Australia in 2009-2010[21]
Men die of suicide at 3 times the rate of women ( 2008 Men 16 and women 5 per 100,000 population)[19]
At least 1 in 3 victims of family or domestic violence is a Man[7]
Men are more frequently victims of violent assault (3.9 % man compared to 2.4 % women)[7]
Men are more frequently threatened with violent assault ( 5.0 % men compared to 3.5% women)[7]
Men’s enrollment in post secondary education for 2010 is 43.8%, women’s enrollment is at 56.2% [18]
Men are more than twice as likely to be victims of homicide (1.8 victims per 100,000 population) than women (0.8 victims per 100,000 population)[22]
The imprisonment rate for men in June 2009 was 13 times the rate for women(329 prisoners per 100,000 male adults versus 25 prisoners per 100,000 female adults)[23]

Men seem to be on the disadvantaged side of many basic areas of concern for any Australian citizen. It’s no secret that in the Western world, men have been falling behind for sometime now, which many would argue is due in large part to the emphasis on placing the needs of women above men. Moreover, the entire premise of this National Council’s Plan is predicated on the belief that men are overwhelmingly the perpetrators of domestic violence. Their own data refutes that claim, and furthermore, several significant studies have been done that show domestic violence is perpetrated equally between men and women. [15][16][17] The statistics of domestic violence from the United States, Canada and United Kingdom shows domestic violence is perpetrated equally between men and women.

(There is additional information that has not been released yet, which will show an attempt by several employees of the AIWH and ABS to change, hide or ignore data relating to domestic violence towards men and children.)

Since the main underlying argument for such an enormous government undertaking is faulty, misleading and in many cases dishonest, what are the real motivations for the study and its findings? After close examination of the National Council’s drastic recommendations of judicial and legislative changes, which call for ‘gendered civil and criminal laws’ meant to enact a type of gender profiling against men, holding them to a lower standard of proof for incidents of domestic violence and sexual assault, one can only wonder how such a biased and bigoted study made it past the desks of some of Australia’s most prominent politicians without any protest.

I think many Australian men may be curious to ask if Prime Minister Julia Gillard knows the real facts about domestic violence and sexual assault, and if she is aware of the horrendous amounts of civil rights violations, against half their population, that the National Council’s plan so adamantly call for. Sadly, it now appears that hatred and bigotry are becoming government policy in Australia.

References

(1)The Planhttp://www.fahcsia.gov.au/sa/women/pubs/violence/np_time_for_action/national_plan/Pages/default.aspx

(2)http://www.fahcsia.gov.au/sa/women/pubs/violence/np_time_for_action/national_plan/Pages/outcome_4.aspx

(3) http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/bn/sp/DVAustralia.htm#_Toc309798397

(4)http://www.fahcsia.gov.au/sa/women/progserv/violence/nationalplan/Documents/national_plan.pdf

(5)http://www.fahcsia.gov.au/sa/housing/progserv/homelessness/whitepaper/Pages/default.aspx

(6) The Road Homehttp://www.fahcsia.gov.au/sa/housing/progserv/homelessness/whitepaper/Pages/default.aspx

(7) Australian Bureau of Statistics

(8) Angus G & Hall G (1996). Child Abuse and Neglect Australia 1994-1995. Canberra: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare Series; no 16)

(9) Tomison A (1996). “Protecting Children: Updating The National Picture” in Child Abuse and Neglect Australia 1994-1995, Child Welfare Series No.16, Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, AGPS, Canberra

(10) Broadbent A & Bentley R (1997). Child Abuse and Neglect Australia 1995-1996. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare Catalogue No CWS 1. Canberra: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (Child Welfare Series No 17)

(11) http://deltabravo.net/forum/index.php?topic=229.0;wap2

(12) Fitzroy 2003 – ‘The violence of women: Making sense of child abuse perpetrated by mothers’ Australian Institute of Family Studies

(13)Australian Law Reform Commission’s (ALRC) 2010 Inquiry, Family Violence Family Violence – A National Legal Response.

(14) http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter9.shtml

(15) Headey, B., Scott, D., & de Vaus, D. (1999). Domestic violence in Australia: Are Women and Men Equally Violent? Australian Social Monitor 2:57-62

(16) Dutton D. G. (2007). Female Intimate Partner Violence and Developmental Trajectories of Abusive Families. International Journal of Men’s Health, 6, 54-71

(17) Archer J (2000). Sex Differences in Physically Aggressive Acts between Heterosexual Partners: A Meta-Analytic Review. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 651-680

(18)http://www.deewr.gov.au/HigherEducation/Publications/HEStatistics/Publications/Pages/Students.aspx

(19) http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/PrimaryMainFeatures/3309.0?OpenDocument

(20) http://www.prb.org/DataFinder/Topic/Rankings.aspx?ind=6

(21) http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/rb/2004-05/05rb07.htm#statistical

(22) http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/homicide.aspx

(23)http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2Fe3438d90-354a-4802-8540-6d3a85164a3a%2F0058;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2Fe3438d90-354a-4802-8540-6d3a85164a3a%2F0003%22

(24) Flood, M. (1998) ‘Mens’ Movements’, Community Quaterly, 46.

(25) Flood, M. and Pease, B. (2006) The Factors Influencing Community Attitudes in Relation to Violence Against Women: A Critical Review of the Literature, Melbourne: Victorian Health Promotion Foundation.

(26) http://acatalogueoflies.wordpress.com/2011/11/24/micheal-flood-poses-as-a-fathers-rights-activist-and-sends-offensive-emails-to-politicians-from-the-university-is-is-employed-at/

(27) http://www.facs.gov.au/sa/women/progserv/violence/nationalplan/Pages/default.aspx

Written by Kyle Lovett

Kyle Lovett has been studying, practicing and blogging about Zen Buddhism for the last 5 years, and has just started to write about Men’s Rights issues. He works in technology field in Washington DC and has a wonderful 10 year old son. He is also the blog master of The Reformed Buddhist.

Australia launches “The Plan” and the end to civil rights..

2012-01-06T16:26:00.000-08:00

When one reads something like this, you could be excused for thinking that it's not really true. How can this be in this day and age when everyone is so enlightened. Human rights is instituted, surely, in law. The bad old days of fascism and witch hunts have been relegated to history as a joke. We now have legal rights as human beings to go about our own business and to live a life free of tyranny and injustice, surely..

Apparently not. The forces at work in Canberra are not a force of consisting of a group of people who are looking to enhance our lives but to destroy it. Radical feminists have already demonstrated what their end goal is and now we are seeing those same people that we exposed on the RADFEM HUB, who are directly linked to the Australian Government, introducing laws that will not only create disharmony but bias and hate. The reality of all these recommended laws are indeed mind boggling and we have only just starting to poke and prod it's reality..

Those radical feminists will, if they are not stopped, introduce laws that are so archaic and debilitating as to make George Orwell's book "1984" appear be a normal everyday event. This is not tyranny as we have witnessed in the past, it's apartheid between the sexes in the very worst degree..

Wait until the facts are released as at the moment, if we were to introduce them, it would just be too much to take in. This is only the beginning..

January 6, 2012Paul ElamFEMINIST GOVERNANCE

Australia launches “The Plan” and the end to civil rights

As chief cook and bottle washer at AVfM I have been in the dubious position of gathering information from across the globe on the negative impact of feminist governance.
Last year we addressed matters like the “Dear Colleague” letter, which effectively ended the right of due process for college men accused of any sort of sexual misconduct. We covered the unthinkable events in India, where men have been assaulted and even thrown from moving trains for daring to set foot in train car reserved for women; where politicians have suggested bounties be paid to women who beat their husbands in public. We exposed circumstances in Sweden, where school children are being indoctrinated into the virulent and hateful ideology of Valerie Solanas. Just last night we did a radio show as a follow up to Robert O’Hara’s investigative piece on the plan to coerce 28,000,000 African men into being circumcised. And of course there is the ongoing exposure of ideologues at Radfem Hub, a group of well-placed feminists who glorify murder, child abuse, eugenics and infanticide.
It appears now that 2011 was just a warm up for 2012.

Over the next several days you will find a series of articles on this website regarding an assault on human rights that will sweep the Australian continent. The scope of aplanned campaign by the Australian government (The National Council’s Plan for Australia to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children, 2009-2021) is so far reaching that presenting it without overwhelming readers has been a significant challenge for myself, Kyle Lovett and John the Other. The sheer volume of the content, as well as the staggering loss of civil rights that Australian men are about to suffer is formidable.
The amount and complexity of the material to come is sufficient that I felt it warranted to prepare you with this article, which in essence is written solely for the purpose of bracing you for the onslaught of information; to, if I may request your indulgence, tell you what you are about to be told.
These machinations have now reached the stage of action, and are about to be implemented. They involve, but are by no means limited, to the following:

The systemic enabling and promotion of child abuse by mothers and other women.
The Australian government suppression of research that implicates women as child abusers.
The legal redefinition of domestic violence to include acts such as making purchases without consulting your wife, not listening to your wife or even disciplining your dog.
The legal redefinition of domestic violence to exclude male victims from that legal definition.
Arresting and holding men in prison, without bail, on the accusation alone of domestic violence.
Summarily evicting men from their homes while forcing them to maintain financial responsibility for those homes on nothing more than an accusation from their wives or girlfriends.
Shifting the burden of proof on domestic violence from the state to the defendant. The accused will be forced to prove he did not commit an act of violence.
The legal redefinition of rape, and subsequent shift of the burden of proof onto a defendant to prove the he obtained specific kinds of verbal consent for sex.

These actions are not individual initiatives to change isolated and different laws. They are all part of a package deal referred to as “The Plan.” It is a far reaching, invasive effort of monumental scope designed to eliminate the civil rights of men and children across the Australian continent, and as you will see in the upcoming articles it is well on its way to becoming reality.
The articles will explain “The Plan” in detail, and show the egregiously corrupt methods that ideologues employed within the Australian government are using in order to pass it all through to law.
For instance, Australian research up to 1997 demonstrated empirically that women, overwhelmingly, are the perpetrators of physical, emotional, psychological and sexual abuse of children – compared with men.

After 1997, the Australian government ceased requesting and recording information on the sex of offenders against children in the home, and all the subsequent proposals in “The Plan” run on the assumption that the male is the primary perpetrator.
What you will also learn in the upcoming series of articles is that all of the proposed legislation is specifically gender targeted. The suggested laws will be written with the protection of women and the punishment of men in mind, and will leave scores of abuse victims even more vulnerable than they were before implementation of “The Plan.” This will be particularly true for children who will frequently have the father, their only protector from an abusive mother, removed from the home and incarcerated without bail as the “identified problem.”
What you will also learn is that the suppression and distortion of scientific research so that it appears to support “The Plan,” has reached pervasive levels in Australia. Such a level of corruption is occurring with complicity and enabling from within the Australian government.
Australia, you will learn, is about to be thrust into the legal Dark Ages, beginning in 2012.
A Voice for Men, I am proud to say, is a very popular website in Australia. It is our hopes that this series of articles will give our friends Down Under something on which to take action with their elected representatives. Perhaps it is not too late to prevent the majority of the damage.
There is some action already. Dr. Greg Canning, an Australian oncologist, has formed an organization to foster an initiative to address these issues. I am going to close this piece with his announcement, hoping that it reaches the eyes of as many Australian citizens as possible.

An open letter to all Australian Men’s Advocacy Groups

There exist in Australia many men’s advocacy groups, albeit with differences in focus. This indicates that many men are not being treated fairly in our country that prides itself on providing a fair go for all.
In the lead up to the next federal election, I have a vision, that if all the men’s groups in Australia unite to jointly lobby for men’s issues to be put on the national political agenda, we can make a difference.
To this end I ask all groups to commence a joint dialogue with a view to supporting a delegation to go to Canberra and lobby for change.
The focus of the delegation will be open for discussion, but I believe it should present a small number of broad objectives, which could include:

Establishment of an Office for Men, and Minister fo background-origin: initial; background-position: 0% 0%; background-repeat: no-repeat no-repeat; list-style-type: none; padding-left: 25px;">A requirement for intellectual honesty and peer review in the data being used to drive social policy for example the “National Plan to reduce violence against women and their children 2010 to 2022”
A requirement to address the increasing problem of fatherlessness in Australia, its determinants and consequences.
A focus on Male specific health and education issues.

Whilst it is acknowledged there will be philosophical differences amongst the groups, I have little doubt that all would agree with these types of objective.
In the first instance I have commenced a discussion group that can be accessed at http://menscoalition.blogspot.com/
This is a private site and you will need to be invited to join the discussions please email gregcanning@me.com to request access.
Please log on to the blog and in the comments section of the first post introduce yourself and your organisation or group and share your thoughts on forming or joining a “Coalition of Australian Men.”
We can then see where the discussion leads us, but I believe if our joint voices can finally be heard nationally as those of reason and egalitarianism, in the land of the fair go for all, perhaps our sons and daughters will enjoy a brighter future.
Please pass this message onto anyone you believe would be genuinely committed to such a cause.
Yours sincerely,
Dr. Greg Canning

Written byPaul Elam

388 POSTS IN TOTAL

Dad and Daughter singing "Home"..

2011-12-25T19:54:00.000-08:00

The Single Mother Effect on Little Boys..

2011-12-22T04:52:00.001-08:00

Single mothers attitude towards their sons is that he must take over the function of the future Husband. She views him as an object that is there to become a resource introducing entity. Single mothers see their sons as assets who should replace the father and provide her with what the husband should have provided..

It's a viscous cycle. Single Motherhood is the Problem..

Scum Manifesto Participants and other radicals..

2011-12-21T04:36:00.000-08:00

TUESDAY, DECEMBER 20, 2011

SCUM Conference Participants and other Radicals..

Perth SCUM Conference and it's connection to Australian Academia

The childish Beth Tinning

Between September 23-25th, 2011, two members of the radical feminist hub and radfem forum, Danielle Elina Pynnonen (Allecto) and her partner, Big Brother UK 5 contestant Kat "Kitten Pinder (Amazon Mancrusher) organized and hosted a three day feminist conference in Perth Australia that they called the 'SCUM Conference'.

They billed it as:

"THRILL SEEKING FEMALES UNITE! Life in this society being, at best, an utter bore, this THREE DAY RADICAL FEMINIST CONFERENCE is for civic-minded, responsible, thrill-seeking females who want to overthrow the government, eliminate the money system, institute complete automation and destroy the male sex. Workshops, guest presenters and social activities, plus a space to celebrate and re-member the life and work of Valerie Solanas and other radical feminists."

As you've seen in pervious articles, the people that frequent the Radfemhub and forum have often contemplated and discussed gendercide, male genital mutilation and advocating the abortion of male fetuses, among many other very disturbing activities. Valerie Solanas, the woman who this group has almost worship like admiration for, was the author of the SCUM Manifesto, never made it a secret about her feelings towards men. She wrote:

"Life in this society being, at best, an utter bore and no aspect of society being at all relevant to women, there remains to civic-minded, responsible, thrill-seeking females only to overthrow the government, eliminate the money system, institute complete automation and destroy the male sex."

In another passage she writes:

"Retaining the male has not even the dubious purpose of reproduction. The male is a biological accident: the y(male) chromosome is an incomplete x(female) chromosome, that is, has an incomplete set of chromosomes. In other words, the male is an incomplete female, a walking abortion, aborted at the gene stage. To be male is to be deficient, emotionally limited; maleness is a deficiency disease and males are emotional cripples."

Her writing seems to be in lock step with the very disturbing writings we have witnessed recently on the Radfem Hub and forum. And many would dismiss these people as wack-jobs, or insane or even the disturbed rantings of a few no-name sadistic people. Of course this isn't the case, as many of these women as we have seen are in positions of responsibility in the real world. But what about the guest speakers for the conference, the one's who also celebrated the life and work of Valerie Solanas? The sad, yet ugly truth is, that not only are these lecturers well known professors, authors and activists, but they also run in the same online circles with the very same women that advocate a desire for violence and death towards men.

While many of those who spoke have been smart enough to not talk about such ugly things as we have seen here online, (at least nothing that can be traced back to them) they are friends with these same groups of women on Facebook, guest post articles on the Radfem Hub and even comment on some of these women's individual blogs. Julie Anne LeComte on Canberra, Australia, the owner and administrator of the forum where most of the worst hate is espoused, goes by the online name Rain Lewis/Rainsinger/Raindancer.

A quick look at her Facebook page, as well as online forum discussions, that she, as well as Danielle Pynnonen(Allecto) and Kat Pinder(Amazon Mancrusher) personally know many of these professors, authors and activists. Just look at the speakers and some of the attendees of the 2008 Brisbane Feminist Conference. So just who were these speakers at the 2011 Perth SCUM conference that would openly associate with people that express a desire for gendercide?

Susan Hawthorne PhD

"Susan Hawthorne is the author of six collections of poetry, a novel, political theory and a quiz book. She is an Adjunct Professor in the Writing Program at James Cook University, Townsville. In 2009, Susan was an Asialink Literature Resident at the University of Madras, Chennai. She is also a publisher and Director of Spinifex Press and played a leading role among independent Australian publishers in innovative and eBook publishing."

James Cook University is the institution where Michael Flood, the well known pro-feminist professor teaches.

Dr. Abigail Bray

"Dr Abigail Bray is a research fellow at the Social Justice Research Centre at Edith Cowan University. She has published widely in leading international academic journals on anorexia, child sexual abuse, moral panics, and child pornography. She is the author of Hélène Cixous: Writing and Sexual Difference (2004) and Body Talk: A Power Guide for Girls (2005) with Elizabeth Reid Boyd"

Melinda Tankard Reist

"Melinda Tankard Reist is a Canberra author, speaker, commentator, blogger and advocate for women and girls. Melinda has just initiated a new grassroots campaigning movement called Collective Shout. It aims to expose corporations, advertisers and marketers who objectify women and sexualise girls to sell products and services. In demand as a speaker, Melinda is named in Who’s Who of Australian Women and the World Who’s Who of Women."

Dr. Betty McLellan

"A psychotherapist with over 20 years experience, Betty McLellan is the author ofHELP! I'm Living with a Man Boy, which has been translated in 12 languages. She is also the author of Overcoming Anxiety (1992) and Beyond Psychoppression (1995). She believes in the importance of honesty in relationships and works with women and men in individual and couple settings and facilitates groups for women and men separately and then together. She lives in Townsville, Queensland."

Dr. Gail Dines

"Gail Dines is professor of sociology and women's studies at Wheelock College. The author of two previous books and a regular commentator on TV and radio, Dines has been covered in Newsweek, Time, USA Today, the New York Times, Boston Globe, andPhiladelphia Inquirer. She lives in Brookline, Massachusetts."

Spider Redgold aka Spiderlily Redgold

"2005 Finalist Global Enterprise Architecture Excellence Award Zachmann Institute for Framework Advancement (http://www.zifa.org ) 2004 Elected Board member responsible for Education and certification Global Enterprise Architecture Organisation (http://www.geao.org) 2003 included on the Pioneers Women's Hall of Fame Quilt for Contribution to Women and Technology http://www.pioneerwomen.com.au/quiltsigs.htm 1999 Elected Board member and Vice President for one of Queensland's leading industry organisations - Women In Information Technology (WIT) Inc [1999-2002] 1998 - finalist (and runner up) in the Australian Institute of Management QLD Innovator of the Year Awards. 1996 Keynote Presenter at South Korean Summit on "Women and Informationalisation of the workforce"

And some of the other speakers?

Christine Sitka

Christine is a well know writer, speaker and activist in Australia who works with the Victorian Women’s Liberation and Lesbian Feminist Archives Inc.

Ryl Harrison

Ryl is a PhD Canidate at James Cook University in Townsville Australia

Samantha Berg

Samantha is the National Coordinator for the feminist organization Stop Porn Culture.

And of course:

Julie Anne LeComte (aka Rain Lewis/Rainsinger/Rainsong)

Julie Anne LeComte, the owner and operator of the Radfem forums also is the Communications Coordinator for the French-Australian Chamber of Commerce. She is also recognized as a nationwide leader for Australian women's rights activism. In 2006, Dr. Browyn Winter, Associate Professor at the University of Sydney wrote a piece on White Ribbon Day for the Australian Website On Line Opinion. At the end of the piece, Dr. Winter, who is Facebook friends with Danielle Pynnonen (Allecto) as well as LeComte, listed out what she felt were the most prominent feminist and women's organization names in Australia. Julie Anna LeComte was one such name. More importantly than that though is the question, are some of the other names listed connected to the group of radical feminists who frequently discuss how to reduce the male population through gendercide?

Well, let's just say that the rabbit hole of radical feminists in positions of public trust does not just stop with just these women. More on that later, but I'll leave you all with a question; When the Australian government wants input on new legislation concerning sexual assault, domestic violence or special assistance for women only, who do you think they turn to for expert opinions?

Just as a post-script, which we will expand on further in a later article, several of these woman that are members of the Radfem Hub are frequent commenters on many of the "mainstream" online feminist blogs and sites. Some of the mainstream feminists are well aware of these people, and indeed even Hugo Schwyzer has written two articles on one of the Radfem Hub admins, a person known as FCM (Factcheckme) of the blog Femonade, saying FCM makes "some very important points that deserve responses." We won't publish FCM's identity just yet (hello Mindy), but more to come on that later.

RAPE, Rape and more rape..

2011-12-21T04:21:00.001-08:00

A self explaining video for ManWomanMyth site that once again explains the need for feminists to treat women as total morons and children as well..

Needless to say, there does not appear to be any opposition to that claim, I am waiting for them to catch up on the irony..

Radical Feminists, Male Hate and Men's Sheds..

2011-12-14T19:27:00.000-08:00

Why Do Radical Feminists Want to Destroy Men's Sheds..

Scum Manifesto and Agent Orange..

The Men's Shed innovation was a boon for locals alike. It gave an opportunity for men to spend time learning new interests while at the same time, help the local community and individuals who would like to learn a few new tricks. Lately, more sheds have been showing up over Australia, New Zealand and in the UK. Community groups see the value of these sheds as not only being mentoring centres for the younger generation but help others in DIY methods, with a little bit of hands on..

So what about men's sheds..

WHAT IS A MEN’S SHED? The modern Men’s Shed is an updated version of the shed in the backyard that has long been a part of Australian culture. Men’s Sheds are springing up all around Australia. If you looked inside one you might see a number of men restoring furniture, perhaps restoring bicycles for a local school, maybe making Mynah bird traps or fixing lawn mowers or making a kids cubby house for Camp Quality to raffle.

As you can see, they are used for numerous reasons to help the local community and also "show by example", to install a sense of helping others and teach the younger generation all about caring and sharing within their local community. One would imagine that the inclusion of men's sheds locally and in the local community would be a positive and well supported innovation that demonstrates what supporting local communities is all about. Many people have already praised their efforts and how that help is appreciated. It's basically a two way method that has helped both parties..

Why Do Radical Feminists Want to Destroy Men's Sheds ?

To whose benefit would it be to promote their destruction and one must also ask what their motives are. If the Men's Sheds were introduced to encourage community involvement as well as ensuring health benefits for the people participating, one would think that they are great help, but not according to radical feminists..

Here are some comments from the RADFEM HUB forum (Radical Feminist Forum) where radical feminists are promoting the destruction of those Men's Sheds..

Here are a few example -

And some additional comments taken form that same site..

helzeph wrote:
I wonder if we could lock them in their permanently. Or could we blow them up and call it "a service to the community".

helzeph

"Broad-thinking innovation" delphyne.
Allecto thanks for seconding the initiative. You could paint the at night, with slogans about the importance of women's refuges and how men are stealing their funding. Then apply for an arts grant.

Amazon Mancrusher

Hmmmm what about the women in the community who aspire to live in a community without men?
...Im involved in a feminist group

allecto

"helzeph wrote:
sheds I wonder if we could lock them in their permanently. Or could we blow
them up and call it "a service to the community". "

Yea!

Radical feminists obviously see this as an achievable goal, they have put it forward as a proposal, put forward as a motion and seconded it. the option of destroying or defacing Men's Sheds is their latest hate-fest goal..

However, it does become an issue when we have a group of people raging against half of the population on the planet and deliberately planning their destruction and removal.
Copious information has been secured from these Radical Feminists sites to demonstrate beyond doubt that they are past just thinking about that or talking about it. We have already shown you the lunatic ranting of the author Pamela O'Shaughnessy and her wish to eliminate the male population via use of eugenics plus promoting genocide as another option. These radical feminists need to be exposed and we will expose them and tell you who they really are and let society decide what to do with these male-hating fanatics..

We have been given inside information from a net investigator, by the name of "Agent Orange". Agent Orange has infiltrated those sites and exposed their murderous intentions, their identities, the positions they occupy in public and private. These radicals are part of the community in which they live but secretly meet to discuss and plan the annihilation of millions or men and boys, your Fathers, Sons and Husbands, in order to satisfy their own psychotic tendencies..

These people are radical feminists, they are an active part of the Feminist Movement (the feminist hegemony) that feminists in general refuse to refute, refuse to condemn and also refuse to disassociate themselves from. These murderous, callous, hateful feminists are part of the same organisation and doctrine who claim to be working for "equality". These are the same people who claim that feminism will saves the planet, change everyone's life for the better and increase the equity between the sexes to make it a "fairer" world. They lied about that in the 1960s and they are lying about that right now..

As we have stated all along, feminism is a hate movement and it promotes hate and here we finally witness feminists admitting and confessing their hate, promoting genocide, planning terrorism and encouraging societal chaos..

Here we have a poster from like minded radicals from that same hate movement and their call to anarchy, genocide and terrorism. This Scum Manifesto Conference was held in Western Australia on the 23-25 September where they planned to "Overturn the Government, Eliminate the Money System and Destroy the Male Sex". This conference went for three days and included "guest" feminist speakers attending to encourage the members attending to look at and discuss actions they plan take to fulfil their goals and aims..

Needless to say that they are quite serious about their misandry, their violent intentions and plans to exterminate men as the Scum Manifesto" originally called for. SCUM (The Society for Cutting Up Men) is what it stands for, it is a total hatefest generated by a psychotic female who tried to murder Andy Warhol. Shot him as well as Mario Amaya, causing Warhol major pain and agony for years till his death. He died in 1987..

On June 3, 1968, Valerie Solanas shot Warhol as well as art critic and curator Mario Amaya at Warhol's studio.^[26] Before the shooting, Solanas had been a marginal figure in the Factory scene. Warhol died in New York City at 6:32 a.m. on February 22, 1987

http://www.womynkind.org/scum.htm

Feminists have never disowned SCUM Manifesto but instead glorified Solanas as a hero for women's rights and they continue to educate other women with this psychotics murderous ramblings and unsurpassed hate against men..

Single-(Mothers)parent families are disastrous..

2011-12-08T17:33:00.001-08:00

Now we have proof that abolishing parental rights and encouraging single-parent families was disastrous: the disaster has happened

What was done by design can be undone the same way. But will there be enough political determination to do it?

By William Oddie on Monday, 15 August 2011

A 12-year-old boy leaves Manchester magistrates court last week (PA wire)

Last Thursday, in an article snappily entitled “Why didn’t the looters’ parents know where they were? Why didn’t they teach them about right and wrong? Answer: society has undermined the family”, I quoted Fr Finigan saying that “For several decades our country has undermined marriage, the family, and the rights of parents… Now all of a sudden, we want parents to step in and tell their teenage children how to behave”, and Melanie Phillips pointing to “family breakdown and mass fatherlessness” as one of the principal underlying causes of the riots and looting of last week.

I concluded (and I don’t apologise for returning to this theme now: a lot more needs to be said about it, and now is the time to say it) that of all the things the government now needs to do, “it’s the married family which is the institution that needs rebuilding most urgently”.

I am as certain of that as anything I have ever written, and I’ve been saying it for over 20 years: I was saying it, for instance, when I was attacking (in the Mail and also the Telegraph) as it went through the Commons the parliamentary bill which became that disastrous piece of (Tory) legislation called the Children Act 1989, which abolished parental rights (substituting for them the much weaker “parental responsibility”), which encouraged parents not to spend too much time with their children, which even preposterously gave children the right to take legal action against their parents for attempting to discipline them, which made it “unlawful for a parent or carer to smack their child, except where this amounts to ‘reasonable punishment’;” and which specified that “Whether a ‘smack’ amounts to reasonable punishment will depend on the circumstances of each case taking into consideration factors like the age of the child and the nature of the smack.” If the child didn’t think it “reasonable” he could go to the police. It was an Act which, in short, deliberately weakened the authority of parents over their children and made the state a kind of co-parent.

There are, of course, many other causes for the undermining of the married family (which David Cameron says he now wants to rebuild). Divorce, from the 1960s on, became progressively easier and easier to obtain. Another cause has been the insidious notion (greatly encouraged by successive governments but particularly under New Labour – Old Labour tended to be much more traditional in its views on the family) that the family has many forms, that marriage is just one option, and that lone parenting is just as “valid” (dread word) a form as any other. If you thought that voluntary lone parenting should be discouraged, rather than (as it was) positively encouraged by the taxation and benefits system, you were practically written off as a fascist.

Well, all this relativist rubbish has now been comprehensively shown by its consequences to have been dangerous drivel all along; and I am discovering that to be able to say “I told you so” is under the circumstances not at all as enjoyable as I had thought it might be: any satisfaction is of a very grim kind.

But it is now beyond any doubt, and we need to say so now, to nail the lies that have been spouted for the last 40 years once and for all. The conclusive proof of the existence and the effects of the widespread breakdown of parental responsibility (even where there are two parents) and also of the catastrophic consequences of the encouragement of lone parenting was to be found on the front page of the Times on Saturday, in an article to which I can’t give a link since you can’t get it online. I will have to summarise and quote extensively.

The headline was “Judge asks: where are the parents of rioters?” and it opens as follows:

Parents who refuse to take responsibility for children accused of criminal offences were condemned by a judge yesterday who demanded to know why the mother of a 14-year-old girl in the dock over the looting of three shops was not in court.
District Judge Elizabeth Roscoe was incredulous when told that the girl’s parents were too busy to see their daughter appear before City of Westminster magistrates after she was accused of offences during the violent disorder in London this week. She said that many parents “don’t seem to care” that their children were in court facing potentially lengthy custodial sentences.
Her comments echoed those a day earlier by District Judge Jonathan Feinstein when he highlighted the absence of parents at hearings in Manchester. “The parents have to take responsiblity for this child – apart from one case I have not seen any father or mother in court,” he said.

The Times had been conducting an investigation into the cause of the riots, and interviews with young people and community workers on estates across London revealed “deep concerns about the lack of parental authority”. Youth workers said that mothers (presumably in such cases there are no fathers) are “too terrified of their own children to confront them and often turn a blind eye to cash or stolen goods brought home”. Lone parenthood, it emerges, is in fact a primary cause of the August riots (as they are beginning to be called):

An analysis by the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) found that, among other factors linking the 18 areas worst hit by public disorder, is a high rate of single-parent families and broken homes.

And in an interview with the Times today, Shaun Bailey, a youth worker recently appointed as the Government’s “Big Society” czar, argues that childraising has been “nationalised”.

Of the defendants who appeared before magistrates in Westminster yesterday accused of riot crimes across London, half were aged under 18, but few parents attended the hearings, even though their children had been in police custody for up to two days.
One member of the court’s staff said: “I can’t recall seeing any of the parents down here”… A boy of 15 was accused of looting a JD Sports shop in Barking, East London. A 17-year-old student from East London was also accused of receiving £10,000 of mobile phones, cigarettes and clothing looted from Tesco. The items and small quantity of cannabis were discovered in his bedroom at the family home… community workers admitted that broken families often led to children taking to crime.

One youth worker, who has helped children in Lambeth, south London, for 20 years, told the Times that single mothers were often scared of their sons. “They would not challenge them if they came home with stolen goods,” the worker, who did not wish to be named, said.

“In some cases these young men steal more than their mother earns or gets in benefit. They become the father figure, the main earner.” Young men echo the lack of authority. “My mum can’t tell me what to do,” said Lee, 18, from Copley Court, an estate in West Ealing. “It’s the same with young kids. Most of their dads left early on and they don’t listen to anyone.”

There isn’t much more to be said: all one can do is repeat oneself. We now know what rubbish it is to deny that lone parenthood should be avoided wherever possible. As for marriage, study after study has shown that from the point of view of the child it is the best and most stable basis for the family. In the 50s, everyone, including governments of all colours, knew that marriage was the foundation of social stability: and a man whose wife stayed at home to look after the children didn’t pay any tax at all until he was earning the average national wage.

That whole dispensation was blown apart by the accursed supposed “liberation” of the 60s, and by political ideologies of various kinds, not least by radical feminism. There was nothing inevitable about it: it was done by deliberate political design. And what political design can do, political design can undo. It’s more difficult – much more difficult – of course and it can’t be done overnight. David Cameron, to be fair, does seem to see some of this (IDS sees even more).

But does he have the political determination actually to do it? We shall see. I am hopeful; I always am at first. But I greatly fear that as month succeeds month, even my own tendency towards sunny optimism will begin first to flag and then to die. And this time, I don’t want to be able to say “I told you so”.

Gender 101: The Female-Only Assumption of Innocence..

2011-07-10T03:24:00.000-07:00

Gender 101: The Female-Only Assumption of Innocence

by Connie Chastain*

The Internet is abuzz with the Casey Anthony verdict and I'm not really surprised to see that I'm not the only one viewing the murder of little Caylee, the trial and the verdict in light of feminism's influence on western culture. Being a rightwing extremist, I tend to agree with those who assign feminism a great deal of responsibility for social pathologies such as those demonstrated in this case.
One of the best columns I've read connecting our culture's callousness toward children and the feminist sacrament of abortion is found at the ultra-right American Thinker. In an article titled The Bitter Fruit of Caylee's Death, author Jeannie DeAngelis makes many salient points, but one that really struck me was this: Many murdering mothers are acquitted, "... which is indicative of a chilling truth that a mother murdering her own child is not nearly as offensive anymore as a child being murdered by a stranger. Who can deny this has a direct connection to the approbation our society gives to women who rid themselves of their child before birth?
And who believes, as I do, that this story would have unfolded iquite differently n the media if a man had been accused of murdering little Caylee? We would be subjected to unending diatribes about the violence of men against women and children.
Would be? We are, constantly. Although in recent years, it has become known that women instigate domestic violence against men, male victims are given little sympathy by society and violence perpetrated by females against males given scant attention. Women are badly injured, while men aren't hurt all that bad. Men who abuse are controllers and manipulators. Women who abuse are ill or disturbed. This is also true for mothers who murder.
I'm not saying there aren't any bad men. There are. But under feminist influence our society doesn't acknowledge the occasional bad man; it identifies maleness itself as bad, even though the vast majority of men do nothing wrong. Women, on the other hand, are basically good and decent and occasionally do bad things through little or no fault of their own.
This is the premise behind claims of rape culture. It is feminists holding men who do not rape responsible, in some measure, for those who do. It is the premise behind excuses given to women who falsely accuse men of rape. And it is why I believe things would have gone down very differently had the accused in Caylee's murder been a man.
However, as with so many other feminist assertions palmed off on our culture, this one has a reliable and realistic counter assertion that neutralizes the assumption of male evil. I'm talking about the Bureau of Justice Statistics charts on Child Maltreatment -- Fatalities by Perpetrator Relationship, 2003. The charts clearly indicate that mothers only are the perpetrator in 30.5% of cases, fathers only in 18.2%
http://www.acf.hhs.g...3/figure4_2.htm
http://www.acf.hhs.g...03/table4_5.htm
Now let me make it clear that I don't know whether Casey Anthony murdered her child and I'm not going to try to second guess the jury. But that's not my point, anyway. My point is that feminism has skewed the application of justice based on their victim-view of human history and an obsessive drive to get even for oppression that's largely imaginary.
Until we come to our senses, men can expect continued demonization, and excuses will be made for women who commit crimes, even the most heinous.
http://www.americant...lees_death.html
*Connie is an FRS contributor. Her personal blog is http://conniechastain.blogspot.com/
http://falserapesoci...umption-of.html

Thomas Ball: Mercessly Hounded by the Family Court System..

2011-06-24T01:42:00.000-07:00

Beware of Toxic Pussy..

2011-06-23T18:08:00.001-07:00

Dodging A Bullet

Written By Oxygenthief

I met Angela about 4 years ago through a friend. He suggested we go for drinks one night, and happened to bring along a couple of female friends from his day job. Angela initially seemed nice enough, if a little loud, but as the alcohol flowed, that became less important to me. There was certainly no indication of the cloven hoof that would eventually be revealed. The four of us left the bar we were in and ended up at a rather packed club full of the typical Friday night crowd. There was lots of drinking, provocative dress and dirty dancing.

It was at this point that Angela first seemed to take an interest in me, and decided to tell the world about it by grinding up and down against me in time to the music. To be honest I should have realised at that point how the whole sorry tale would eventually unfold and got the hell out of there, but I was young and naive and my hormones were raging. Instead, I encouraged her behaviour. Before I knew it, the lights of the club were coming on and I was left wondering where we would go from there. She instantly rebuffed the idea of me going home with her. Apparently her father was staying at her house... babysitting her daughter. That revelation was truly a blow. Nevertheless, she made it clear that sex of a casual nature was definitely available, should I choose to accept it. I don't know why I didn’t run. I really don't. All I can offer by way of explanation for my dogged determination is the age-old adage that pussy is indeed a powerful thing, and at that point I thought I could see the finishing line in sight. Single motherhood should be a massive warning sign to every single guy, but sometimes the only way we learn is to discover for ourselves just why it's toxic.

The following week, the friend who had introduced us explained that he had spoken to Angela, and had arranged for us both to go round there. The intention of course, was that I would screw Angela, and my friend would get involved with one of her friends. We excitedly drove around to her house, but when we arrived, the door was answered by her 4-year-old daughter! I could feel any sexual appetite I might have had fast dissipating from my body as I hesitantly asked "hello, is mummy home?". That should have been the signal to bail - sending your daughter to answer the door for a man who was coming round simply to screw you is pretty classless. I was losing heart and could only manage to sit down and make small talk for 20 minutes before my friend and I both lost our nerve and left.

Despite this, I still didn’t give up and found myself talking to Angela regularly over MSN Messenger. This time, I arranged for her to leave her daughter with her father the following week. We planned to meet in town before having a few drinks and then going back to her place for the night. Whilst talking on MSN, we got onto the subject of previous relationships. I jokingly asked if any of her ex-boyfriends could provide references for her. She excitedly replied "yeah, all 40 of them!". I was finding myself more repulsed by the minute. Still, unbelievably, I pressed on like some sort of sex-mad kamikaze.

I turned up at the arranged time for drinks at a bar in the centre of town. The friend who had introduced us turned up to watch the train wreck in action. Unfortunately, Angela was raving drunk even before I'd arrived. When I commented on this, she happily informed me that she had not been so drunk since the weekend before she met me, when she had climbed on stage at a strip club in a drunken stupor and stripped for the assembled punters. I think I might have thrown up a little in my mouth, but could find no way to gracefully exit the situation. Making our way inside, we found that the horny young males were out in force that evening. Angela wasted no time in taking advantage of this by dirty dancing with them as they crowded around her, fighting for her favour. I declinded to join in. For her part, Angela was constantly looking over at me to see if I was getting jealous. At this point, I could no longer deny the mess I had been slowly getting myself into over the last few weeks. I decided that the men trying desperately to get Angela's attention were welcome to her. With that, I said goodbye to my friend and quite literally escaped out of the club's fire exit.

Half an hour after leaving, Angela she called my mobile, but I wisely let it go to voicemail. I played the message back. She sounded completely hysterical and was clearly in tears. She complained, in between her sobs, that she was outside the club waiting for me and had no idea where I had gone. She couldn’t believe that I had abandoned her. Hearing that message, I knew I had done the right thing. Worse was to follow, however, and it would truly vindicate my decision to get out while I still could.

Half an hour after the first call I received another. Once again, I let it go to voicemail and then played it back. This time, Angela's voice was cold, deliberate and brutally calculating. She started by insulting my penis size (which she had never seen) before going on to tell me that she hoped that I got knifed by a load of black guys showing up on my doorstep. I was also informed that if that failed to happen, then she wished me a slow and agonising death through cancer. Receiving death threats from a 28-year-old single mother simply because I had had the nerve to reject her is certainly one of the stranger experiences I have had in my life. It also seems that women, no matter how sweet and lovely you may think they are, do not take rejection well. At all.

BBC: Lying About Fathers, AGAIN..

2011-03-20T05:16:00.000-07:00

We can always rely on the feminist controlled BBC to continuously LIE about anything male and here we have another example..

Fatherhood Foundation praise for BBC4
from antimisandry.com by Percy
Fron the FF Newsletter In Oz.

Quote:
I have always felt that our society is at a tipping point when it comes to fatherhood. I can remember standing up in Parliament House at the very first Nations Strategic Conference on Fatherhood NSCF and saying very much in faith that what we were doing would become mainstream in Australian society in the years to come. I said at the time there would be dozens of fatherhood groups forming because a fatherless generation would awaken and begin to look for what had been missing for the last several decades.

I have to be honest, not all of what I said has come to pass. We have a 100% increase in fatherhood groups and websites. But I thought it would be more like 500%. Having said that, what I didn't foresee is the enormous interest in fatherhood through popular media and particularly TV. I have lost count of the multiplication of fatherhood and parenting TV shows and documentaries including shows like the hugely popular 'Find My Family' which has been one of the most popular shows on TV. The explosion of interest and promotion for fatherhood has come from television and film producers. This in itself has been incredible.

What has really blown me away is what happened in the UK last year where BBC Four, one of the main BBC outlets, ran a whole season on fatherhood during which they ran 12 different programmes on fatherhood. Some of these were in a series like 'A century of Fatherhood' and the 'Biology of Dads'. Others were single programmes all held to the theme on fatherhood which was extraordinary in itself if you understand anything about the politics of the BBC. Perhaps the blog by Richard Klein who is the director of BBC Four best tells the story about this amazing TV project.

"I remember the day my father died. I was suddenly aware that there was no ceiling above me, just the heavens, and I realised that I too would someday die.

Not the cheeriest start to your Father's Day reading and it gets bleaker before (I promise) some sunshine. I then had to go to Germany to sort out a flat that my father kept in the small north Schleswig Holstein town where we grew up. I dreaded going.

But it was there between the tears that I began to feel better. Because, perhaps for the first time, I began see the father that this man really was. He had kept every payslip, every school report, every photo of his life and the lives of his family.

I saw that this detached, quite difficult and certainly non-hugging man was every bit a loving, concerned and conscientious father who had seen as paramount in his life the task of dutiful father."

Over the next three weeks BBC Four is running a Fatherhood season celebrating fathers and the concept of fatherhood.

BBC Four prides itself on attaching a new lens to familiar subject matter and stimulating viewers to reconsider that world through a different prism. Call it intelligent television entertainment.

So this season highlights the story of a revolution that hasn't been celebrated enough. But it also recalibrates the story of fathers in what might seem a rather counter-intuitive way.

Contrary to popular myth fathers have always been involved, interested and caring about their families.

What attracted me to creating the season is how the 20th century has seen enormous changes in family life, the role of parents, the role of women and so forth - including my one (I am divorced and a single father).

But it has also seen an extraordinary change in the role of fathers. Or at least that's what you'd think reading the avalanche of magazine articles and opinion pieces that take a view on useless dads, absent dads and, more recently, new dads.

Judging by some newspaper yardsticks dads are either too stupid to tie their own shoelaces or too awful to be let near children. Sometimes both.

Countering this view of cruel idiocy is also a sense that the modern father has finally come home, got in touch with his inner self and embraced his family, ending up walking off in the sunset, children in his arms, possibly weeping gently with the emotion of it all, but at long last a part of the family - and now no longer the ogre, the distance, cold authority figure that we all know is what they used to be before we discovered, wait for it, ourselves.

But according to producer Steve Humphries in his heartwarming three-part documentary series A Century of Fatherhood, that view is simply wrong. Fathers were always close to their families when they could be.

They were always striving to provide the best they could for their children. And they were approachable, generous men who were much loved - not feared - by their sons and daughters.

And perhaps the most radical idea Humphries proposes is that the cold detached Edwardian father is a myth, that fathers then were as committed to their duties as fathers as any other generation and that they created loving and warm close personal attachments to their children.

Professor Joanna Burke comments in the programme: "The image we have of fathers in the past is absolutely, totally wrong. If you actually look at dads in the past the vast majority are loving, warm fathers."

Your Baby Boy is NOW a Rapist..

2011-02-08T23:42:00.001-08:00

Your Baby Boy is a Rapist..

When I came across this bit of malice all I could see was red..

How the hell does that type of male-hating propaganda ever get any air time is beyond me but at least it's another example of what we as MRA's are constantly up against. Just when you are of the opinion that it could not get any worse, it does..

Anyone wanting to take their time to abuse this fucker you have my blessing, no threats though, just give em! your considered opinion..

Bastards like that need to be flushed like feminists should..

Josh Jasper's Hate Campaign and What to do About it.
By Paul Elam

Link..

The progress of the MM has not only been one of attracting more numbers to our ranks, but also a refinement of our understanding of the issues we face and the sources of our problems. As time passes there is more and more a recognition of the difficulties we face with other men, as opposed to just women and feminists.
Nowhere in recent times is this more evident than with Josh Jasper's recent “anti-rape” video that has been making the rounds. With this one release Josh has scaled the scumbag ladder and is vying for top position.
My view puts him two rungs ahead of Michael Kimmel, licking the heels of Joe Biden’s Ferragamo’s.
I won’t bother with a detailed analysis of the video. If the concept of res ipsa loquitor ever sufficed, this is it.
To wit:

In response to this piece of misandric garbage (that applies to his video, too) MRA Sound Guru Keyster has responded with vigor. Again res ipsa loquitor applies:

As succinct and devastating an indictment of Jasper’s “work” as Keyster has provided, I am not satisfied.
I want more. This man deserves consequences for his actions.
Some history on Josh is known. We know he was a marine and we also know that he was a Los Angeles police officer. Two areas for sure where the capacity for violence is a plus. Add to that the fact that he was on a Domestic Violence task force and this bad apple starts to stink a little more.
We know something else about him, too. When the going gets tough, he gets going…to his phone to call 911. After The Spearhead shined a little light on his misandric efforts, he is now alleging that he is getting death threats. I know this begs for a "poor baby" pun, but this fucker has me feeling anything but playful.
Anyway, my money is on the idea that he is just hamming it up for the media like a lying New York weathergirl who is crying rape, for attention that he ultimately hopes to translate into publicity for his company and the sympathy bucks that come with it.
But let’s set his whiney histrionics aside for the time being. Better not to be diverted from issues that may prove to be of real importance.
Anyone want to take any bets on whether this alpha puke ever busted heads as a cop, simply because he could? It leaves one to wonder - especially given the intellectual violence he is so obviously willing to inflict on male children - just what sort of skeletons are in this douche bag's closet.
If they are there, I would love to get my hands on them and rattle them together for the world to hear.
So, for any of you MRA’s living in or near The City of Angels, please consider a visit to the LAPD, and accompany yourself with the Freedom of Information Act. Or, even better, any of you that have access to a P.I., please consider his fee to dig up what is legitimately there on this man to be your lifelong donation to the MRM.
If there is dirt on this wannabe Silverback, and I think there likely is, it would benefit all of us to spread it everywhere in the universe it will stick- hopefully the first place that will happen would be on the face of his company.
What you come up with needs to be verifiable. I don’t want to commit a civil offense against him, no matter how deserving he is. But I pledge now to use every resource at my disposal to take any embarrassing, disgraceful detail of this misandric lowlifes life, and use it to cripple his ability to continue with this kind of evil.

Evolution of Dad..

2010-11-26T15:24:00.000-08:00

Link..

Our war against children

2010-10-26T23:45:00.000-07:00

Our war against children

by Bill Muehlenberg
Link..
October 20, 2010

There are many thousands of studies which have appeared over the past four to five decades showing quite clearly how absolutely important biological mothers and fathers are to the well-being of their children. Study after study has shown that no other factor is more vital to the healthy development of children than having a mum and a dad.

It is a full time job just keeping up with all this social science research. Let me mention one of the most recent studies, this one from the UK. A major study of around 14,000 children born in Britain between 2000 and 2002 found that children in single-parent families behave the worse. Kids brought up by one parent were twice as likely to display behaviour problems early on as those raised by both natural parents.

The research is part of the on-going Millennium Cohort Study, funded by the Economic and Social Research Council. As Lisa Calderwood from London University’s Institute of Education explained: “Living apart from natural fathers can be associated with poverty and negative outcomes for children.”

This study simply reflects the findings of so many previous studies. By every indicator, children do better when raised by their own biological parent. No other family structure comes close in terms of positive outcomes. Yet the radicals and social engineers want to pretend this research simply does not exist.

But the massive amount of data is far too solid and substantial to simply wish away. Indeed, whole books have been written just seeking to summarise the huge amount of social science on this issue. I too have been collecting and summarising the data over the years. Here is just a small sampling of previous research findings.

As far as problematic behaviour goes, many others studies have found the same results. Drug involvement is one such negative behaviour. A New Zealand study of nearly 1000 children observed over a period of 15 years found that children who have watched their parents separate are more likely to use illegal drugs than those whose parents stay together.

Fathers play a particularly important role in prevention of drug use. A UCLA study concluded that, although “mothers are more active than fathers in helping youngsters with personal problems...with regard to youthful drug users, [the] father’s involvement is more important.” Among the homes with strict fathers, only 18 per cent used alcohol or drugs at all. In contrast, among mother-dominated homes, 35 per cent had children who used drugs frequently.

Criminal involvement is another area where the role of both parents becomes so vital. A longitudinal study of 512 Australian children found that there are more offenders coming from families of cohabiting than married couples, and there are proportionally more offenders who become recidivists coming from families of cohabiting than married couples.

The Centre for Independent Studies in Sydney compared crime rates with out-of-wedlock birth rates. It found that the “percentage of ex-nuptial births correlates significantly with both serious and violent crime at both one and two decades time lapse”.

Or consider a major study which analysed victimisation data on over 11,000 individuals from three urban areas in New York, Florida and Missouri. The researchers arrived at this startling conclusion: the proportion of single-parent households in a community predicts its rates of violent crime and burglary, but the community’s poverty level does not. Neither poverty nor race seem to account very much for the crime rate, compared to the proportion of single parent families.

Mental health problems also worsen when children are not raised by their mother and father. A study of the preschool children admitted to two New Orleans hospitals as psychiatric patients over a 34-month period found that nearly 80 per cent came from fatherless homes.

A Canadian study of teenagers discharged from psychiatric hospitals found that only 16 per cent were living with both parents when they were admitted. From nations as diverse as Finland and South Africa, a number of studies have reported that anywhere from 50 to 80 per cent of psychiatric patients come from broken homes.

Another study found that children in stepfamilies typically experience far less favourable emotional lives compared to children in intact families. Their study concluded: “Children in stepfamilies had more behavior problems, less prosocial behavior, and more life stress than children in nuclear families.”

Problems with sexuality are also compounded. Children from mother-only families are more likely to marry early and have children early, both in and out of wedlock, and are more likely to divorce. Also, age at the first marriage will be lower for the children of divorced parents who marry, when sex, age, and maternal education are controlled.

Studies from many different cultures have found that girls raised without fathers are more like to be sexually active, and to start early sexual activity. Father-deprived girls “show precocious sexual interest, derogation of masculinity and males, and poor ability to maintain sexual and emotional adjustment with one male”.

As an example, a British study by Kathleen Kiernan found that girls brought up by lone parents were twice as likely to leave home by the age of 18 as the daughters of intact homes; were three times as likely to be cohabiting by the age of 20; and almost three times as likely to have a birth out of wedlock.

This is just a tiny fraction of the available evidence, looking at just a few key social indicators. Other areas can also be mentioned, such as educational performance, the likelihood of committing suicide, and so on. In every key area, children suffer and are worse off when not raised by their own mother and father.

Yet the homosexual activists and other social engineers keep telling us that family structure has absolutely nothing to do with the well-being of children. There are only two reasons they might say this: they are either woefully ignorant about a half century of social science research, or they are simply lying big time in order to push their activist agendas.

For the sake of our children, we should tell these radicals to just butt out. This is unlikely however, so we must remain vigilant, and continue to promote the truth of this research in the public arena.

Junk Food and Childhood Obesity..

2010-10-06T18:39:00.000-07:00

Apart from the fact that feminist dogmatic intrusion in the classroom where they are trying to teach boys how to be girls, with all the support from Julia Gillard and the Labor government..

To top off the lack of exercise with the combination of "I ain't cooking that cause I am too busy", you produce the situation that has been loaded with millions of disbelievers to fight against it's inevitability..

You have to brn off what you consume, it's that simple..

All we need is some honesty from the feminists admitting that it is fine to walk your kids or they can walk themselves to school instead of all that scaremongering taking place regarding sex abuse of children which is normally a "at home" issue rather than what they make it out to be and it's mostly by mothers which is something else they try to hide..

Now they have to produce ads that are questionable in their affect instead of educating mothers to actually allow kids to play sport or run around the local park..

Fathers have earned the right to equality in their children’s lives’..

2010-09-24T01:19:00.001-07:00

Barbara Kay: ‘Fathers have earned the right to equality in their children’s lives’
By Robert Franklin, Esq. | Thu, Sep 23 2010, 01:43 PM
Many times before I've lauded the National Post's Barbara Kay, and with good reason. Time and again, she's that sensible, fair, fact-based voice for fathers' rights in family courts. She's that refreshingly reasonable writer who sees the obvious - that fathers' rights are about more than fathers; they're about children and mothers too. We in the fathers' rights movement hammer away at those concepts daily, but often without Kay's clarity.
Barbara Kay has consistently seen the wisdom and justice of fathers' rights and done her part to back us. But with this article, she's done more than that (National Post, 9/22/10).  Put simply, fathers' rights advocates should copy her piece as many times as necessary and send it to every elected official, everyone in child protective services, every judge, every counsellor, everyone administering child support, every cop, every guardian ad litem.  Send it to your friends and neighbors.
Then we should call them up - every single one of them - and ask "did you read it? What are you going to do?"
Here in the United States, it's easy to see the political system, not as a catalyst for, but as an obstacle to, needed change. I suspect the same is true in Canada. From the beginning of our self-government, those who governed mistrusted the masses. Elites believed the people (unlike themselves apparently) to be shortsighted, passionate and irresponsible. Not surprisingly, they saw themselves to be necessary to correct the deficiencies they saw in those who were not them.
And so it is today. Is the war in Afghanistan unpopular? Too bad, it must go on.  Did the Wall Street bail out enrage popular sentiment? Tough luck; our betters issued their decree and that was that.
As Kay suggests, pretty much the same thing is going on in Canada regarding equally shared parenting.
A National Post poll indicated that 91% of its readership supported equal custody as an alternative to sole custody determination, and a recent poll by the federal government has 80% of the public, from every political persuasion, supporting equal parenting.
Not only that, but last month the Canadian Green Party announced its backing for Maurice Vellacott's equal parenting bill that's now before Parliament. As Kay writes,
By my reckoning that means every single federal party is on board with the idea that both parents have the right to maintain a strong, loving bond with their children...
Shared parenting is right, it's good for kids and parents alike, it's fair and society would benefit in countless ways from its prevalence.  There is no cogent argument against it which is why the only one usually raised is the fact-free, threadbare claim that shared parenting would mean more abused children. In fact, the opposite is true because (a) mothers do more abuse and neglect than do fathers as years of data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services show and (b) single mothers' boyfriends are far more likely than fathers to injure children.
And yet, lawmakers are too timid to do what needs to be done.  Apparently in thrall to the gender feminist narrative of history that time and again has proven to be at odds with the facts, they're like a cow in a ditch - unwilling and unable to budge.
It is time to do simple justice; at long last, it is time to turn away from the false, anti-father rhetoric of the past and act for the benefit of all. It is time for the Canadian parliament to enact Maurice Vellacott's bill C-422. It is time for judges to implement the changes to child custody the bill requires.
And when all that happens, we can count on Barbara Kay to cheer.

The cruelty of women who use children as weapons in divorce..

2010-09-22T08:29:00.000-07:00

Distraught: Many divorced fathers describe the loss of their children as 'an emotional amputation' or 'a living bereavement'

The cruelty of women who use children as weapons in divorce

By Harriet Sergeant
22nd September 2010

About ten years ago, I was standing in my son's junior school classroom. The teacher had stuck up on the wall the best essays on the topic: 'How I Spent Last Weekend.' One caught my attention.
Not for this little boy a visit to the zoo or the excitement of a football game. Instead, he had chronicled a weekend's battle between his divorcing parents.
'Mum calls dad names on the phone,' he had written in his laborious handwriting. 'We had cake for tea. My sister and I cry.' The teacher caught my eye. She had put up that story on purpose.
'I want the parents to see what divorce they are doing to their children. They should be ashamed of themselves,' she said.
My son recently bumped into that little boy. A decade on, he is 18, has dropped out of school and is on drugs.
Sir Nicholas Wall, the President of the Family Division of the High Court, agrees that something has to be done. He has accused separating couples, especially those from the middle classes, of using their children as 'both the battlefield and the ammunition' to try to score points in their personal disputes.
'There is nothing worse, for most children, than for their parents to denigrate each other,' said the country's most senior family court judge. 'The child's sense of self-worth can be irredeemably damaged.'
Six years ago, my husband and I divorced. It came as a great shock. But we were all too aware our children were just becoming adolescents - and that adolescence is perilous enough without warring parents.
We tried, not always successfully on my part, never to criticise each other in front of the children. Very occasionally, I even managed to emphasise his good points (of which there are many) - it was quite hard when at the time all I wanted to do was murder him.
A female friend was shocked. 'Why aren't you using the children against him?' she asked. 'I would.'

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1314131/The-cruelty-women-use-children-weapons-divorce.html#ixzz10GxQJ1Kg

Kidnapper Margeret Thompson Arrested by Interpol..

2010-09-09T15:58:00.000-07:00

As the noose tightens against women and especially single mothers who are of the opinion that they are above the law and get away with anything (those days are finally gone), we have this great news. Finally, Fathers have actually achieved some rights back thanks to the ongoing efforts of the Men's Movement and especially the Fathers and Families section that have for so long fought against the blatant and obvious sexism clearly demonstrated by government departments and the Police over the years..

Congratulations to Ken for a job well done..

He finally gets his son back..

Link..

International Press Release

Runaway mother Melinda Margaret Thompson (nee Stratton) arrested in Amsterdam on Interpol Arrest Warrant.

Abducted child Andrew Thompson (now aged 6) in safe custody at an Amsterdam Government childcare home.

Extradition proceedings to Australia commenced.

Andrew Thompson was covertly taken from Australia on 24th April 2008 by his mother Melinda Margaret THOMPSON (nee Melinda Margaret STRATTON) whilst a child custody hearing was underway before the Family Court of Australia. An Australian warrant was issued for her arrest and circulated by Interpol in 187 countries worldwide.

Background - The mother and son flew from Sydney to Frankfurt on a Singapore Airlines flight on 24th April 2008 and were not seen or heard from since then. Both are Australian Citizens travelling on Australian passports. German police stated they had no knowledge of them leaving the country after their arrival under their given names.

Despite assistance from expert private detectives and follow-up leads by AFP overseas liaison officers no trace could be found in Europe of the missing duo under their legal names. It was therefore believed that they might have somehow obtained false identities and were still resident in Europe since the mother spoke European languages.

The father of the abducted child Ken Thompson, under tremendous mental and physical stress, resigned from his job as Deputy Commissioner of the NSW Fire Brigade to devote additional time and effort to locating his abducted child.

Ken decided that he had done all he could from Australia to find Andrew and having setup a website www.findandrew.com and a Facebook page in April 2009, he made the decision in May 2010 to get on his bike to Europe - literally.

An additional website was set up http://findandrewthompsoneurope2010.blogspot.com/ to document Ken's journey and he set off on a multi country cycle crusade to publicise not only his missing child (whose face was emblazoned on the back of his cycle shirt) but also the plight of other single parents whose children had been abducted to other countries by their partners and who are still missing.

Ken cycled more than 6,000 kilometres in 3 months across 9 countries in UK and Europe wearing a picture of Andrew on his cycle shirt and handing out bumper stickers of Andrew's picture to people he met in order to raise awareness of parental abductions and the lack of adequate legislation and preventative enforcement worldwide.

The website and Facebook page received many expressions of help and support from well-wishers and also numerous possible sightings' information. Many of the sightings from Singapore, Vietnam, Spain, Germany and elsewhere were expertly and patiently followed up, along with other investigative means by professional volunteers.

On 5 September 2010, ironically Father's Day in Australia, another lead from the public emanated from Amsterdam Holland with the result that Melinda Thompson was arrested by the Amsterdam police the following day, 865 days after removing Andrew from the jurisdiction of the Family Court and overseas to avoid complying with Court orders. Andrew Thompson was placed under protection in a childcare institution awaiting the arrival of his father from Stuttgart. Extradition proceedings may be commenced to return the mother to Australia.

Ken was notified by the informant of the arrest. She had seen the www.findandrew.com website, and media coverage Ken obtained in Holland whilst taking a letter signed by many 'left-behind' parents to the Hague, where the Convention on the Civil Aspects of Child Abduction (see http://hcch.e-vision.nl/index_en.php?act=conventions.text&cid=24 )The informant recognised the mother whom at a school being attended by Andrew in Amsterdam and notified the Dutch police.

Ken is now in Amsterdam to meet with the Dutch police, AFP and Australian consulate representatives and Hague officials. It is hoped he will get to see his little boy later today, and he hopes Andrew will recognize him after the two and a half year search. Ken has carried a stuffed toy of a fireman, left behind by Melinda, tied to his handlebars throughout his search. He hoped that if Andrew did not recognize him, Bernie Cinders would do the trick. Today he might find out.

This happy ending for Ken and Andrew shows that the world is actually quite a small place and that sooner or later, children will be found and returned to their former home country. There are no winners in this tug of love, because the child is always damaged by having his or her home torn apart.

For further information: Robin Bowles 0418102732 or 03 94156396 Email: robinbowles@bigpond.com and www.robinbowles.com.au

(Overseas callers 61418102732 or 61394156396)

Australian Federal Police Media Unit 02 61316333

Kudos to Davyone..

Distraught Father's Courthouse Suicide Highlights America's Male Suicide Epidemic

2010-09-09T04:40:00.000-07:00

Monday 6 September 2010

Distraught Father's Courthouse Suicide Highlights America's Male Suicide
Epidemic
By Glenn Sacks
Link..
A distraught father struggling with overdue child support obligations and
adverse family court decisions committed suicide on the steps of the
downtown San Diego courthouse Monday. Angrily waving court documents, 43
year-old Derrick Miller walked up to court personnel at the entrance, said
"You did this to me," and shot himself in the head.

Miller is one of 300,000 Americans who have taken their own lives over the
past decade--as many Americans as were killed in combat in World War II.
America is in the throes of a largely unrecognized suicide epidemic, as
suicide has become the eighth leading cause of death in the United States
today, and the third leading cause of death among adolescents. All
Americans recognize that our country is rife with violent crime, but few
know that 50% more Americans kill themselves than are murdered.

Who is committing suicide?

For the most part, men. According to the National Institute of Mental
Health, males commit suicide four times as often as females do, and have
higher suicide rates in every age group. There are many risk factors for
suicide, including substance abuse and mental illness, but the two
situations in which men are most likely to kill themselves are after the
loss of a job, and after a divorce.

Because our society strongly defines manhood as the ability to work and
provide for one's loved ones, unemployed men often see themselves as
failures and as burdens to their families. Thus it is not surprising that
while there is no difference in the suicide rate of employed and unemployed
women, the suicide rate of unemployed men is twice that of employed men.

It is for this reason that economic crises generally lead to male suicide
epidemics. During the Midwest farm crisis of the 1980s, for example, the
suicide rate of male farmers tripled. A sharp increase in male suicide
occurred after the destruction of Flint, Michigan's 70 year-old auto
industry, as documented in the disturbing 1989 film "Roger and Me." Some
suicide experts fear a rise in suicide related to our current economic
downturn.

The other most common suicide victims are divorced and/or estranged fathers
like Derrick Miller. In fact, a divorced father is ten times more likely to
commit suicide than a divorced mother, and three times more likely to
commit suicide than a married father. According to Los Angeles divorce
consultant Jayne Major:

"Divorced men are often devastated by the loss of their children. It's a
little known fact that in the United States men initiate only a small
number of the divorces involving children. Most of the men I deal with
never saw their divorces coming, and they are often treated very unfairly
by the family courts."

According to Sociology Professor Augustine Kposowa of the University of
California at Riverside, "The link between men and their children is often
severed because the woman is usually awarded custody. A man may not get to
see his children, even with visitation rights. As far as the man is
concerned, he has lost his marriage and lost his children and that can lead
to depression and suicide."

There have been a rash of father suicides directly related to divorce and
mistreatment by the family courts over the past few years. For example,
New York City Police Officer Martin Romanchick, a Medal of Honor recipient,
hung himself after being denied access to his children and being arrested
15 times on charges brought by his ex-wife, charges the courts
deemed frivolous. Massachusetts father Steven Cook, prevented from seeing
his daughter by a protection order based upon unfounded allegations,
committed suicide after he was jailed for calling his four-year-old
daughter on the wrong day of the week. Darrin White, a Canadian father who
was stripped of the right to see his children and was about to be jailed
after failing to pay a child support award tantamount to twice his take
home pay, hung himself. His 14 year-old daughter Ashlee later wrote to her
nation's Prime Minister, saying, "this country's justice system has robbed
me of one of the most precious gifts in my life, my father."

We'll never know exactly why Derrick Miller took his life and if his
suicide could have been prevented. What we do know is that male suicide is
one of America's most serious public health issues, and it is time to
address it.

Skip Brockner
Collingswood, NJ 08107
856-854-4603

Wicked Women’ Ad Promotes DV, Violence Against Men..

2010-09-04T15:15:00.000-07:00

‘Wicked Women’ Ad Promotes DV, Violence Against Men
September 3rd, 2010 by Robert Franklin, Esq.

It’s not enough that men don’t live as long as women. It’s not enough that, in the Iraq war, 97.5% of U.S. fatalities were men, or that the rate was far higher in Viet Nam and previous wars. It’s not enough that those killed in violent crimes or in on-the-job accidents are overwhelmingly men. It’s not even enough that the MSM routinely elide any reference to the sex of victims of accidents, the dead in warfare or political atrocities as long as those victims are male.

And it’s not enough that we’ve had almost 40 years of proclaiming that “there’s no excuse for domestic violence” while pretending that women don’t harm their male partners.

No, despicable as all that is, it’s not as bad as this. Overlooking the deaths of men is one thing; promoting them is another.

And that’s exactly what the video linked to does. It’s an advertisement for the Discovery ID show “Wicked Women.” How wicked are they? The ad shows a swimsuit-clad beauty reclining on the beach. Languidly she sips champagne and nibbles a strawberry. We see a closeup of her wedding ring-bedecked finger and quite a rock it is! But then the camera pans away from her toward the water in whose shallows lies a man’s body face down with a knife in his back. Given the wedding ring shot, we conclude that he was her husband. She smirks; end of ad.

So it looks like domestic violence is OK after all. Even killing your husband with a knife to his back is treated as, well, sexy. Ladies, just murder your husband and you too can have an hourglass figure, great skin and lips to die for. It’s a “You Go Girl!” moment.

In the past, those who have objected violently to any depiction in pop culture that could conceivably be interpreted as a slight against women, have managed to excuse things like the Wicked Women ad. One excuse is “hey, it’s a joke; where’s your sense of humor?” To that, I can only say that exactly those words were said to feminists 30 and 40 years ago. They were having none of it. And to this day, let an ad show a woman scantily attired and feminists will rage that it renders her a “sex object.” And yet the Wicked Women ad gets a pass. Don’t believe me? Let’s tune in to the NOW website to see if they condemn it, as they should if they maintain any pretense of gender equality.

Then there’s this more recent dodge: “the advertising industry is dominated by men; therefore, since men made the ad, it can’t be misandric.” Now, I confess that that excuse is actually so lame as to be incomprehensible, at least by me; it fails on so many levels it’s hard to grasp. Suffice it to say that every expression is either misandric or not regardless of who produces it, and this one clearly is.

And let’s not overlook the obvious - that if a similar ad featured a sexy hunk of a man and his dead wife, feminists would never stop screaming. Where are the voices of those gender-neutrality warriors now?

Sexism is one thing when it’s done in ways that don’t promote things that the targeted sex uniquely suffers. In those cases, it may be regrettable, but at least the sexism stands on its own. But Wicked Women’s sexism promotes the murder of men, specifically domestic violence against men. Given that women commit half of all DV and that men die from violent crime of all kinds at more than twice the rate of women, the Wicked Women ad is uniquely offensive.

Someone should tell its producers that killing men is not funny; it’s not alluring; it’s not acceptable. Selling your product by promoting the murder of men and husbands is wrong. The piece should be pulled from the air immediately.

Parental Alienation Syndrome: One Father's Story..

2010-09-04T15:11:00.000-07:00

Parental Alienation Syndrome: One Father's Story
September 2nd, 2010 by Terry KeeImagine a nightmare scenario where your children hate you. They tell you repeatedly that they hate you; and worse, their actions leave no doubt that they hate you. Moreover, their hatred doesn’t stop with you; it extends to everyone close to you – including your parents – their grandparents – and even to your pets. Imagine that your children do not refer to you with terms of endearment such as “mom” or “dad” - but with your first name or with horrible vulgarities. Imagine being locked out of your house, having the woodwork in your house gouged, the walls defaced, and having your heirlooms destroyed, all the while your child laughs at you, a taunting maniacal laugh, as the dirty deeds are done. Imagine finding snack foods or cereal strewn about the house, or juice in puddles on the floor. Imagine being kicked in the head as you drive. Imagine, if you can, that your child hates you so much that he or she laces your toothbrush with excrement.
Imagine not being able to have dinner with your children because they refuse to eat anything you cook for them. Imagine not being able to go to a restaurant with your children, because they will move to another table rather than sit with you. Imagine not being able to talk to your children at all. In the house, they will turn away or shut themselves in their room. In the car, they will respond to you with vulgarity and contempt. If they ever do attempt to communicate, they will tell you how much they hate you and how perfect the other parent is in their eyes - while you are your children’s number one enemy, your ex-spouse is considered infallible and beyond reproach.
Imagine that these children who hate you are not teenagers, but just 10 years old. Now stop imagining. Welcome to the hellish world of an alienated parent whose children are affected by Parental Alienation Syndrome.
As a father who has been targeted by a vindictive and malicious ex, to the point where my children refuse to see me or their grandparents, I am oftentimes annoyed to hear psychologists and psychiatrists who don’t really understand the difference between Parental Alienation and Parental Alienation Syndrome. Consider this recent excerpt from a US News and World Report article, “I really get concerned about spreading the definition of mental illness too wide," says Elissa Benedek, a child and adolescent psychiatrist in Ann Arbor, Mich., and a past president of the APA. There's no question in her mind that kids become alienated from a loving parent in many divorces with little or no justification, and she's seen plenty of kids kick and scream all the way to the car when visitation is enforced. But, she says, "this is not a mentally ill child." (US News and World Report, Parental Alienation: A Mental Diagnosis? Some experts say the extreme hatred some kids feel toward a parent in a divorce is a mental illness. By Lindsay Lyon, October 29, 2009)
With all due respect to Dr. Benedek, her example scenario provides too little in the way of information to determine if the child in question is in fact merely alienated or is emotionally incapacitated as a direct result of undue and unjust external influences (PAS).
If you have never personally experienced Parental Alienation Syndrome, it is difficult to fathom how a child can become so completely and utterly transformed from a wonderful, caring, loving being to a mean, angry, hateful individual. Here is a firsthand account from one such child, now an adult, “I did everything in my power to make dad happy and destroy my mother… My main mission was to have her suffer for who I thought she was, not for who she was… I thought about her dying and having a party.” Chrissy Chrzanowski, who as a child was programmed to hate her mother. (Chrissy Chrzanowski, live speech at a Michigan rally: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3z7gEAnFF84)
Parental Alienation Syndrome is the result of a war having children soldiers. Parental Alienation Syndrome takes a commander-in-chief, foot soldiers and a common enemy. In this case, the commander-in-chief is the alienating parent, the children are the foot soldiers, and the common enemy is the child’s other parent and those closest to him or her. And just like adult soldiers who fight in a campaign of terror, death, and destruction and then end up suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, so too do children of PAS end up suffering from the horrors of war.
The DSM recognizes Post Traumatic Stress as a disorder, which, like PAS, is environmentally trigged. You are not born with PTSD. It is a condition that is caused by external events - a condition that could in fact, happen to the best of us given the right environment and set of circumstances. Despite the fact that PTSD is not a mental condition that one is born with, such as Down Syndrome or Tourette’s, it is rightly recognized in the DSM as a negative condition that requires treatment, even though it is possible to lessen with time and treatment.
PAS is also a condition that is inflicted by environment and circumstances, and which carries negative long term consequences. Additionally, vindictive parenting behaviors are highly likely to resurface in the next generation - as these children become parents themselves. As Amy J.L. Baker, PhD, a noted PAS expert has written, PAS is a condition that requires time to abate. And frankly, this is time that targeted parents don’t have. PAS children can remain immersed in the delusion well into adulthood and oftentimes require third party intervention – generally from his or her significant other.
Here’s where The American Psychiatric Association, as the gatekeeper of the DSM, and the American Psychology Association, as front line care providers, can do the right thing and help put an end to the emotional abuse of children that PAS presents. They can put an end to an era where children are programmed to hate. They can put an end to the emotional scarring for those children who will forever carry a burden of guilt. PAS is a great injustice and it is becoming more widespread in the absence of professional guidance and remediation. But to do what must be done, the APA must put aside the politics and emotion of the debate.
The recognition of PAS is being held hostage by special interest groups. Domestic Violence Against Women Special Interest Groups (DVAWSIGs) have long argued that PAS is nothing more than a tactic. Consider the following quote, “PAS has been used in countless cases by abusive fathers to gain custody of their children." This quote was taken from a television documentary titled “Breaking the Silence; Children’s Stories.” It aired on PBS in October of 2005. In fact, “Breaking the Silence” ended up being discredited as a one-sided, poorly conceived infomercial. PBS received 4,000 e-mails on the subject and 3,500 of them were negative. Here’s what the PBS ombudsman, Michael Getler, had to say on the matter after he concluded his investigation, “"...there was no recognition of opposing views on the program. There was a complete absence of some of the fundamental journalistic conventions that, in fact, make a story more powerful and convincing because they, at a minimum, acknowledge that there is another side....I thought this particular program had almost no balance, and went too far, turning it, at least in my mind, into more of an advocacy, or point-of-view presentation."
This program was then reviewed by the ombudsman for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, Ken A. Bode, who further noted, “I agree with everything Getler says, to a point. He allows that PBS editorial guidelines for fairness and objectivity were 'bumped up against and maybe breached,' but does not assert they were clearly breached. I think it is worse than that. There was no alternative point of view presented in 'Breaking the Silence' and the producer admits it was intended to be that way. It might be difficult to find a clearer breach of PBS editorial standards unless one concludes there is only one side to child and spousal abuse issues in the country's custody cases [emphasis added]." (Breaking the Silence Redux, December 19, 2005, Ken A. Bode. http://www.cpb.org/ombudsmen/display.php?id=12)
Still, DVAWSIGs, ignorantly perhaps, misguided certainly, believe that Parental Alienation Syndrome is a tactic and in conjunction, would be misdiagnosed, therefore robbing an innocent parent of custody. But Parental Alienation Syndrome is such an abomination, having unique indicators, that it is relatively easy to diagnose and, conversely, difficult to misdiagnose. A fully entrenched PAS child harbors unreasonable animosity and hatred towards the targeted parent and, due to the programming, will find it difficult to say anything negative about the non-targeted parent. It is a terrible abuse of power, that “so-called” domestic violence groups oppose recognizing the emotional abuse of children caused by a severe and prolonged campaign of alienation enacted by a malicious and vindictive ex spouse.
The “tactic” argument is ancillary to the question of whether PAS should be recognized as a disorder. False claims of abuse by women against men do not invalidate legitimate cases of abuse; neither should false claims of PAS invalidate legitimate cases of PAS. There are, after all, vindictive and malicious parents who poison their children's mind against good and loving parents – should these individuals not be held accountable?
The DSM V committee must not be misguided by special interest groups purporting to have a greater cause. There is no greater cause. Society has a duty to its most vulnerable members – its children. PAS children are psychologically damaged. This is a preventable tragedy and children who exhibit Parental Alienation Syndrome require specialized intervention.
To the DSM V committee, I say to you, the time is now.

Boys 'Being HELD BACK by WOMEN Teachers..

2010-09-03T20:17:00.000-07:00

What a surprise, women have been screaming all along that they are such victims that any excuse to denigrate all men is justified..

But to destroy any opportunity for a boy to receive a descent education really does demonstrate the sheer nastiness that women and especially teachers indulge in..

Another fine example of the blatant and obvious sexism demonstrated by the education system as it goes out of it's way to ensure the privileged princesses are given carte blanch and any boy regardless of colour, creed or religion is destroyed at any and every opportunity..

Thanks Girls..

Boys 'being held back by women teachers' as gender stereotypes are reinforced in the classroom

1st September 2010

Women teachers are holding back boys by reprimanding them for typically male behaviour, according to a study out today.

They are reinforcing stereotypes that boys are ‘silly’ in class, refuse to ‘sit nicely like the girls’ and are more likely to indulge in ‘schoolboy pranks’.

Women teachers may also unwittingly perpetuate low expectations of boys’ academic achievement and encourage girls to work harder by letting them think they are cleverer.

Low expectations: Female teachers can unwittingly perpetuate boys academic achievement as well as reinforce stereotypes that they are 'silly', induldge in pranks and refuse to sit nicely according to the study

Low expectations: Female teachers can unwittingly perpetuate boys academic achievement as well as reinforce stereotypes that they are silly, induldge in pranks and refuse to sit nicely according to the study

Schools should avoid dividing pupils into ability groups because the practice often results in girls dominating the higher-achieving tables, concluded the Kent University research.

The study of primary schools in the county suggests that under-performance among boys in most national exams could be linked to lower expectations.

The research mainly implicates women teachers, since nearly 90 per cent of primary school teachers are female. It warned that school staff find boys’ play, such as wielding toy guns, ‘particularly challenging and difficult’.

Boys are punished and urged to conform to a more feminine style of play instead of being taught how to play responsibly with their preferred toys.

Bonny Hartley, the study’s lead author, said: ‘By seven or eight years old, children of both genders believe that boys are less focused, able, and successful than girls – and think that adults endorse this stereotype. There are signs that these expectations have the potential to become self-fulfilling in influencing
children’s actual conduct and achievement.’

Girls as young as four think they are cleverer, try harder and are better behaved than equivalent boys, her study found.

By the age of seven and eight, boys also believe that their female classmates are more likely have these qualities.

For the study, 238 children aged four to ten were presented with a series of scenarios such as ‘this child is really clever’ and ‘this child always finishes their work’.

They were then asked to point to a picture of a boy or a girl to say which they thought was being talked about.

The findings show that from the first year of school girls said their sex was more likely to record better conduct and achievement.

From the age of eight, boys were also more likely to say that girls had better performance, motivation and effort, self-control and conduct.

In the second part of the study – being presented today at the British Educational Research Association annual conference at Warwick University – the children were asked if adults believed boys or girls were cleverer and better behaved.

From an early age, girls believe grown-ups think girls have better conduct and achievement.

Boys develop the same beliefs around the age of eight.

The study drew no distinction between the beliefs and classroom practices of male and female teachers.

Further research by the same team will consider the specific gender stereotypes held by teachers.

Read more:

Recognizing Parental Alienation Disorder in the DSM..

2010-09-03T01:35:00.000-07:00

Recognizing Parental Alienation Disorder in the DSM V – The Time Is Now

By Terry Kee | Thu, Sep 02 2010, 11:53 AM

Imagine a nightmare scenario where your children hate you. They tell you repeatedly that they hate you; and worse, their actions leave no doubt that they hate you. Moreover, their hatred doesn’t stop with you; it extends to everyone close to you – including your parents – their grandparents – and even to your pets. Imagine that your children do not refer to you with terms of endearment such as “mom” or “dad” - but with your first name or with horrible vulgarities. Imagine being locked out of your house, having the woodwork in your house gouged, the walls defaced, and having your heirlooms destroyed, all the while your child laughs at you, a taunting maniacal laugh, as the dirty deeds are done. Imagine finding snack foods or cereal strewn about the house, or juice in puddles on the floor. Imagine being kicked in the head as you drive. Imagine, if you can, that your child hates you so much that he or she laces your toothbrush with excrement.

Imagine not being able to have dinner with your children because they refuse to eat anything you cook for them. Imagine not being able to go to a restaurant with your children, because they will move to another table rather than sit with you. Imagine not being able to talk to your children at all. In the house, they will turn away or shut themselves in their room. In the car, they will respond to you with vulgarity and contempt. If they ever do attempt to communicate, they will tell you how much they hate you and how perfect the other parent is in their eyes - while you are your children’s number one enemy, your ex-spouse is considered infallible and beyond reproach.

Imagine that these children who hate you are not teenagers, but just 10 years old. Now stop imagining. Welcome to the hellish world of an alienated parent whose children are affected by Parental Alienation Syndrome.

As a father who has been targeted by a vindictive and malicious ex, to the point where my children refuse to see me or their grandparents, I am oftentimes annoyed to hear psychologists and psychiatrists who don’t really understand the difference between Parental Alienation and Parental Alienation Syndrome. Consider this recent excerpt from a US News and World Report article, “I really get concerned about spreading the definition of mental illness too wide," says Elissa Benedek, a child and adolescent psychiatrist in Ann Arbor, Mich., and a past president of the APA. There's no question in her mind that kids become alienated from a loving parent in many divorces with little or no justification, and she's seen plenty of kids kick and scream all the way to the car when visitation is enforced. But, she says, "this is not a mentally ill child." (US News and World Report, Parental Alienation: A Mental Diagnosis? Some experts say the extreme hatred some kids feel toward a parent in a divorce is a mental illness. By Lindsay Lyon, October 29, 2009)

With all due respect to Dr. Benedek, her example scenario provides too little in the way of information to determine if the child in question is in fact merely alienated or is emotionally incapacitated as a direct result of undue and unjust external influences (PAS).

If you have never personally experienced Parental Alienation Syndrome, it is difficult to fathom how a child can become so completely and utterly transformed from a wonderful, caring, loving being to a mean, angry, hateful individual. Here is a firsthand account from one such child, now an adult, “I did everything in my power to make dad happy and destroy my mother… My main mission was to have her suffer for who I thought she was, not for who she was… I thought about her dying and having a party.” Chrissy Chrzanowski, who as a child was programmed to hate her mother. (Chrissy Chrzanowski, live speech at a Michigan rally: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3z7gEAnFF84)

Parental Alienation Syndrome is the result of a war having children soldiers. Parental Alienation Syndrome takes a commander-in-chief, foot soldiers and a common enemy. In this case, the commander-in-chief is the alienating parent, the children are the foot soldiers, and the common enemy is the child’s other parent and those closest to him or her. And just like adult soldiers who fight in a campaign of terror, death, and destruction and then end up suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, so too do children of PAS end up suffering from the horrors of war.

The DSM recognizes Post Traumatic Stress as a disorder, which, like PAS, is environmentally trigged. You are not born with PTSD. It is a condition that is caused by external events - a condition that could in fact, happen to the best of us given the right environment and set of circumstances. Despite the fact that PTSD is not a mental condition that one is born with, such as Down Syndrome or Tourette’s, it is rightly recognized in the DSM as a negative condition that requires treatment, even though it is possible to lessen with time and treatment.

PAS is also a condition that is inflicted by environment and circumstances, and which carries negative long term consequences. Additionally, vindictive parenting behaviors are highly likely to resurface in the next generation - as these children become parents themselves. As Amy J.L. Baker, PhD, a noted PAS expert has written, PAS is a condition that requires time to abate. And frankly, this is time that targeted parents don’t have. PAS children can remain immersed in the delusion well into adulthood and oftentimes require third party intervention – generally from his or her significant other.

Here’s where The American Psychiatric Association, as the gatekeeper of the DSM, and the American Psychology Association, as front line care providers, can do the right thing and help put an end to the emotional abuse of children that PAS presents. They can put an end to an era where children are programmed to hate. They can put an end to the emotional scarring for those children who will forever carry a burden of guilt. PAS is a great injustice and it is becoming more widespread in the absence of professional guidance and remediation. But to do what must be done, the APA must put aside the politics and emotion of the debate.

The recognition of PAS is being held hostage by special interest groups. Domestic Violence Against Women Special Interest Groups (DVAWSIGs) have long argued that PAS is nothing more than a tactic. Consider the following quote, “PAS has been used in countless cases by abusive fathers to gain custody of their children." This quote was taken from a television documentary titled “Breaking the Silence; Children’s Stories.” It aired on PBS in October of 2005. In fact, “Breaking the Silence” ended up being discredited as a one-sided, poorly conceived infomercial. PBS received 4,000 e-mails on the subject and 3,500 of them were negative. Here’s what the PBS ombudsman, Michael Getler, had to say on the matter after he concluded his investigation, “"...there was no recognition of opposing views on the program. There was a complete absence of some of the fundamental journalistic conventions that, in fact, make a story more powerful and convincing because they, at a minimum, acknowledge that there is another side....I thought this particular program had almost no balance, and went too far, turning it, at least in my mind, into more of an advocacy, or point-of-view presentation."

This program was then reviewed by the ombudsman for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, Ken A. Bode, who further noted, “I agree with everything Getler says, to a point. He allows that PBS editorial guidelines for fairness and objectivity were 'bumped up against and maybe breached,' but does not assert they were clearly breached. I think it is worse than that. There was no alternative point of view presented in 'Breaking the Silence' and the producer admits it was intended to be that way. It might be difficult to find a clearer breach of PBS editorial standards unless one concludes there is only one side to child and spousal abuse issues in the country's custody cases [emphasis added]." (Breaking the Silence Redux, December 19, 2005, Ken A. Bode. http://www.cpb.org/ombudsmen/display.php?id=12)

Still, DVAWSIGs, ignorantly perhaps, misguided certainly, believe that Parental Alienation Syndrome is a tactic and in conjunction, would be misdiagnosed, therefore robbing an innocent parent of custody. But Parental Alienation Syndrome is such an abomination, having unique indicators, that it is relatively easy to diagnose and, conversely, difficult to misdiagnose. A fully entrenched PAS child harbors unreasonable animosity and hatred towards the targeted parent and, due to the programming, will find it difficult to say anything negative about the non-targeted parent. It is a terrible abuse of power, that “so-called” domestic violence groups oppose recognizing the emotional abuse of children caused by a severe and prolonged campaign of alienation enacted by a malicious and vindictive ex spouse.

The “tactic” argument is ancillary to the question of whether PAS should be recognized as a disorder. False claims of abuse by women against men do not invalidate legitimate cases of abuse; neither should false claims of PAS invalidate legitimate cases of PAS. There are, after all, vindictive and malicious parents who poison their children's mind against good and loving parents – should these individuals not be held accountable?

The DSM V committee must not be misguided by special interest groups purporting to have a greater cause. There is no greater cause. Society has a duty to its most vulnerable members – its children. PAS children are psychologically damaged. This is a preventable tragedy and children who exhibit Parental Alienation Syndrome require specialized intervention.

To the DSM V committee, I say to you, the time is now.

Sons Benefit Later in Life from Close Relationship with Father..

2010-08-21T01:15:00.000-07:00

Women have been told so many lies by feminists that even I would be incapable of listing every one of them.

A few examples would be "I don't need no man" or "All men are liars and rapists" just to name a few.

Is it not interesting how feminists continually claim that one should not generalise and yet here they are doing exactly that.

Another they have told repeatedly is that women can raise children on their own, HOW IS THAT GOING by the way..

Sadly enough women have accepted those lies to be true and raised the "Father-less" child/ren level to massive proportions. How can women be so selfish as to deny a child their Father. What are you thinking ?

Let's destroy our child's future, let ensure they have insurmountable issues when they get older and let's punish them just for being born..

Incredible..

Study: Sons Benefit Later in Life from Close Relationship with Father

By Robert Franklin, Esq. | Fri, Aug 20 2010, 01:00 PM

Sons who have fond childhood memories of their fathers are more likely to be emotionally stable in the face of day-to-day stresses, according to psychologists who studied hundreds of adults of all ages.

That's one finding of a recent study by Psychology Professor Melanie Mallers of California State University at Fullerton (PhysOrg, 8/12/10).

Most studies on parenting focus on the relationship with the mother. But, as our study shows, fathers do play a unique and important role in the mental health of their children much later in life," Mallers said during a symposium focusing on social relationships and well-being.

Mallers and her colleagues interviewed 912 people once a day for eight days. The subjects who were between the ages of 25 and 74, were asked about the emotional and psychological stresses of that day. They were later asked about their relationships with their fathers. The results are that those with close relationships with their mothers reported slightly greater ease in dealing with everyday stress.

"I don't think these results are surprising, given that past research has shown mothers are often the primary caregiver and often the primary source of comfort," said Mallers. "It got interesting when we examined the participants' relationship with their fathers and their daily emotional reaction to stress."

Men who reported having a good relationship with their father during childhood were more likely to be less emotional when reacting to stressful events in their current daily lives than those who had a poor relationship, according to her findings. This was not found to be as common for the women in the study.

Exactly why sons benefit so much from good relationships with their dads seems to be an open question.

Mallers theorized why healthy or unhealthy relationships may have an effect on how people handle stress as adults. "Perhaps having attentive and caring parents equips children with the experiences and skills necessary to more successfully navigate their relationships with other people throughout childhood and into adulthood," she said.

She added it was difficult to come up with a concrete theory as to why men's relationship with their father had such an influence on their emotional reaction to stress, especially since this study included adults of all ages who were raised during very different eras in the United States.

"The role of fathers has changed dramatically from the time the oldest participants were children," added Mallers. "We do know that fathers have a unique style of interacting with their children, especially their sons. We need more research to help us uncover further influences of both mothers and fathers on the enduring emotional experiences of their children."

Of course I can't hazard a guess as to why sons particularly benefit from good relationships with their fathers. But Mallers' remark about fathers' unique style of interacting brings up an important point that is too often overlooked these days. It is that mothers and fathers parent differently and that children tend to need both to become fully formed adults, emotionally and psychologically.

To vastly oversimplify, mothers tend to give unconditional love which gives the child the sense of personal wellbeing. Dads, on the other hand, tend to demand things like compliance with rules and modes of behavior. That creates in the child the valuable understanding that respect and love must be earned, i.e. most people in the world aren't going to "love you for yourself alone;" you have to act in ways that merit their love, friendship, respect, etc. I can't count the number of times I've heard adults complain about the "sense of entitlement" children and young adults exhibit these days. And every time I do, I wonder if the people those adults are referring to were raised in single-mother homes.

On the other hand, parents raise children differently when they're in a couple than when they do the job alone. Single parents tend to adopt some of the parental qualities usually associated with the opposite sex; thus single mothers tend to become more demanding and rule-oriented while single fathers tend to become gentler and more nurturing.

Whatever the case, Mallers is certainly right in calling for more research into the effect of fathers on children's emotional and psychological wellbeing later in life. The more we study, the more is revealed about the importance of fathers to children.

And that can't be a bad thing.

Thanks to Victoria for the heads-up.

Media Fiddles While Mother's Abuse/Sexually Abuse Children..

2010-06-25T19:26:00.000-07:00

It would appear that being an ABUSIVE Mother is never having to say you're sorry as society today either just ignores it, sweeps it under the carpet or just live in denial, it would be politically incorrect to even mention that a fair amount of mothers out there are not the perfect representation exposed by todays biased and sexist media..

Women comprise 56% of all abusers

Children of mean, psychologically abusive mothers suffer well into adulthood: report
Link..
For those who grew up living with Mommy Dearest, Mother’s Day isn’t always a celebration. Adult victims of maternal abuse don't have warm memories of spending time with a loving, supportive mother, and they may still suffer from low self-esteem and depression.

Many studies show when mothers criticize, humiliate and withhold their affection, the toll it takes can last for a lifetime, according to ABC News.

Women comprise 56% of all abusers, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. And of the various kinds of abuse, which include physical and sexual, the most common form is psychological.

“It happens a lot,” Columbia University clinical psychiatry professor Dr. Philip Muskin told ABC News. “Neglect and emotional abuse are every bit as damaging as sexual abuse.”

Psychological scars can last for a lifetime because kids look to a mother for a reflection of themselves, says psychiatrist Carole Lieberman. “If the mother is mean, the message to the child is that he is bad, worthless and unlovable,” she explains. “So that child grows up with this identity and expects the rest of the world to treat him like that, too. It affects them in their career and in their love life.”

Often the most vulnerable time of a person's life is infancy and childhood, since the mom is at that point the primary nurturer.

And it gets even better, while the media fiddles it's the kids that burn..

Sexually Abusive Mothers
Males Do Not Always Perpetrate Child Sex Abuse
Link..
Dec 31, 2009 Karen Stephenson
Statistics prove that some mothers sexually assault their children. Anecdotal evidence suggests that women who sexually abuse is under-reported by professionals.

Sexual abuse perpetrated by mothers is an uncomfortable subject for many people. A mother committing sexual acts on their child in unthinkable – yet it happens. It defies everything we want to believe about mothers. Yet statistics validate that sexually abusive mothers do exist.
ChildLine Statistics

ChildLine is a helpline operated by the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC). According to their 2008/09 statistics, 2,142 children who called about sexual abuse reported that the perpetrators were women. Out of these children, 1,311, or 11% of all calls cited their mother as the abuser.

Compared to ChildLine 2004/05 statistics, there were 923 children who named female abusers; this is an increase of 132% in a very short period of time.

Other female perpetrators reported by children who called ChildLine were a female acquaintance, aunts, sisters, stepmothers and grandmothers.

Sexually Abusive Mothers

Dr. Christine Hatchard has a Masters degree in Counseling Psychology and Human Services and a doctorate in Clinical Psychology, with a specialization in Psychological Assessment. She founded Making Daughters Safe Again in 1999 and has worked with hundreds of survivors of mother-daughter sexual abuse.

Mothers Leaving Children ‘Just Another Lifestyle Choice’ ..

2010-01-15T05:31:00.000-08:00

Isn't life grand when you can just shift camp just because you "feel" the need. Allocating the kids to someone else and just ignoring the fact that you bought them into this world and they should at least expect that their birth parent would hang about for a while, while they get their act together..

But ofcourse I forgot that women can do whatever they choose, it's part of the feminist mantra. Stuff the kids, I want something else and I do not give a damn about their future or their ongoing hurt and neglected feelings..

Ahh!, what is it like to be so narcissistic. selfish and uncaring ?

I don't know, I am not a woman..

Article: Mothers Leaving Children ‘Just Another Lifestyle Choice’

By Glenn Sacks | Thu, Jan 14 2010, 09:34 AM

This remarkable piece reprises some fairly common themes such as (a) marriage and motherhood oppress women, (b) divorce doesn't harm children and (c) single-parenthood is OK for children (MSN, 1/10/10). And all of the above are about the freedom and happiness of adult women and not about he welfare of children. These were all trial balloons floated in the 1970s and subsequently shot down by huge amounts of social science. But people who are attached to them just refuse to let them go, as the article makes clear.

The piece tells the personal stories of three women all of whom were married, all of whom had children and all of whom felt the lack of personal freedom that all that brings. And all decided to divorce and ultimately abandon claims for custody.

At the outset, I can say that I'm all for personal freedom. I think that everyone as an adult, should get a taste of answering to no one but oneself. If you never do that, you run the risk of always wondering what you missed, and if you do have that experience and choose to put it aside, you know exactly what it is you're abandoning and why.

So maybe those three women hadn't done that. Maybe they'd all gone straight from being under their parent's wing to marriage and children. The article doesn't say.

But what all three did was put aside everything we know about the damage that divorce does to children in favor of their own personal freedom. As one mother said,

It started as a restlessness. I had this feeling that I could write a book, that I'd like to travel the world.

And another,

Plus — though admitting it startled her — she craved the freedom. "This is the part that's so hard to talk about. But secretly, inside, it was the most exciting thing. If he was living with his father, I would be free to do what I wanted to do.

And that is, as small mountains of social science tell us, a terrible thing to do to children. Tellingly, the article glosses over the children. Apart from a few facts about the practicalities of custody arrangements, the children of these three mothers aren't much discussed. Certainly they're not interviewed; their performance in school isn't mentioned; their emotional/psychological wellbeing doesn't merit a word. Social science tells us in no uncertain terms that those things are all likely to be damaged by divorce. And the kids are not followed into adulthood to find out how losing their mothers affected them later in life.

The article tells us that one child, 12-year-old Will was "crushed" by the divorce and separation from his mother, but that's it. He's 21 now, and fully capable of telling his side of the story of his mother's liberation from him, but the author elects not to go there.

But, in the article and in the mothers' own words, child wellbeing takes a back seat to the desires of their mothers.

Speaking of personal freedom, another thing the article overlooks entirely is the little matter of child support. Did any of these women realize their personal freedom from marriage and children while also paying to support those children? The article scrupulously avoids the topic altogether. And that strikes me as an important oversight. After all, non-custodial fathers don't seem to view divorce and child support payments as the acme of personal freedom. Indeed, the sometimes unreasonable demands placed on them by family courts achieve the opposite - a form of involuntary servitude.

All that leads me to wonder if the dads in these cases gave a pass to child support from the mothers. It's well established that custodial fathers are less likely to request a child support order than are custodial mothers, so is that what happened in each of these cases? If so, women reading the article should be advised that it gives a seriously distorted view of the realities of the lives of non-custodial parents post-divorce.

As I said, I'm all for personal freedom. But where children are involved, parents need to behave responsibly. They need to commit to being the best parents they can be. Children don't stay children forever, and when they're grown up, their parents typically have a lot of their lives left to live. If they want to divorce then, fine. If the woman wants to travel the world, write a book, go back to school, become a sculptor, I say more power to her. But parenthood is not all about the parents; it's about the kids, or should be. Any parent who doesn't get that basic concept needs to learn it, and fast.

Divorce and single-parenthood aren't just lifestyle choices. They're blows against little people who can't make lifestyle choices themselves.

Australia: Fury at ruling in custody battle..

2010-01-10T16:57:00.000-08:00

Just so you understand the reasons for this blog as well as the need. It would appear that any mother can treat any child in any fashion and still be granted the kids while a law-abiding, honest, intelligent Fathers are denied access to his own children for any excuse, even manufactured lies instigated by Mothers..

Just thought I would clear up that bit of sexist behaviour as well as ongoing bias Fathers face in the Family Courts on a daily basis..

Women can do whatever they like without any consequence while Men are still expected to carry the brunt of the law..

Again, just incase you are wondering about it, like you actually give a damn..

Fury at ruling in custody battle

Laurie Nowell From: Sunday Herald Sun January 10, 2010 1:22AM 22

A MOTHER found by the Family Court to be violent, untruthful, lacking moral values and responsible for the psychological and emotional abuse of her children has been given custody of them.

The father, deemed "principled" and with "much to offer his children", has been effectively banned from seeing his daughters.

The case will spark renewed debate about family law and the issue of shared parenting.

The father, who we will name "Bill" because he cannot be identified for legal reasons, is described by a Family Court judge as no threat to his daughters, a successful parent who is "courteous" and "intelligent".

The same judge found the mother, whom we will call "Jasmine" and who abandoned her first daughter at two and spurned the child's subsequent attempts at reconciliation, had displayed "dreadful", "cruel" and "malicious" behaviour.

But the judge still ruled that because of time spent apart, the children had become estranged from their father and it was in their interests that "the children spend no time with the father".

This was at odds with a ruling in February 2008 that Bill should have contact with his daughters.

But in last month's ruling, the judge said: "The necessity to preserve the children's physical, emotional safety and welfare is overwhelming. However unsatisfactory this outcome is for the father, it is the outcome most aligned with the children's best interests.

"In addition, it is the only outcome which will afford the girls the peace they require now while permitting some possibility of a relationship between the father, (the children) and their siblings in the future, however long term that may be."

But the judge added: "It is a sad fact in the family law jurisdiction that a determination which is most consistent with the best interests of the children can appear to reward bad behaviour on the part of one parent and work in apparent injustice for the well-motivated best performing parent."

Bill has not seen his daughters since April and has not spent extended time with them since August 2005.

He says the estrangement was largely a result of false allegations of sexual abuse of the children made against him by his former wife.

The custody ruling in the Family Court last month came after a seven-year battle over access to the girls, now aged nine and 11.

It followed a criminal trial in 2007, when Bill, 55, was cleared of the sexual abuse allegations. The trial judge found them totally false and threw the case out.

The ordeal has cost Bill his home, his job and about $450,000 in lost income and legal costs. He has faced court 70 times to clear his name and try for some form of access to his children.

"It has been a nightmare. All I wanted was to be part of my children's lives - to try to give them a good start in life," Bill said.

"But I am denied that because of the malicious way in which my ex-wife has acted and because of the credence the legal system has given her lies and falsehoods.

"The family law system needs wholesale change. There appears to be no testing of evidence in court and it seems that often lies and fabrications are immediately accepted as fact.

"It's a disgrace and, as far as I know, it doesn't happen in any other legal sphere."

Bill's case follows the case of "Steve" last year, in which the court accepted his good character, but banned him from seeing his daughter for seven years because it was believed the mother would "shut down" emotionally if he were allowed to see her.

In another case last year, a father, "Mick", was jailed for sending a birthday card to his daughter in breach of a court order and was locked up again for taking a walk in a park - near where, unknown to him, his daughter was playing.

Debate over the operation of family law has become heated over the past year with a new campaign seeking to overturn amendments to the Family Law Act brought in by the Howard government that have established the principle of "shared parenting" and effectively given fathers a better chance of having greater access to their children in custody disputes.

Historian and Family Court critic Prof John Hirst questions the underlying principles in family law.

"The Family Court by law has to make the children's interests paramount in divorce cases. Everyone thinks this is wise and proper, but to elevate one principle above all others can produce terrible results," he said.

"To stop mothers being tempted to make accusations of sexual abuse and so keep children to themselves, the law should state that any parent making false accusations of this sort will lose the right to be chief carer of the children. If a mother has so turned the children against the father that they don't want to see him, for a time at least the children should be taken into care.

"Even on the present test of child's best interests, it is hard to see how a child will benefit from being left with such a mother. She has burdened the child with the story that her father abused her.

"Then when the child comes of age she will discover that the mother's accusations were false."

A smacked child is a successful child..

2010-01-03T18:18:00.000-08:00

How many times have you witnessed a mother trying to rationalise or debate a 2 year old. How many times have you come across uncontrollable children, be it in public or at someone's home. They can be absolute terrors, make life a living hell for all involved.
I must confess that I once smacked one of my kids on the bottom when she was a teenager as every other method of discipline just did not work. My method of discipline was to apply the " 3 times" rule which worked very nicely (raising four kids and being able to claim only one such incident must be a record). The object of the exercise was that if I had to tell them to behave a third time they would be in trouble, mostly time spent in their room or reduction of other privileges or even allocated more chores for a week..

The teenager by the way was so indignant that she went around the entire family complaining and showing my hand print on her rump. Even now, 20 years later she still remembers that incident..

I reminded her that it hurt me more than it did her but as she pushed the boundary on bad behaviour, it was not going to be ignored or tolerated..

The things Dads have to do..

Sadly, an ongoing effort to take away a parents authority to apply punishment has been the goal of all western democracies by self-serving, childless do-gooders without even bothering to find out the outcome or benefit that authority produces..

Now they can hang their heads in shame as a population of spoilt, uncontrollable and obnoxious "children" head out to work and become involved in society..

You have probably already noticed those over privileged, self elevated neurotics..

A smacked child 'is a successful child'
By Georgia Warren From:NewsCore January 04, 2010 3:55AM

YOUNG children smacked by their parents may grow up to be happier and more successful than those who have never been hit, a study has found.

According to the research, children smacked up to the age of six were likely as teenagers to perform better at school and were more likely to carry out volunteer work and to want to go to university than their peers who had never been physically disciplined.

Only those children who continued to be smacked into adolescence showed clear behavioral problems.

Children’s groups and lawmakers in the UK have tried several times to have physical chastisement by parents outlawed. They claim it is a form of abuse that causes long-term harm to children and say banning it would send a clear signal that violence is unacceptable.

However, Marjorie Gunnoe, professor of psychology at Calvin College in Grand Rapids, Michigan, said her study showed there was insufficient evidence to deny parents the freedom to choose how they discipline their children.

“The claims made for not spanking children fail to hold up. They are not consistent with the data,” said Gunnoe.

“I think of spanking as a dangerous tool, but there are times when there is a job big enough for a dangerous tool. You just don’t use it for all your jobs.”

Research into the effects of smacking was previously hampered by the inability to find enough children who had never been smacked, given its past cultural acceptability.

But Gunnoe’s work drew on a study of 2600 people, of whom about a quarter had never been physically chastised.

Spotlight on UK Female Sex Offenders..

2010-01-03T16:18:00.000-08:00

Finally some recognition of female sex offenders. Especially as this has been ignored by all involved in the abuse racket that concentrates all it's efforts on one sex while living in denial about the other..

Spotlight on UK sex offenders
By Rajeev Syalin and Mark Townsend

7:15 AM Monday Oct 5, 2009

Child sex abuse by women is more widespread than realised, say experts, who believe there could be 64,000 female offenders in Britain.

Researchers from the Lucy Faithfull Foundation, a child protection charity that deals with British female sex offenders, said its studies confirmed that a fair proportion of child abusers were women.

Donald Findlater, director of research and development, said results indicated that up to 20 per cent of a conservative estimate of 320,000 suspected UK paedophiles were women.

The figures come days after a daycare worker in Plymouth, Vanessa George, together with Angela Allen from Nottingham and Colin Blanchard from Rochdale, pleaded guilty to sexually abusing young children.

Findlater said: "There was some suggestion it was only blokes that sexually abused children. Over time those arguments have fallen aside and people have had to wake up to the fact that actually, sadly, there is a fair proportion of women abusing as well."

About 32,000 names are on the sex offenders register. But researchers at the foundation suggest the real number is 10 times this figure.

Provisional studies, which mirror work done in the United States, suggest 5 per cent to 20 per cent are women.

The calculations put the number of female child-sex offenders in the UK at between 48,000 and 64,000, a figure Findlater describes as "highly possible".

He said: "The problem is far bigger than conviction rates and, if you look at survivor studies, you end up with a very different story about the scale of the problem of female sexual abuse."

Detectives at Scotland Yard's paedophile unit, meanwhile, disclosed that they had detected an "increased prevalence" of female offenders.

London Metropolitan police sources said quantifying the number of paedophiles was problematic but there were likely to be hundreds of thousands.

Steve Lowe, director of Phoenix Forensic Consultants, which treats and assesses child sex abusers, said the true number of female paedophiles had remained hidden for too long.

"As a society, we find women sex offenders difficult to acknowledge. But those of us who work with paedophiles have seen evidence that women are capable of terrible crimes against children - just as bad as men."

He said some female abusers remained hidden because they appeared before the family courts, where their cases were not publicised because of reporting restrictions.

The latest British Government figures, published six months ago, showed that 56 female child sex abusers were in custody, with 49 sentenced and seven on remand.

Another 84 were under supervision in the community.

Officially, fewer than 2 per cent of people on the sex offenders register are women, although experts say they expect to see the proportion increase as public awareness of female paedophiles grows.

Officials at the government's Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre said under-reporting of incidents involving female abusers was a concern and warned that "copycat" abusers may attempt to replicate the abuse that took place at Plymouth's Little Ted's nursery, where George worked.

Despite appeals from the police and anxious parents, the married mother-of-two has yet to reveal victims' names.

George, Allen and Blanchard, all 39, met through the networking site Facebook. Officials at the protection centre and at Scotland Yard believe that the internet is driving an increase in the number of sex abusers of children.

However, police say that they have detected no changes in the levels or types of abuse.

- OBSERVER
By Rajeev Syalin and Mark Townsend

Women Murdering Children: SO..

2010-01-03T02:25:00.000-08:00

Again, notice the little amount of information when any woman or mother abuses or attempts to murder her own child. Were it a Father, his previous history, his life and any other information would be exposed for all to see but this is a women and that will not be the case. We cannot as journalists expose women for the abusers and murderers they really are..

Get real..

Mom admits poisoning 2nd baby to get dad’s attention

By Men's Activism News | Source | January 1, 2010

'HILLSBORO, Ore. (AP) -- A 25-year-old former medical assistant has pleaded guilty to poisoning her 2-month-old daughter with morphine in a bid to attract the attention of the child's father. She was on probation for a similar crime in California.

Sara Rose Dillard appeared in Washington County Circuit Court on Wednesday and admitted giving her daughter Elise a high dose of the opiate in June. Judge Mark Gardner sentenced Dillard to seven years in prison after she pleaded guilty to first-degree assault.

Authorities said Dillard, of Beaverton, was on probation from California for feeding her son, who was 10 months old at the time, two opiate pills.
...
"She knew the baby would go into respiratory distress and bring a lot of attention to her and her baby because she'd put herself through respiratory distress before," prosecutor Megan Johnson said Wednesday.

Doctors at Providence St. Vincent Medical Center admitted the 2-month-old for observation in June although they couldn't detect the fever Dillard said she had. The next morning, the child was barely breathing. Her condition puzzled doctors until toxicology tests came back positive for opiates.'

Teenage mother charged in death of her infant son: She threw him to the floor head first, so who cares..

2010-01-03T02:17:00.000-08:00

First of all notice the negligence with which that journalist operates. Minimal information as usual about any woman or mother doing anything wrong..

As usual, the media treats any action by any female as an insignificant occasion even though she just murdered a child. killed him stone dead, murdered him..

Any suggestion on how if a Father had performed that same act and how he would have been treated ?

The blatant and obvious sexism in today's media is there for all to witness..

Who wants to be a journalist these days. Their main efforts are focussed on lies and misinformation..

They will have to live with what they perceive to be a soul that actually gave a damn..

Let's ensure that all women are shown to be law abiding citizens even though they murder and abuse more children that men ever do..

Teenage mother charged in death of her infant son: Police say she threw him to the floor head first

By Men's Activism News | Sat, Jan 02 2010

'Jan. 1--A teenage Tulsa mother was charged Thursday with killing her infant son.

Tulsa Country prosecutors charged Dominique Lagail Lee, 18, with the first-degree murder of Kai'den Terry.

He was 48 days old when he was fatally injured on Sept. 27, the charge states.

Lee is accused of inflicting a blunt trauma injury to her son's head at their apartment in the 6900 block of South Trenton Avenue.

A police investigator's affidavit asserts that Lee grabbed the child's legs, pulled him off a bed, and threw him to the floor head first.'

Girl Sues UK’s Child Support Agency: ‘You’ve Bankrupted My Dad’ ..

2010-01-02T00:02:00.000-08:00

How's this for ensuring the privileged princesses are served and genuflected to ?

Bankrupt Dad just to appease that princess. Well done girls, life just cannot get any better for you can it ?

Let's just screw any male, any Father and push him to suicide as life just does not get any better for him and we have you to thank for that..

Well Done ..

Obviously, it's takes the child to actually give a damn and recognise the difference, as you obviously don't..

Good on you Emma..

Girl Sues UK’s Child Support Agency: ‘You’ve Bankrupted My Dad’

By Glenn Sacks | Thu, Dec 31 2009, 09:59 AM

Sometimes it just seems to get nuttier and nuttier out there.

Case in point: Great Britain's Child Support Agency is threatening to jail a father and sell his house to satisfy his child support debt. The only trouble is that the girl who's the subject of the support order lives with him. So what the CSA wants to do is jail her custodial parent and put her on the street. All of which is in her interest according to the CSA. In fact, both father and daughter say that paying the amount will bankrupt him, which would of course severely affect her. And the money would go to her mother with whom she no longer lives. Meanwhile the mother has never paid a shilling in child support. So the girl is suing CSA.

Did you follow all that? If any of it makes sense to you, be sure to let me know. Read about it here (Daily Mail, 12/30/09).

It seems that 13-year-old Emma Chapelhow is fed up. Her parents, David Chapelhow and Janette Plummer divorced at some point, with Emma going to live with Janette. David paid child support, but the CSA, unilaterally and apparently without giving David the opportunity to contest the ruling, decided to radically increase the amount based on "lifestyle being inconsistent with income." In the U.S. we call that 'imputed income.' In other words, the state decides that a parent is hiding income because he/she seems to be living a more lavish lifestyle than the income reported would support.

Maybe the CSA based its decision on Emma's pony, Pringle. Who knows? But however it arrived at its conclusion, at some point it presented David with a bill for £43,000 which he says he can't begin to pay. So he started fighting the ruling which has further depleted his resources. Currently, he and Emma live in a caravan (travel trailer) so they can rent their house to make ends meet.

And the CSA which seems dead set on bankrupting Emma's custodial father, hasn't so much as peeped about child support from Janette.

All of that has raised the ire of 13-year-old Emma, who's filed suit against the CSA. Two years ago, a court ruled that Emma was mature enough to "instruct her solicitor," which means she could decide what parent she wanted to live with. She chose her father whom she calls a 'hero.'

He's joined her suit against the CSA, which is legally obligated to "have regard to the welfare of any child likely to be affected by their decisions." Emma, David and their legal representation apparently believe that tossing the dad in prison and selling his assets to pay a debt that may or may not be legitimate to a mother who no longer has custody and who does not herself pay to support her daughter, violates the CSA's duty of 'regard.' Fancy that.

Just in case the CSA hadn't behaved enough like a Mafia enforcer, it sent the bailiffs out to seize Pringle under the nose of the distraught Emma. Apparently it was just a bluff, but terrorizing a 13-year-old whose best interests you're supposed to be protecting makes sense, doesn't it? In any case, seizing an asset that seems to be the child's to satisfy a parent's support obligation to that child is surely a first.

Thanks to Roy for the heads-up.

Campus Newspaper Interviews Fathers’ Rights Attorney/Advocate Jeffery Leving..

2009-12-04T02:04:00.000-08:00

Personally, I just cannot understand it ! A University actually giving a damn about Fathers.It's unheard of. We already know that Universities are the feedbed for the socialist agenda and have continually demonstrated that fact with sickening continuity, clearly demonstrating their ongoing anti-male attitudes (see Harvard for example). So it's refreshing but this is a single example by those hypocrites claiming to be into the"social agendas", for them to actually bother to pose any questions concerning the plight and ongoing negative promotion of all Fathers must be seen as a recognition of the inevitable..

Wonders never cease..

Ofcourse apart from that, the men's movement is slowly but surely tightening the thumbscrews so it will probably be of benefit in the long term to be on the winning side..

We have had enough..

Campus Newspaper Interviews Fathers’ Rights Attorney/Advocate Jeffery Leving

By Glenn Sacks | Thu, Dec 03 2009, 10:00 AM

If the radical inequities of family law are ever to be corrected, the political consciousness of young men will be a necessary part of the process. Since men tend to father children when they're younger, the family court hammer tends to fall on them the hardest. Therefore, they're the ones with the most to lose by maintaining the status quo, so meaningful change will need to at least have their help, if not be spearheaded by them.

So it's good to read about organizations dedicated to raising men's consciousness of the many inequalities they face and the misandry of popular culture. I've written recently about men's oranizations at the University of Chicago, Oxford University and the University of Manchester.

This article in the student publication for Northern Illinois University is another suggestion that at least some young men are "mad as hell and aren't going to take it anymore," to coin a phrase (Northern Star, 11/29/09). It's an interview with attorney and fathers' rights advocate Jeffery Leving.

The article makes points with which most of us are familiar, but are always worth repeating, particularly to a college audience. Leving recites the blatant anti-father bias of family courts in cases from divorce to child custody to adoption.

The father’s right’s attorney went on to express how society’s expectation of a man’s responsibility is hypocritical. Society wants a man to be responsible while they actually believe he isn’t.

“So when a father wants to step up to the plate, they immediately think it is to get out of paying child support, to hurt the mother or for some other inappropriate reason. Fathers seem to be targeted no matter what they do.”

The article doesn't delve deeply, but it's a glimmer of light in the darkness. Young men have lived all their lives in a culture and attended educational institutions that have taught them a number of astonishing untruths about their sex. From somewhere, they need to learn the truth and healthy ways of understanding men and fathers. Hearing Jeffery Leving's words and seeing his actions aren't a bad way to start

It’s too easy to blame dads..

2009-11-19T21:42:00.000-08:00

It often fascinates me how the bleeding obvious use to be used as common sense, that was until the male-haters, the feminists ensured that only one sex is legal and the other one was, well, just there..

Too many times have feminists been demonstrated to be liars, male-haters, destroying facts and introducing fiction ( one in four women will be raped, women do not lie about rape, women only abuse when they are attacked)are just a few examples and have been clearly and completely demonstrated to be totally untrue as well as demonstrated that it was all part of their doctrine and their aim to destroy families as well as Fathers..

And they won !!!

Fathers are now second or third class citizens in countries they have sweated blood over to build and ensure security for their families.

Fathers are no longer recognised as any legal entity with any government department except the C$A..

So what does that tell you ?

Anything ?

http://women. timesonline. co.uk/tol/ life_and_ style/women/ families/ article6919217. ece

The Times (Britain)
17 November 2009

It’s too easy to blame dads

When separated families fall out of touch, it’s easy to find fault with others. But there is plenty all parties can do.

By Suzie Hayman

When my stepson, Alex, was a child, he lived in Birmingham, and his father and I lived in London. My husband used to scour the capital every weekend for postcards - from museums, galleries, anywhere to send to him. For several years, almost very day, he'd compose some awful bit of doggerel about the picture and send it off - a way of saying “I may not be seeing you today but I'm thinking about you.” Alex now has a child of his own; and a box on a shelf that contains every single one of those postcards.

When he fetched the box out last Christmas - postcard after postcard keeping the link - we were reminded how important it was to keep that contact. Adults may be able to hold on to a relationship many miles and many days apart, but it’s far harder for children. They need their parents to be there for them.

This kind of regular contact between separated families seems to be getting harder to maintain. Most parents will say that their child’s welfare is their main priority during a separation, but according to a new study of more than 4,000 people by the law firm Mishcon de Reya, more than a third of children lose touch with their father after their parents separate.

Whether it’s a third who lose touch permanently, or the more frequently quoted 50 per cent (from a 1996 study) who stop contact in the first two years, clearly it’s far more than it should be. But what makes keeping in touch so difficult?

One answer could be suggested by a finding of the Mishcon de Reya report - one in five divorcing spouses admitted to having the primary objective of making the experience as unpleasant as possible for his or her former partner.

Mothers may demand money and refuse contact if it’s not enough; fathers may retaliate by playing fast and loose, changing arrangements at the last moment. It causes stress, anxiety and rage. And with their eyes on the “enemy”, what both often forget is that the person who suffers most is the child, who is often used as an “emotional football”, according to the study, feeling “used, isolated and alone”.

There are two theories that might explain what happens even to those fathers who want to keep contact with their children. When Dan divorced from Louise, he swore that he'd never lose touch with his eight-year-old daughter and nine-year-old son. Three years on, he never calls, he never sees them. Mention children and his fists curl, his teeth grit and he changes the subject, fast.

His is a classic example of the discontinuity hypothesis, which suggests that fathers who have been highly involved with their children are more likely to become disengaged because of the pain of separation. Every time they see their child, knowing that at the end of the day or weekend they have to hand them back, they feel misery, hurt and guilt.

Children often act out their distress so that bad behaviour before, during or after time spent together places particular strain around the whole issue of contact. Both parents may come to believe that limiting or stopping meetings altogether will clear up the distress.

“It just got too much,” says Dan. “Every time I saw him, I wanted to cry. Every time he stayed the visit would end in tantrums and tears - for both of us, frankly. I'd take him back and she'd look at me with such disgust as if to say, ‘What are you doing to our boy?’ So one day, I just stopped. But there’s not a day when I don't think about him.”

Other fathers duck out because the discomfort becomes too much for them to bear - they may rationalise it as doing the best for the child, but it may be their own anguish that drives them.

The continuity hypothesis suggests that post-divorce relationships correlate to pre-divorce contact. A father who, prior to divorce focused most of his attention on work, friends or his own interests, may find it hard to continue any relationship. This type of father often loves his children and wants to stay in touch, but what encouraged him to relate to them was always the child’s mother. With her now fighting against him, he will be put off.

Bob is typical of some of the fathers who have come to see me in my capacity as a relationship counsellor. “I never knew what I had till I lost it,” he says. “I used to make excuses not to have to play with him. Now I'd give anything to see him - I don't know, it’s just too much arguing every time I try.”

The results can be dramatic and far-reaching. Children of messy divorces can exhibit a range of psychological and behavioural problems in childhood and beyond, from bed-wetting and tantrums to truancy, risk-taking, premature sexual behaviour, pregnancy, and even criminal behaviour, that can be traced back to the trauma of losing their family, losing a parent and not having a father figure around.

Look into the background of any “out of control” child, teenager or adult and it’s a betting certainty that somewhere, sometime, loss and rejection form part of the picture. Children need their fathers; fathers need their children. How, as a society, are we going to turn the tide on the loss so many of our families suffer?

A good beginning would be to go one step farther than the Children Act that 20 years ago tried to put the needs of children at the centre of divorce proceedings. The act moved court proceedings from being a fight for “custody” of children, as if they were belongings to be fought over and won, to residence and contact. The presumption was that the child’s right to contact with both parents was the vital issue.

But there is still an assumption that children live with one parent - usually the mother - and ‘visit’ another, usually the father. What we should now do is to make an assumption that children have two parents and that both are full-time parents, even when children do not spend 100 per cent of the time with each. There needs to be an understanding, for instance, that children should be able to be in contact with both and either parent whenever they choose, by mail, through mobiles, or email if necessary.

When parents are at loggerheads, there should be much more done to sustain the interests of the father and child. When a mother turns her child against the father, when a mother refuses to comply with a court order on contact, nothing is done because it is felt sanctions against her would not be in the interests of the child. But is the situation as it stands in that child’s interests? We pay only lip service to the rights of a child to have contact with a father and we need to do better.

When parents part, the courts prefer them to settle their differences and make arrangements between themselves, only calling upon the legal process in extremis. But there is no requirement for parents to access any of the excellent help and support that would make it so much easier to manage co-parenting apart.

If parents were expected, encouraged or even required to go to mediation or counselling, they could settle the unfinished business of their rage and pain, put it aside and get on with bringing up their children in partnership, though no longer partners. More people need to be made aware of Parenting Plans - a guide for separating parents published by the Department of Children, Schools and Families that covers everything from day-to-day arrangements to holidays.

We also need to put money into doing so much better for children. Increasingly, schools are inviting Relate and other counsellors in to talk to children and offer confidential consultations. But it’s still a postcode lottery - not all local authorities make funding available, and not all schools use it. It should be a given that all children have somewhere to go to speak to an objective professional with their needs in mind.

Overhauling the way we deal with parenting, with divorce, with separated families would have significant effects on the lives of so many families. It might cost millions, but what it would save in emotional terms is priceless.

And in Britain particularly, it’s much needed. The 2007 UNICEF report A Review of Child Well-Being in Rich Countries makes sobering reading. It looked at a range of indicators to measure wellbeing among children and young people, including healthy living, risky behaviour and relationships with family and friends. Out of 21 countries, the UK’s average ranking was 18. In quite a few important indices, we came 21st. Can we afford to go on accepting that a third of children lose their fathers?

What dads can do

- Keep in daily contact with your child: texts, cards, emails, Facebook, Twitter - use anything that keeps you communicating.

- Get help and support from family, friends and charities such as the Fatherhood Institute, Parentline, Families Need Fathers and the Centre for Separated Families.

- Negotiate, conciliate, mediate and communicate. While you may feel that your ex is behaving badly, your anger hurts your child most of all.

- Go to mediation or counselling. If your child’s mother won't go too, then start without her.

- When you see your child, accept that it can be painful for both of you. Allow for some negative feelings and behaviour on both sides.

- Foster contact between your own parents and your children too.

- Don't allow living in another town or country from your children to make a difference. Use technology to stay in touch and meet them as often as possible.

- Lobby your MP for more money to be put into services for parents in conflict, before and after separation.

What mums can do

- He may no longer be your partner but he’s still your child’s parent. Put your feelings aside and help him to stay in contact.

- Encourage children to stay in touch with a non-resident dad. Whatever you think of him as a partner, he can still be an excellent dad.

- Never criticise your former partner, even if you think that your child can't hear you. Think of and refer to him as “my child’s father” rather than “my ex”.

- Ask for help from friends and family or call Parentline on 0808 800 2222, open 24 hours a day.

- Use mediation or counselling to end your disagreement and decide on how to co-parent.

- Money and contact are different issues: refusing contact because of rows over finances hurts your child most.

- Don’t forget grandparents - your parents and his. They can be a point of stability for children.

What children can do

- Accept that the split is not your fault. You are not to blame for your parents arguing or separating.

- Get some help to understand what is happening and feel better from websites such as http://itsnotyourfa ult.org

- Talk to someone - a friend, family member, teacher, counsellor or youth worker.

- Talk to both your parents, too. They may not have realised how much you know and how much it hurts - so trust them to want to help.

- Let the school know that you are having a tough time. They can help - and if it affects your schoolwork, they need to know.

Fathers Gain Respect From Experts..

2009-11-14T12:59:00.000-08:00

How condescending is this article ?
The usual gab feast from the New York Times but surprisingly pro-Father which actually does rather surprise me. Feminists as well as women in general have been brainwashed into believing that Fathers are irrelevant and only tolerated for their atm benefits as well as being sperm donors. Are those lies finally being laid to rest ?

Fathers Gain Respect From Experts (and Mothers)

By LAURIE TARKAN
Published: November 2, 2009

It used to irk Melissa Calapini when her 3-year-old daughter, Haley, hung around her father while he fixed his cars. Ms. Calapini thought there were more enriching things the little girl could be doing with her time.
Well

But since the couple attended a parenting course — to save their relationship, which had become overwhelmed by arguments about rearing their children — Ms. Calapini has had a change of heart. Now she encourages the father-daughter car talk.

“Daddy’s bonding time with his girls is working on cars,” said Ms. Calapini, of Olivehurst, Calif. “He has his own way of communicating with them, and that’s O.K.”

As much as mothers want their partners to be involved with their children, experts say they often unintentionally discourage men from doing so. Because mothering is their realm, some women micromanage fathers and expect them to do things their way, said Marsha Kline Pruett, a professor at the Smith College School for Social Work at Smith College and a co-author of the new book “Partnership Parenting,” with her husband, the child psychiatrist Dr. Kyle Pruett (Da Capo Press).

Yet a mother’s support of the father turns out to be a critical factor in his involvement with their children, experts say — even when a couple is divorced.

“In the last 20 years, everyone’s been talking about how important it is for fathers to be involved,” said Sara S. McLanahan, a professor of sociology and public affairs at Princeton. “But now the idea is that the better the couple gets along, the better it is for the child.”

Her research, part of a project based at Princeton and called the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study, found that when couples scored high on positive relationship traits like willingness to compromise, expressing affection or love for their partner, encouraging or helping partners to do things that were important to them, and having an absence of insults and criticism, the father was significantly more likely to be engaged with his children.

Uninvolved fathers have long been accused of lacking motivation. But research shows that many societal obstacles conspire against them. Even as more fathers are changing diapers, dropping the children off at school and coaching soccer, they are often pushed aside in ways large and small.

“The walls in family resource centers are pink, there are women’s magazines in the waiting room, the mother’s name is on the files, and the home visitor asks for the mother if the father answers the door,” said Philip A. Cowan, an emeritus professor of psychology at the University of California, Berkeley, who along with his wife, Carolyn Pape Cowan, has conducted decades of research on families. “It’s like fathers are not there.”

In recent years, several fathers’ rights organizations have offered father-only parenting programs and groups, and studies have shown that these help men become more responsive and engaged with their children.

But a new randomized, controlled study conducted by the Pruetts and the Cowans found that the families did even better if mothers were brought into the picture.

In the study, low-income couples were randomly placed into a father-mother group, a father-only group and a control group of couples. The controls were given one information session; the other two groups met for 16 weeks at family resource centers in California, discussing various parental issues.

In both of those groups, the researchers found, the fathers not only spent more time with their children than the controls did but were also more active in the daily tasks of child-rearing. They became more emotionally involved with their children, and the children were much less aggressive, hyperactive, depressed or socially withdrawn than children of fathers in the control group.

But notably, the families in the couples group did best. They had less parental stress and more marital happiness than the other parents studied, suggesting that the critical difference was not greater involvement by the fathers in child-rearing but greater emotional support between couples.

“The study emphasizes the importance of couples’ figuring parenting out together and accepting the different ways of parenting,” Dr. Kline Pruett said.

Fathers tend to do things differently, Dr. Kyle Pruett said, but not in ways that are worse for the children. Fathers do not mother, they father.

Dr. Kyle Pruett added: “Dads tend to discipline differently, use humor more and use play differently. Fathers want to show kids what’s going on outside their mother’s arms, to get their kids ready for the outside world.” To that end, he said, they tend to encourage risk-taking and problem-solving.

The study was financed by the California Office of Child Abuse Prevention, which is looking for ways to involve fathers more at the state’s many family resource centers. Experts say improving the way fathers are treated in many settings, public and private, is an important public health goal.

For example, they say, pictures of families on the walls of clinics and public agencies should have fathers in them. All correspondence should be addressed to both mother and father. Staff members should be welcoming to men. Steps like these promote early and lasting involvement by fathers.

“We want people to think about how positive father engagement in this co-parenting model would work in their foster care agency, local health clinic, pediatric office, adoption agency or school,” Dr. Kyle Pruett said. “That’s where an awful lot of the barriers are.”

At home, the experts recommend that couples keep talking about parenting issues and do their best to appreciate each other’s strengths. A recurring argument among couples is that each partner thinks he or she knows what is right; a mother may accuse the father of allowing too much television, while a father may tell a mother she isn’t strict enough with discipline.

“Instead, they should be saying, ‘How can each of us be the kind of parent that we are?’ ” Dr. Philip Cowan said. “I don’t think it’s abuse for a dad to sit with that little kid watching TV.”

These experts agree that parents should not focus solely on the children.

“Parents work all day, and feel as if they need to give every other minute to the kids,” Dr. Cowan said, “but if they don’t take care of the relationship between them, they’re not taking care of the whole story.”

This Is Your Brain Without Dad..

2009-10-31T19:50:00.000-07:00

Interesting, but typical difficulties comparing animal with human behaviour.

Quote #1: Of course, the frontal cortex - where thinking and decision-making take place - is more complex in humans than it is in other animals. Thus, says Dr. Braun, it is important to be "really careful" about extrapolating the recent findings to human populations. "The minute you get into stuff with extensive social and environmental components, the social differences between humans and animals are massive," says Simon Chapple, a senior economist in the social policy division of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the 30-country grouping of the world's largest economies. It remains an "open verdict" whether single parenthood causes these bad outcomes, or is merely associated with them, says Dr. Chapple.

Quote #2: Still, the prevalence of single-parent households has researchers looking at possible consequences for children. An OECD report ["Doing Better for Children" - Refer appended details after article] found that just 57% of children in the U.S. live with both parents, among the lowest percentages of the world's richest nations. The report, which sparked some controversy when it was released in September, found that children in single-parent households have an increased risk of delinquency and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, or ADHD, as well as poorer scholastic performance. The OECD also analyzed data from 122 separate studies and found that there was variability in the negative effects on children of living in a single-parent home; on average, the OECD found, the magnitude of the impact was relatively small. On a standardized intelligence test with a median score of 100 points, for example, a child in a single-parent family would be about 3.5 points worse off than a similar child in a two-parent family, according to Dr. Chapple, who co-wrote the report.

------------ --------- --------- --------- -

http://online. wsj.com/article/ SB10001424052748 7047548045744918 11861197926. html

The Wall Street Journal (USA)
27 October 2009

This Is Your Brain Without Dad
By Shirley S. Wang

Conventional wisdom holds that two parents are better than one. Scientists are now finding that growing up without a father actually changes the way your brain develops.

German biologist Anna Katharina Braun and others are conducting research on animals that are typically raised by two parents, in the hopes of better understanding the impact on humans of being raised by a single parent. Dr. Braun's work focuses on degus, small rodents related to guinea pigs and chinchillas, because mother and father degus naturally raise their babies together.

When deprived of their father, the degu pups exhibit both short- and long-term changes in nerve-cell growth in different regions of the brain. Dr. Braun, director of the Institute of Biology at Otto von Guericke University in Magdeburg, and her colleagues are also looking at how these physical changes affect offspring behavior.

Their preliminary analysis indicates that fatherless degu pups exhibit more aggressive and impulsive behavior than pups raised by two parents.

In a study the researchers presented at the Society for Neuroscience meeting in Chicago earlier this month and recently published in the journal Neuroscience, half the degus were raised with two parents, while the others were raised by a single mother, the father having been removed from the cage one day after the birth of his offspring.

Dr. Braun and her colleagues found that in the two-parent families, the degu mothers and fathers cared for their pups in similar ways, including sleeping next to or crouching over them, licking and grooming them, and playing with them. The fathers even exhibited a "nursing-type" position.

When the mother was a single parent, the frequency of her interactions with her pups didn't change much, which means that those pups experienced significantly less touching and interaction than those with two parents.

The researchers then looked at the neurons - cells that send and receive messages between the brain and the body - of some pups at day 21, around the time they were weaned from their mothers, and others at day 90, which is considered adulthood for the species.

Neurons have branches, known as dendrites, that conduct electrical signals received from other nerve cells to the body, or trunk, of the neuron. The leaves of the dendrites are protrusions called dendritic spines that receive messages and serve as the contact between neurons.

Dr. Braun's group found that at 21 days, the fatherless animals had less dense dendritic spines compared to animals raised by both parents, though they "caught up" by day 90. However, the length of some types of dendrites was significantly shorter in some parts of the brain, even in adulthood, in fatherless animals.

"It just shows that parents are leaving footprints on the brain of their kids," says Dr. Braun, 54 years old.

The neuronal differences were observed in a part of the brain called the amygdala, which is related to emotional responses and fear, and the orbitofrontal cortex, or OFC, the brain's decision-making center.

'A Horse Without a Rider'

The balance between these two brain parts is critical to normal emotional and cognitive functioning, according to Dr. Braun. If the OFC isn't active, the amygdala "goes crazy, like a horse without a rider," she says. In the case of the fatherless pups, there were fewer dendritic spines in the OFC, while the dendrite trees in the amygdala grew more and longer branches.

A preliminary analysis of the degus' behavior showed that fatherless animals seemed to have a lack of impulse control, Dr. Braun says. And, when they played with siblings, they engaged in more play-fighting or aggressive behavior.

In a separate study in Dr. Braun's lab conducted by post-doctoral researcher Joerg Bock, degu pups were removed from their caregivers for one hour a day. Just this small amount of stress leads the pups to exhibit more hyperactive behaviors and less focused attention, compared to those who aren't separated, Dr. Braun says. They also exhibit changes in their brain.

The basic wiring between the brain regions in the degus is the same as in humans, and the nerve cells are identical in their function. "So on that level we can assume that what happens in the animal's brain when it's raised in an impoverished environment ... should be very similar to what happens in our children's brain," Dr. Braun says.

Other researchers, such as Xia Zhang, a senior scientist at the University of Ottawa Institute of Mental Health Research, and his colleagues in China, have observed different consequences using voles, mouselike rodents that also naturally co-parent. (Fewer than 10% of species raise their offspring with two parents.)

Voles deprived of their fathers - either from birth or later on in childhood - exhibited more anxious behaviors and were less social, spending less time engaging with stranger voles that were placed in their cage, according to a study by Dr. Zhang and his colleagues that was published in July in the journal Behavioral Processes.

Of course, the frontal cortex - where thinking and decision-making take place - is more complex in humans than it is in other animals. Thus, says Dr. Braun, it is important to be "really careful" about extrapolating the recent findings to human populations.

"The minute you get into stuff with extensive social and environmental components, the social differences between humans and animals are massive," says Simon Chapple, a senior economist in the social policy division of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the 30-country grouping of the world's largest economies.

It remains an "open verdict" whether single parenthood causes these bad outcomes, or is merely associated with them, says Dr. Chapple.

Risk of Delinquency

Still, the prevalence of single-parent households has researchers looking at possible consequences for children. An OECD report found that just 57% of children in the U.S. live with both parents, among the lowest percentages of the world's richest nations.

The report, which sparked some controversy when it was released in September, found that children in single-parent households have an increased risk of delinquency and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, or ADHD, as well as poorer scholastic performance.

The OECD also analyzed data from 122 separate studies and found that there was variability in the negative effects on children of living in a single-parent home; on average, the OECD found, the magnitude of the impact was relatively small. On a standardized intelligence test with a median score of 100 points, for example, a child in a single-parent family would be about 3.5 points worse off than a similar child in a two-parent family, according to Dr. Chapple, who co-wrote the report.

Dr. Braun's goal for future research is to figure out whether degu pups' brains can be rewired by introducing a substitute caregiver, such as a grandmother, or whether other social and emotional enrichment can help "repair" the fatherless pups, she says. Human children may be sent to day care, for instance, which can help them form stable friendships with their peers and other adults.

The bottom line, says Dr. Braun, is that parents need to fuel their children's brains with talk, touch and sensitive stimulation that involves give and take.

Parents, she says, "are the sculptors of their children's brains."

Write to Shirley S. Wang at shirley.wang@ wsj.com

============ ========= ========= ==

http://www.oecd. org/els/social/ childwellbeing
http://www.oecd. org/document/ 12/0,3343, en_2649_34819_ 43545036_ 1_1_1_37419, 00.html

OECD - Doing Better for Children
ISBN Number: 978-92-64-05933- 7
Publication Date: 1 September 2009
Pages: 191

- Table of Contents
http://www.oecd. org/dataoecd/ 10/2/43552898. pdf

- Press material
http://www.oecd. org/document/ 12/0,3343, en_2649_34819_ 43545036_ 1_1_1_1,00. html#Press_ material

- Country highlights
http://www.oecd. org/document/ 12/0,3343, en_2649_34819_ 43545036_ 1_1_1_1,00. html#Country_ specific_ highlights

- Key data
http://www.oecd. org/document/ 12/0,3343, en_2649_34819_ 43545036_ 1_1_1_1,00. html#data

------------ --------- --------- --------- ------

http://www.oecd. org/document/ 51/0,3343, en_2649_33933_ 32067955_ 1_1_1_1,00. html

Monitoring social policy

Child Well-being www.oecd.org/ els/social/ childwellbeing

The well-being of children is high on the policy agenda across the OECD. But what is the actual state of child well-being today? How much are governments spending on children and are they spending it at the right times? What social and family policies have the most impact during children’s earliest years? Is growing up in a single-parent household detrimental to children? Is inequality that persists across generations a threat to child well-being? The publication Doing Better for Children <http://www.oecd. org/document/ 12/0,3343, en_2649_33933_ 43545036_ 1_1_1_1,00. html>, released early September 2009, addresses these questions and more.

A Child Well-being Expert Consultation <http://www.oecd. org/document/ 22/0,3343, en_2649_33933_ 42534358_ 1_1_1_1,00. html>, jointly organised by UNICEF IRC, the OECD and the European Commission, took place in Paris at the end of May 2009, with the purpose of developing a shared understanding of a set of data that countries should monitor in order to inform policies for children’s well-being. A list of institutional websites <http://www.oecd. org/document/ 58/0,3343, en_2649_33933_ 43429626_ 1_1_1_1,00. html> in the field of child well-being research has also been created and will continue to be updated at the request of stakeholders.

------------ --------- --------- --------- ----

http://www.oecd. org/dataoecd/ 17/50/43581806. pdf
Summary: "Doing Better for Children"
"How can we do better for our children"

Boy-hating is in and Nobody Cares..

2009-10-23T04:19:00.000-07:00

Boy-hating is in

Barbara Kay, National Post
Published: Wednesday, October 21, 2009

But here's where it gets creepy. Barrett's interest in GD doesn't spring from disapproval, but from empathy. Herself the mother of one boy, expecting her second child and bracing for the results of an amniocentesis
As my first-born was a boy, I quite reasonably hoped for a girl the second time around. In my technologically antediluvian era, one discovered one's child's sex upon delivery. So the long gestational lull was filled with suspense and a good deal of base-covering hypocrisy: "Oh, I don't care really, as long as it's healthy" and "Brothers are so cute together!"

Needless to say, when informed I had produced a girl, I gave way to honest emotion and 'fessed up to great joy. I'd realized my tidy fantasy -- as the old song goes, "a boy for you and a girl for me." But had I delivered a second boy, there would still have been joy, and brothers really are cute together.

At the time, culturally naive, I was unaware that for half the female world, the sex of their unborn babies isn't a subject for idle speculation, but an existential matter upon which their social status and even their physical wellbeing depends.

In honour/shame societies, boys are prized and girls are considered virtually worthless apart from their procreative properties, with even that positive valuation contingent on male issue. Until the magical moment of delivery, every pregnancy is a source of profound anxiety to these women. Technology has only exacerbated their unhappy lot. These days sex selection through abortion of healthy female fetuses is pandemic in Southeast Asia, and even in immigrant communities in the West.

Since up to now "gender disappointment" (GD) has been a phenomenon universally associated with female inferiority in patriarchal cultures, I was intrigued by the title of an article in ELLE magazine's online site by Ruth Shalit Barrett, "Girl Crazy: Women Who Suffer from Gender Disappointment."

The article takes the measure of a new phenomenon, a mirror image of the gender pathology we see in honour/shame societies: women so desperate for a female child they will do anything and spend any amount of money to ensure it. According to Barrett, their efforts may include: eating keffir, berries and sesame paste; douching with vinegar and a lime-soaked tampon; "sperm-spinning," in which faster-spinning male-producing sperm are separated and inserted via artificial insemination; and finally the "holy grail" of sperm selection, MicroSort: in vitro fertilization with preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) where the embryos are sex-identified and only the female embryos implanted.

It's no crime to prefer a male or female child. What is disturbing in the situations Barrett explores is the guilt-free dehumanization of boys displayed by these girl-obsessed women. One subject who had gone the MicroSort route, told she was carrying a girl, was devastated when it turned out to be a boy: "I was in hysterics. I felt like someone had died.... I stayed in my room. I felt like a funeral should be held."

There are books on GD, such as Altered Dreams: Living with Gender Disappointment. On GD websites like iVillage.comand In-Gender.com,women trade tips on how to "sway" conception and commiserate with others in the throes of GD over a failed -- i. e., a male -- fetus: "I have not stopped crying;" "[I] contemplate the end of my life;" "[I] am once again considering terminating the pregnancy." One despondent GD mother of three boys, all the results of failed strenuous bids for girls, wrote: "I hate my life... I want to give them to someone who can actually love them." I naturally assumed Barrett had written the piece to express her horror that any women in our culture, so sensitive to all other forms of discrimination, should freely vent what amounts to gender hatred. What, after all, will their sons think of themselves when they are eventually exposed to their mothers' resentment over their existence circulating forever on the web?

which she was resigned to hear would identify a second male fetus, she was "electrified" to hear it was a girl. Barrett reports she then immediately put down her root beer and pad thai -- good enough nourishment for a boy fetus, but not for a girl. "I went to Whole Foods and stocked up on fresh veggies... I felt a sudden surge of tender protectiveness. It turns out I wasn't alone..."

One can argue that female baby worship is only a fringe phenomenon so far. I'm sure that's true. But ELLE is a major mainstream women's magazine. This article, endorsed by editors exquisitely attuned to American women's values, was written not to bury gender hatred but to praise it. That's sick. But also a telling forensic detail in a growing body of cultural evidence proving that boys have become the West's Second Sex, and nobody seems to care about it.

bkay@videotron.ca

Supermom: AWOL..

2009-10-19T16:31:00.000-07:00

Another good example of the ongoing blustering we have read about "Supermoms" regularly in the media. Who could keep up with that image besides continually promoting it themselves. Something is going to break and it has..

Women have consistently sided with feminists and failed to point those male-haters in the right direction when it comes to the bleeding obvious but it makes them feel better, at the same time promote everything female and leave Dads out of the picture and childen are the end reward as they include payment from alienated Fathers. They can even scheme to remove them permanently if they wish. The current laws are definitely structured for them and in most cases, even encourage it..

Mothers are the greater child abusers but that's well hidden..

Meanwhile, children as usual, carry the brunt of this doctrine that encourages on the one hand to achieve single motherhood if it can be called an achievement (as it takes very little effort) and instigates more suffering on the other..

Women need to make a decision. If we go by previous decisions such as the rise in single mums world-wide and excluding the Father. Then this is the obvious outcome..

You are on your own..

Women struggling to be 'good mums'
Cheryl Critchley From:Herald Sun October 20, 2009.

Amanda Cox, with Charlie, 13 months, admits to finding kids games boring. Picture: Tim Carrafa Source: Herald Sun

MUMS have admitted swearing in front of their children and at times not even liking them, a survey has found.

Some also find finger painting with their children boring, yell, use the TV as a babysitter or have messy houses. And they feel bad about it.

The realmums.com.au Are you a bad mother? survey found many felt they were doing a bad job, often because of unrealistic ideals imposed by others.

One in 10 swore in front of their children, hated or didn't do housework, didn't like playing with their children or found it boring, and returned to work when the children were young to get time away.

One in seven hated cooking or fed their children junk food or takeaway, and more than one in 10 yelled at them or used the TV or computer as a babysitter.

Mother of three Amanda Cox, 38, started Real Mums almost four years ago after the parenting industry made her feel inadequate and she saw a gap in support for parents of older children.

She will launch a Bad Mothers Club on November 6 to empower the growing number of mums like her.

Through social events and support, the club will give pestered parents permission to have fun and stop beating themselves up about achieving an unrealistic ideal.

"Most mums experience feelings of isolation, inadequacy and lack of support, and would really like a little bit of time out for themselves," Ms Cox said.

"Mums ... feel like they're doing a bad job at mothering, that they can't do things 'right'. And sometimes they don't even like their kids!"

Ms Cox, who has three sons aged one, six and eight, said mums needed non-judgmental emotional support and tactics to deal with children that worked in the real world.

Her survey also found four in 10 wanted friends and support, 22 per cent wanted to know they weren't alone and were "normal", 15 per cent wanted more sleep and 13 per cent more money.

Half wanted time to themselves for holidays, time with partners, and going to the toilet in peace.

"These women are calling themselves bad mothers based on an outside perception of what's bad or what's good," Ms Cox said. "There's no such thing as a bad mother or a good mother."

Maternal Child Sexual Abuse on Rise in U.K...

2009-10-16T15:45:00.000-07:00

This is nothing new, it's just been ignored while the children suffer a lifetime of anguish and self-loathing. Probably leading to an "educated by example" potential abusive future, compliments of mother..

Maternal Child Sexual Abuse on Rise in U.K.

By Glenn Sacks | Thu, Oct 15 2009.

Bill Jenkins doesn’t know whether his foster mother deliberately took him into care so that she could abuse him. But that was the tragic result and he, like other victims of female child abusers, says that, while he spoke about the abuse at the time, no one investigated it or believed him.

In the United Kingdom, it's slowly coming to light that women commit far more sexual abuse of children than was previously thought. Read the latest here (Times Online, 10/5/09). As the above quotation shows, official statistics don't tell the real story. That's because official statistics, including those for convictions and incarcerations, reflect prevailing biases about who does and who doesn't commit sexual abuse of children.

The simple fact is that, up until very recently, few people - the police, judges and juries - could actually believe that, for example, a mother could sexually abuse her child. Mothers are, after all, selfless givers of care and nurturance, right? A good half of our Western European culture for some 2,000 years has named the Virgin Mary, mother of Christ, the very embodiment of virtue.

So trying to convince people that mothers sexually abuse their children is roughly akin to paddling a canoe up Niagara Falls - progress is slow and the chances of success remote. The linked-to article describes Detective Superintendant Graham Hill of the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Agency as saying,

According to Hill, ten or fifteen years ago most crimes involving accusations of child sexual abuse that the police dealt with were always examined on the premise that the man was the guilty party.

Now though, Hill says that essentially every police force in the country is dealing with a female offender. And that, unsurprisingly is leading to a change of perception by police about who is committing these crimes.

But public perceptions are slower to change. According to Hill, the public clings doggedly to the notion that even when a woman commits a sex crime against a child, a man made her do it. And that,

Hill believes that the public’s perception that female sex offenders usually operate alongside a controlling and manipulative man is often false. He dismisses that stereotypical image as a societal cliché born out of a reluctance to believe that a woman could act so heinously alone and for her own sexual gratification.

Still, Hill believes that at most 20% of sexual abuse of children is done by women. But it's well known that in the U.K. and in the United States at least, the percentage of violent crimes perpetrated by women is on the rise, even as violent crime itself becomes less frequent. So it may be that even that figure proves, once we start getting accurate data, to understate the truth.

But getting and admitting the truth about sexual abuse of children may take longer than we think. Dr. Michelle Elliott, who operates Kidscape, a support group for sexually abused children, places the problem squarely at the door of professionals who work in the field.

“No one really wants to talk about it. But the professionals are the ones who really annoy me. I’d say that 75 per cent of them are in denial — a mental block. I think there are professionals working in the field who have staked a career on a certainty that it is men who do the abusing. They are very threatened by the idea that that might not be true.”

And psychologist Diana Cant talks about the effects of childhood sexual abuse by women. As it turns out, those are intimately associated with the very notion of mother as a provider of safety, warmth and caring.

“If you think about the experience that we have as children, we expect a degree of safety and security and primary care from our mothers. If that expectation is confounded, something at a very primitive level is broken and gets destroyed. The child grows up immediately with a sense of fear and threat. That can lead to an underlying degree of anger, resentment and fury that colours adult life.”

The bottom line? The thing that makes female sexual abuse of children so terrible is the very thing that keeps it hidden. That's a bad combination.

The Supermyth of Supermom..

2009-10-14T02:26:00.000-07:00

As in blogs past and well into the future this will continue to rear it's unbiased head..

Succinctly stated and historically correct..

The great writer/philosopher Kahlil Gibran wrote:

Much of your pain is self-chosen. It is the bitter potion by which the physician within you heals your sick self. Therefore trust the physician and drink his remedy in silence and tranquility.

A hundred million other people put it even more succinctly.

Be careful what you ask for, you just might get it.

Sometimes we need to be reminded of that well know fact. Sadly in this day and age it no longer applies. Age old memories are ignored and the new " I want it now" maelstrom screams and rears it's ugly head to no one's benefit.

The Supermyth of Supermom
Friday, October 9, 2009
By Paul Elam

Women often lament the state of their modern identity. Every woman is expected to be Wonder Woman; the successful professional, harlot and homemaker for their husbands; the perfect mom, heroine to the children they bear. They are victims of dichotomous demands that pull them in different directions and that sometimes threaten to pull them apart.

It’s a sympathetic and unfortunate reality, and one that society imposed on women, despite their complaints, at the behest and literal insistence of women themselves. At least enough of them to effect sweeping change.

Modern feminism is the feminism of choices, is it not? And haven’t women by and large demanded compliance with that agenda? Women, most of them, understandably want the freedom to choose their path in life, whether that path is of financial pursuit or the path of family or some frequently complicated combination of both. And society, as it always does with women, accommodates these demands. But while we succeeded in opening doors, we cannot and never will be able to provide an out for the responsibilities and pressures that come with such a menu of options.

Indeed, the only way to reduce the pressure on women is to reduce the number of options they have, and we aren't going to squeeze that particular glob of toothpaste back into the tube.

The great writer/philosopher Kahlil Gibran wrote:

Much of your pain is self-chosen. It is the bitter potion by which the physician within you heals your sick self. Therefore trust the physician and drink his remedy in silence and tranquility.

A hundred million other people put it even more succinctly.

Be careful what you ask for, you just might get it.

And so now women have gotten what they wanted, or claimed to want. And as in so many other areas it brings them a step closer to the world of men, but only in the abstract; only on the surface.

Men, too, are becoming like stressed rope in the tug-o-war of gender identity, though they never collectively asked for it. Today’s man is called on to be, as much as any woman, all things at once. He is expected to be the warrior standing in harms way, ready to kill and die for our protection and often for less noble causes. He’s also the empathetic counselor with the unending patience to listen and accept; the provider for a home but not it’s leader; the teacher of ideas and ideals, but only those that pass feminine muster.

He is the savior, the pin cushion, the straining back of labor and the sponge for our social scorn. He is the powerless servant reviled for having too much power; the identified problem and the secret solution. And he is always, always the one we induce to act when the Ultimate Sacrifice is required.

These splintered expectations of men were not a result of choices, but of obligations; not an escape from their gender role, but proof of men being inextricably chained to it.

And as laudable as are any efforts toward equalitarianism, the seemingly mirrored struggle of men and women with identity is not evidence of progress to that end, but an indicator that we are going in the wrong direction.

For in the final analysis, women are complaining about the stresses that come with freedom and men are remaining silent about the burdens that come with servitude and expectation.

Equality is an impossible yet noble objective. It is something we strive for knowing it can’t be accomplished. It would behoove us to pursue such unobtainable objectives with at least some measure of thoughtfulness. To date, we haven’t done so well in that department.

But we will come perhaps a small step closer to that unreachable finish line when men are routinely encouraged to voice their frustrations with the twisting, often clashing demands of social pressure.

Or, when women are routinely encouraged to stop.

Paul Elam is the Editor-in-Chief of Men’s news Daily and the publisher of A Voice for Men.

Child Abuse has a New Face: Drunken Mothers.

2009-10-13T21:09:00.000-07:00

Way too many studies have clearly demonstrated to all and sundry this blatantly obvious fact and what does the abuse Industry do ?

Ignores it..

Finally we have a article on the WWW clearly stating this and it would appear that today's media is so consumed by the "Don't criticise Women" mentality that even stating the obvious is abhorred and denied, consistently..

They ignore it at the risk of children being maimed, hospitalised, disfigured, suffer life long physiological issues as well as establishing their own lifelong violent potential..

And What Does the Child Abuse Industry DO ?

NOTHING..

But it's okay as now they can categories child abuse this way when mothers are involved..

are all forms of mild child abuse.

Thank goodness we now have that recognition..

Police statistics show that child abuse has a new face: drunken mothers.

Police say they get around 400 reports of domestic violence against children each year; these days around two-thirds of the cases point to intoxicated mothers.

The recession has apparently had a lot to do with the spike in the number of inebriated women who turn abusive.

"The typical case is a single mother who has an alcohol problem and who's become exhausted by work," explains Police Sergeant Pekka Hätönen, who's in charge of the child abuse unit at the Helsinki Itäkeskus police department.

"She might have recently lost her job. All these pressures become focused on a misbehaving child, and the mother becomes easily enraged and lashes out physically, violently."

Normally, police are alerted to suspected child abuse through day cares, schools, and social workers.

Prosecution Tough for Kids
In Finland, children under the age of 15 are rarely ever brought into the court room. Instead, videotapes of police interviews them are shown. But even conducting an interview with a child is a delicate and difficult task.

Gaining trust is key.

"Before we even go to the video interview room, we try to connect with the child. We might read Donald Duck or other comic books, play, or even sing together if that feels right. Sometimes we've even played with the police badge," says Hätönen.

Hätönen says that he has heard children describe cruel acts by their mothers.

"One child we interviewed didn't heat up some water enough. The mother became enraged, boiled the water, and put the child's hand in it to show how hot the water should have been," he said.

According to Finnish law and interpretations by the courts, flicking, slapping, and hair-pulling are all forms of mild child abuse.

64,000 women in UK 'are child-sex offenders' ..

2009-10-04T14:37:00.000-07:00

Up to 64,000 women in UK 'are child-sex offenders'
Child sex abuse by women is significantly more widespread than
previously realised, with experts estimating that there could be
up to 64,000 female offenders in Britain.

Researchers from the Lucy Faithfull Foundation (LFF), a child
protection charity that deals with British female sex offenders,
said its studies confirmed that a "fair proportion" of child abusers
were women. Donald Findlater, director of research and
development, said results indicated that up to 20% of a
conservative estimate of 320,000 suspected UK paedophiles
were women.

The release of the figures comes days after a Plymouth nursery school worker, Vanessa George – together with Angela Allen from Nottingham and Colin Blanchard from Rochdale – pleaded guilty to sexually abusing young children.

Last night George's husband appealed to her to identify her victims, whom she has so far refused to name. Andrew George, 41, said: "I would plead to her, tell those parents, all those parents who want to know.

"If Vanessa has got any shred of human decency in her she should tell those parents." At her trial, Mr Justice John Royce had urged her to tell police the names of her victims.

Findlater said: "There was some suggestion it was only blokes that sexually abused children. Over time those arguments have fallen aside and people have had to wake up to the fact that actually, sadly, there is a fair proportion of women abusing as well."

There are 32,000 names on the sex offenders register. But LFF researchers suggest that the real number of paedophiles is 10 times this figure. Provisional studies suggest that between 5% and 20% are women.

The calculations put the number of female child-sex offenders in the UK at between 48,000 and 64,000, a figure Findlater describes as "highly possible". He said: "The problem is far bigger than conviction rates and, if you look at survivor studies, you end up with a very different story about the scale of the problem of female sexual abuse."

Detectives at Scotland Yard's paedophile unit, meanwhile, disclosed that they had detected an "increased prevalence" of female offenders. Metropolitan police sources said that quantifying the number of paedophiles in the UK was problematic, but there were likely to be hundreds of thousands.

Steve Lowe, director of Phoenix Forensic Consultants, which treats and assesses child sex abusers, said the true number of female paedophiles has remained hidden for too long.

"As a society, we find women sex offenders difficult to acknowledge. But those of us who work with paedophiles have seen evidence that women are capable of terrible crimes against children – just as bad as men." He said some female abusers remained hidden because they appeared before the family courts, where their cases were not publicised because of reporting restrictions.

The latest government figures, published six months ago, showed that 56 female child sex abusers were in custody, with 49 sentenced and seven on remand. Another 84 were under supervision in the community. Fewer than 2% of people on the sex offenders register are women.

Officials at the government's Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre (CEOP) said under-reporting of incidents involving female abusers was a concern and warned that "copycat" abusers may attempt to replicate the abuse that took place at Plymouth's Little Ted's nursery, where George worked.

George, Allen and Blanchard, all 39, met through the networking site Facebook. Officials at the CEOP and at Scotland Yard believe that the internet is driving an increase in the number of sex abusers of children. However, while offences are on the rise, police say that they have detected no changes in the patterns of abuse that are carried out by pedophiles, whether men or women.
Link..

Good dads need fair go..

2009-10-02T21:33:00.000-07:00

The conciliatory tones are finally starting to sound for Dads and their plight and nothing is going to stop this as the pain and suffering is just far too great to ignore..

All we now is some politicians who are not in the pocket of feminists, the vagina vote or maybe even have a conscience..

Do they exist in Australia..

I sometimes wonder..

Hi to Everyone

I have provided below the reply by the Editor in her Opinion section of the Wollongong and Northern Leader. Also there are five (5) Letters to the Editor. This is from the Wollongong and Northern Leader edition published on 30 September 2009 (http://www.northernleader.com.au). The original article was published on 23 September 2009 and is also provided below.

It should not be necessary to say. However these comments do apply equally well to both non-custodial fathers and to non-custodial mothers.

Regards

John
___________________________

www.northernleader.com.au/article/good_dads_need_fair_go/

Good dads need fair go
September 30, 2009

Section: Opinion

Being a mother to three step-daughters, the heart-wrenching letters from divorced dads denied access to their children struck a chord.

And while there are plenty of single mothers in equally distressing circumstances, the dads who do the right thing are usually overlooked by the media and the “deadbeats” are the ones who attract attention.

Several friends going through divorces have been quite open in discussing the advice they have received from lawyers about gaining more child support funding by limiting the amount of time the children see their father.

It’s a mathematical equation: all about dollars and not the children’s emotional needs.

Mothers are granted custody 99 per cent of the time and this leaves them in the box seat to use the children as negotiating tools.

Sometimes it is the only power left to them, particularly if they don’t have their own income, and this can have devastating consequences.

So if the father doesn’t pay up or does something to annoy the mother, visiting rights can be withheld. Not openly, but with claims of "it’s not convenient" or "she’s not well".

While it’s easier in theory than practice, parents need to put aside whatever animosity they might have towards each other for the sake of the children.

If they once loved each other enough to have children, their love for their offspring should override all other factors. Power plays should be left for the boardroom.
_________________________________________

Letters to the Editor (30 September 2009)

www.northernleader.com.au/article/ease_pain_of_divorce

Divorced dads cry foul over child support
Thank you for the article Ease Pain of Divorce (W&NL 24/9).

Having been through the process myself for the past six years, the article rings true.

The Shared Care principle was a move in the right direction, but introduced too late for my children, who have been abused by solicitors and the legal and the legal system; the system needs to exclude solicitors totally from the custody question.

Lawyers direct custodial parents to isolate the children from the non-custodial parent so as to increase the property settlement and this increase their fees as the children become the hostages held for ransom; settlement and child maintenance.

It is common practice among solicitors and some are noted for this vile action.

- Keith Lopuszynski. Oak Flats

The new "fairer Child Support system is a disgrace. Non-custodial parents whose children choose not to stay over should not be financially disadvantaged.

I see my child for two of my three days off, but because I work a rotating roster my days off are usually weekdays, not weekends, and my child chooses not stay.

This means less hours of contact (disadvantaged), more driving around, more cost in fuel (further disadvantaged).

Yet the CSA stipulates that I have zero per cent care of my child and as a result I pay an extra $300 per month in child support.

How is that fair?

Try paying a mortgage, entertain and feed 14-year olds, pay almost $900 per month in child support for one child and have a lifestyle.

Yeah right!

- Garry Best. Central Coast.

My ex received a $13,000-a-year pay rise and I had my child support reduced by a mere $10 a week. She now earns almost what I do because she took my child 5000 km away to WA, and I very rarely get to see her. I still have to pay over $600 a month - where is the fairness in that?

- Allan Crouch. Lugarno

I have not seen my three kids in eight years because of loosing my two homes in the divorce over property rights. As a result I had to move interstate to get a roof over my head with my then ill mother. I have been in a cycle of unemployment and extreme financial hardship ever since, including long-term depression. I now cost the tax payer a fortune to support. The problem is unfixable.

- Kimbal Summers. Noosa, Qld.

Things are the same the world over. It is time for the US and Australia to demand an end to the discrimination against dads.

- Don Mathias. Texas, USA.
_______________________________________

THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE (23 September 2009)

www.northernleader.com.au/article/ease_pain_of_divorce

Ease pain of divorce
September 23, 2009

Section: News

HEATHER SMITH

hsmith@northernleader.com.au

THE Federal Government’s child support system was encouraging custodial parents to limit the other parent’s access to children, according to the assistant secretary of the Fairness in Child Support organisation.

John Flanagan said child support payments were based on the amount of contact by the non-custodial parent, usually the father.

"Because of recent changes, the less contact that the child support payer has, the more child support he or she has to pay," he said.

"This approach by the government lacks logic."

Mr Flanagan said the less government and lawyers had to do with child support arrangements, the better.

"We encourage parents to get more involved in the decision-making process but the government wants to make decisions for us," he said.

The various layers of government involvement made it very difficult to stay outside the system but it was possible.

"Ninety-five per cent of separated parents are in the child support scheme mainly because of the link between child support and family tax benefits," Mr Flanagan said.

Fairness in Child Support is a voluntary community group where all 12 core members have experienced divorce or separation. "It’s people who have been through the system and know what’s involved," Mr Flanagan said

He said the system made the problem worse and often escalated conflict.

"If parents sit down and make decisions in the best interest of the children, they can lodge their decisions with the Federal Magistrate’s Court or the Family Court where it will be stamped by consent."

The group meets the first Thursday of every month at 7.30pm at the Coniston Community Centre, Bridge Street. Contact 0415 899 574.