I have met and heard the tragic stories of many parents. PA is a function, by and large, of a custodial ex-partner, although some alienation can start while the couple is still together.

This blog is a story of experiences and observations of dysfunctional Family Law (FLAW), an arena pitting parent against parent, with children as the prize. Due to the gender bias in Family Law, that I have observed, this Blog has evolved from a focus solely on PA to one of the broader Family/Children's Rights area and the impact of Feminist mythology on Canadian Jurisprudence and the Divorce Industry.

Sunday, May 31, 2009

Despite wealth, health and opportunity, men still more content says study by US National Bureau of Economic Research

Comments left on the Times site:
I'm not quite certain how women can ever be happy. The dominant flavour of feminism is "Victim Feminism," By its very nature it subscribes to the notion all women are victims of the patriarchy and, therefore, can never be equal
This article even skirts around some of the mythologies associated with Victim Feminism such as the wage gap. This gap exists because of choices women make not the patriarchy. Check the recent studies of female doctors in Canada who, would you believe, make less than their male counterparts, but not because of those evil villains in the patriarchy (the infamous "they") but because they chose to work fewer billable hours.
Mike Murphy, Sault Ste. Marie, ON, Canada
Times Online Logo 222 x 25 From The Sunday Times
May 31, 2009

Women less happy after 40 years of feminism

Woman on Sofa
On the long and winding road to having it all, Helen Parker is making good progress. At 27 she’s forging a career as an executive with a transport company in London, she has a steady boyfriend, and together they are buying a flat. One day the prospect of starting a family will beckon. By many standards, she’s thriving. So is she happy? “Um, I’m reasonably happy,” she said. “And I’m optimistic about the future. But there will always be sacrifices. “There’s plenty more opportunities for women than there used to be — but then again, that means you are always questioning whether the moves you have made are correct, or whether you should have done something else.” Like many women, her sense of wellbeing and life satisfaction do not match up with advances in social circumstances and material comforts. After 40 years of fighting for equality, it seems that women are no happier. In fact, women in many countries have been growing steadily unhappier compared with men, according to a study published this month by the National Bureau of Economic Research in the United States. In The Paradox of Declining Female Happiness, Betsey Stevenson and Justin Wolfers of the University of Pennsylvania, begin by noting the gains. “By many measures the progress of women over recent decades has been extraordinary: the gender wage gap has partly closed; educational attainment has risen and is now surpassing that of men; women have gained an unprecedented level of control over fertility; (and) technological change in the form of new domestic appliances has freed women from domestic drudgery,” they wrote. Yet Stevenson and Wolfers have found that in America women’s happiness, far from rising, has fallen “both absolutely and relatively to that of men”. Where women in the 1970s reported themselves to be significantly happier than men, now for the first time they are reporting levels of happiness lower than men. In Europe, people’s sense of happiness has risen slightly, but less so for women than men. In 12 European countries, including Britain, the happiness of women has fallen relative to that of men. The authors readily admit that measuring happiness is necessarily a subjective task, but the overall trend from the data, compiled from social surveys conducted over many years, is clear and compelling. The work builds on earlier research by Andrew Oswald, professor of economics at Warwick University, who has a particular interest in the study of happiness. He said: “What Betsey and Justin have done, which is a valuable addition, is to show that the trend is found rather widely. For most of the post-war era, happiness surveys showed women noticeably happier than men. That difference has now eroded to zero.” The big question is: why? When measures of women’s happiness started to dip, some sociologists reached for a simple solution known as the “second shift”. Women’s opportunities in paid employment had increased, but their domestic load had not correspondingly reduced. The belief was that they were going out to work then doing a “second shift” at home — no wonder they weren’t ecstatic. Sorry, that won’t wash, say Stevenson and Wolfers. Surveys of how individuals spend their time show that for both men and women total work hours (combining paid or domestic) have declined since 1965. Yes, women’s hours of “market work” have increased, but that has been offset by “large declines in their non-market work”. At the same time “men are now working fewer hours in the market and more hours in home production”. On a purely statistical basis, women can’t argue their burden has got worse or is now drastically unequal. However, more subtle influences should be considered, argues Dame Joan Bakewell, the broadcaster, because women’s emotional responses to the change in circumstances are different from those of men. “Women do stub their toes on the work-life balance much more than men,” she said. “Even if they have solved it (in practical terms), they worry about it. “So they are probably going to say, ‘Well, I’m not as happy as I could be because I’m carrying this burden of worry’.” Others suggest that the pay gap between men and women, even if it has narrowed, is still a grievance. Karen Pine, professor of developmental psychology at Hertfordshire University and author of Sheconomics, said: “When I have talked to women about their emotional relationship with money, for many there was still a feeling that they didn’t deserve more. “Women have been socialised to be people-pleasers. They don’t want to appear greedy or grabbing. When they have to adopt an assertive attitude to money — asking for what they are worth — many of them experience a conflict.” Studies do show that money is an important factor in happiness: the well-off are happier than the very poor. However, that effect tails off once basic needs are met. The phenomenon is reflected in a recent study by Pine of 700 women and their attitudes to shopping and spending money. “Years ago women didn’t have independent incomes, and now many of them are financially independent,” she said. “What I found was that 79% — an alarming statistic — told me they would go on a spending spree in order to cheer themselves up. “Many women are using shopping and spending as a way of regulating emotions.” Spending, however, doesn’t buy happiness. “Many of them described a buzz at the time, but it was short-lived,” said Pine. “Then they experienced buyer’s remorse and came down to earth with a bump.” Stevenson and Wolfers also point out that over the past two decades many men, as well as women, have experienced financial concerns. “The real wages (after inflation) of many men fell during much of this period,” they said. Yet it is women whose happiness has notably changed. If money is not the key, what about families? Divorce rates and cohabitation have soared over the time in which women’s happiness has fallen. However, if they are important factors, say researchers, more unhappiness should be found among single mothers and the separated. Stevenson and Wolfers concluded the relative decline in women’s happiness “is irrespective of the age, marital, labour market or fertility status of the group analysed”. There is, of course, the possibility that women are simply being more direct about their happiness than they used to be. As the authors note: “Women may now feel more comfortable being honest about their true happiness and have thus deflated their previously inflated responses.” However, the international scale of the trend seems to militate against this. Though nobody has isolated a convincing reason for the decline in women’s happiness, there is a consensus of sorts. As Oswald put it: “The lead theory is that women’s lives have become more complicated in many dimensions, unlike men who have to balance a smaller number of balls. “It is probably still true that men do fewer things well.” Pine agreed: “One can always point to increasing pressures on women. We are now trying to have careers and families and look good for longer. It may be that in trying to have it all we are feeling that we may have set ourselves an impossible goal.” Complexity is stressful — and women’s supposed skills at multi-tasking are no remedy.However, critics of feminism take a more sceptical view. Complexity is not the problem, they say: it’s more to do with women discovering that “equality” with male life is not all it was cracked up to be. To the writer Neil Lyndon, author of No More Sex War, it is a vindication of his view that feminists have long been blind to the stresses of male life. “(Feminists) are so determined to insist that women are in a position of inequality and disadvantage, they cannot see that to repair the disadvantages of women you also have to address the inequalities of men,” he said. “Men who are in work and have young children want to spend more time with their families. Feminists cannot see that. The ideology itself requires you to say that women are in a position of disadvantage, that it’s a society run by men for the benefit of men, and that there can’t be disadvantages for men.” Women have got themselves into an impossible position, Lyndon suggests, and it won’t be remedied until there is proper equality and until no parent — man or woman — is expected, as many men are, “to go to work at 7am and get back at 9pm”. Amid all this hypothesising and argument, what should a pragmatist do? Siobhan Freegard, founder of the website Netmums, discovered her own measure of how women’s happiness has declined. A survey of her site users indicated that levels of the “baby blues” experienced by new mothers have risen sharply since 30 years ago. So she set about asking experts to formulate a programme to help. “In our research one key problem that emerged was that we all move around a lot now,” said Freegard. “About 60% of women no longer live near their extended family and the same proportion of women haven’t replaced that family support with a new social network. The whole breakdown of community is a factor. “So we set people tasks. Be part of networks. Join groups. Speak to an old lady. Talk to your shopkeeper. Phone someone you haven’t had a good chat with for ages and so on.” The happiness of participants was tested before and after the programme — and at the end they were on average 16% happier. Might such ordinary, everyday connections be more important to happiness than impossible dreams to have it all? Freegard suspects that might be the case. “We pushed so hard for equal rights, for having the right to work, for having equal status, we pushed hard to have choice,” she said. “But what we hear back from many mums is: I have no choice, I have to work, I don’t love my career, my childminder is taking half my salary and I’d rather bring up my children myself but I can’t afford to. “I’m not saying women shouldn’t work. If you enjoy your job and it’s a fulfilling career, that is a positive choice. But if it’s not . . . it's almost in some ways that we got it all, then found that actually it wasn’t quite what we wanted.”
Copyright 2009 Times Newspapers Ltd.

Saturday, May 30, 2009

Hands-on dads handle stress better

I was a stay-at-home dad for 10 years raising two of my daughters from infancy, while also supporting a family business by working from home. Your work day can be spread out to cover all of the day while also participating in all school activities including volunteer driving, skating, swimming and gymnastics. The one thing that is fundamental is the day revolves around the children not the business. By having flexibility the business work could be accomplished after the children were in bed at school or the mom came home from work - when mom was around. Despite being one of the best dads a child could have who was devoted 24/7 to them each and every day when mom decides to alienate them for whatever twisted reasons and then takes a run to the DV shelter all bets are off. The machinery of victim feminism kicks in and gender politics takes over. Our court system needs changing to shared and equal parenting/residency for the sake of the children. I proved to myself and hundreds of others that a man socialized to be the breadwinner can readily adapt to that of a nurturing, supportive and loving care giver. I've said it before and I would challenge scientists to follow-up but I believe a man would likely see a drop in testosterone and an increase in female related hormones - but not to the point of losing masculinity! :>) MJM
RECESSION
TheStar.com | Recession | Hands-on dads handle stress better
SHUTTERSTOCK IMAGES Caregiving can be empowering for fathers who have lost their jobs, says Daddy Shift author Jeremy Adam Smith.
Valuing home duties and child care helps men cope with job loss
May 29, 2009 04:30 AM
Family issues reporter

Job loss is traumatic. So is financial anxiety. But hands-on fathers who can juggle bath-time, playground jaunts and laundry duty are better equipped to deal with those than earlier generations of men, says the author of a new book on fatherhood.

In Daddy Shift, to be released next month, Jeremy Adam Smith explores how fathers' growing participation in childrearing and domestic duties is transforming modern families.

He says when dads are willing to embrace that, it helps parents and kids cope with the stress of a layoff or reduced work hours – especially at a time when men are harder hit by job losses than women.

"Something good has happened the last few decades and men now have the capacity to take care of their kids when women are in a position to be the breadwinners," Smith, 39, said in a phone interview from his San Francisco home. "If they can focus on that, it will help them to survive unemployment and it will help their families."

Smith's book, which reviews the history, economics and science of male caregiving, comes amid the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. Statistics Canada reported earlier this year that two-thirds of those laid off in Canada were men. At the same time, more men have been taking parental leave following the birth of children and opting for fewer hours at work and more time with the kids.

Smith notes that in previous generations a male breadwinner who lost his job would likely withdraw from the family, his identity and self-worth shaken. "It would destroy him, he would actually spend less time around the house, less time with the children," says Smith.

While work is still at the core of most fathers' identity, more men are recognizing the importance and rewards of caring for kids.

"Today if the mother has the capacity (to earn) and the father is thrown into the role of being home, they are more likely to take that responsibility. They won't do it the way mothers do, but they'll do it."

Smith, a magazine editor and writer, became a stay-at-home dad for a year when his son Liko was age 1. He knows what it's like to do dishes with a fussy toddler in the backpack, crave adult company and never have a minute to himself.

He became a dad without a clue how to bathe or change a diaper. He became a primary caregiver while his wife was working full-time just because it was the best arrangement for the family at the time.

"At first I saw only the negative aspects: no regular work, no free time, no adult companionship, no respect ... this was not a role I embraced self-consciously," he writes in Daddy Shift.

But he soon marvelled at the bond he developed with his son and the sense of confidence and competence he gained as a parent. It changed him profoundly. And he thinks more men need to hear from fathers like him.

"My experience as a stay-at-home dad was a growing sense of power as a parent and as a man," he says. Guilt and blame are often used to motivate men to step up with childcare and chores, but Smith says the power angle is a better pitch.

"I think that's how you have to sell it to guys," he laughs. His book signals a shift in the discourse about fatherhood: one that encourages father involvement for the sake of men and their children – not just to help out mothers.

Liko, now 4, is in preschool and Smith and his wife, like a small but growing number of families, have alternated roles over the years. Daddy Shift is not about pitting one family's choices against another. It is more of a call-to-arms for this generation of fathers to be flexible and open-minded about their evolving roles.

Smith stresses that fathers aren't the only ones changing. Mothers have to be willing to let go of the reins and respect that fact that men look after kids differently, he says. In other words, don't judge fathers through the maternal lens.

Studies show men tend to be more comfortable with risk-taking by their offspring and less inclined to introduce toys or mediate a child's independent play.

Daddy Shift was written as a result of Smith's experiences and the dialogue with other parents on his blog Daddy Dialectic. Smith also cites leading Canadian research on fatherhood, including work by Ottawa professor Andrea Doucet and Kerry Daly of Guelph University, who runs the Fatherhood Involvement Research Alliance.

Smith says while there's no ideal formula for dividing and sharing parental roles, the key for the 21st century family is having the flexibility to cope with an unstable economy and an information age that has changed the rules of the working world.

"We haven't achieved economic equality between men and women but the equation has changed and men are changing in response. The question is are we going to embrace that?"

Comments on this story are moderated

expandContent
Sort By

This should be kept quiet!

This totally goes against everything that feminism has been trying to do for the past 40 years and that is to try and prove that men/fathers are redundant and unnecessary!!!! All we ever hear about is how single-mothers rule and the new "Daddy" in the house is Socialist Government.

Submitted by Alpha-Man at 8:24 PM Friday, May 29 2009

Fathers are Important Too

This is a fantastic article. Older generations of Fathers with traditional gender role considered their ability to be breadwinner and protector as the measure of their self-worth. Modern fathers are moving away from traditional gender roles and are increasingly becoming more involved parents. As a more involved parent, a Father has a greater variety of contributions for establishing their own self- worth and building self-esteem. It is only common sense that providing care for ones children, knowing that you are needed and valuable, could make-up for the loss of ones identity as breadwinner and protector. Divorced Canadian Fathers are particularly faced with a number of very real barriers such as vindictive Mothers and the indifference of Family Law Courts. I congratulate Fatherhood Involvement Research Alliance for recognizing the importance of fully involved and nurturing fathers in the lives of children and working towards a better future for our children.

Submitted by Denis Pakkala at 12:12 PM Friday, May 29 2009

In OZ ~ A more level playing field ~ Agony of children at divorce has clout

Its interesting how, in this case, active alienation and obstruction by the ex's family ganging up on the other partner worked against the former wife. The judges in OZ seem to be getting it right. Little girl in adult body can't run home to momma and has to stay close to the husband so both can have a meaningful relationship. Gosh maybe she will have to try and get a job too. Here's a definite recruit for Anonymummies the victim feminists from hell. Everybody should start taking marriage and the consequences of breakdown more seriously. If only this was treated seriously here in Canada.MJM<
Article from: The Australian

THE Family Court has at last recognised the "agony" children suffer during divorce by forcing their warring parents to live close to each other, says a campaigner for the reform introduced by the Howard government.

Michael Green QC, a family law expert who campaigned for the shared parenting amendment enacted in 2006, said yesterday recent decisions proved that the right of a child to have a meaningful relationship with both parents after separation was being taken seriously by the court.

The Australian reported yesterday on the case of Rosa and Rosa, in which a couple moved with their four-year-old daughter to a remote town in northwest Queensland, so the husband could take up a job as a mining engineer.

The marriage broke up six months later. The wife wanted to move back to Sydney, where their daughter was born and had lived four of her five years. She was lonely in the mining town, and living in a caravan, unable to afford anything better.

But the Family Court, and the full bench on appeal, said she could not take her child to Sydney because the reform required judges to presume the best interests of the child were served by having a relationship with both parents.

"I know there are many women associated with the more radical feminist groups who like to underplay the damage done by separation, on children of any age," Mr Green said.

"But in fact the loss, the agony, the child experiences when it loses regular contact with a parent is significant."

Retired Family Court judge Tim Carmody said "it used to be that the mother's right to move with her children was generally seen as compatible with what was in a child's best interests.

"That's no longer necessarily so. The best interests of the child is now seen as being served by having a meaningful relationship with both parents. But what kind of relationship? And at what cost?"

Mr Carmody's decision to leave the Family Court coincided with the reform, and he believes his concern about the ways it would work is now justified, "especially in this situation, where you have a parent condemned to live somewhere they've never really lived, for who knows how long".

Kathryn McMillan SC, a Brisbane family law expert who will speak on the subject at a forum next month, said "relocation cases are always difficult, because it tends to be all or nothing.

"Somebody wants to move, and that means that somebody else is going to lose time with their children.

"One of the questions the judge will sometimes ask is, if I don't allow you to move, will you go without the child?

"Most parents will say, no, of course I won't move without the child.

"And in a sense that means they are damned if they do and damned if they don't, because if they won't move without the child, the judge can make orders that there should be shared parenting, which means they get stuck."

Jacky Campbell of Forte Family Lawyers in Brisbane said the "shared parenting laws are being imposed on people who are not co-operating at all, and the outcome is often poor".

In Rosa and Rosa, the wife's parents, sister and other family members had nothing good to say about her husband, and that played against her because the court thought they wouldn't encourage her to keep the child in contact with her father.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/business/story/0,,25559061-17044,00.html

Thursday, May 28, 2009

In Ireland ~ Reporting of family law cases may be possible

One can get carried away with silliness but this one takes the cake. Firstly to have closed courts is dangerous as little accountability can be gleaned for things done in secret. Secondly, if you are a lawyer, you may be able to report family law cases but no one else. What these cretins called lawyers won't do to make money. How many of their peers are in the legislature making up these rules. If it is like Canada then there are many.MJM Friday, May 29, 2009 FIONA GARTLAND

A BAN on media coverage of family law cases could be circumvented if the reporting was carried out by qualified solicitors or barristers, according to a high-ranking committee of the Court Service Board.

At present, the media are banned from reporting any family law proceedings under the in camera rule.

In a report presented to the board of the Courts Service this week, the Family Law Reporting Project Committee found there was no obstacle preventing a barrister or solicitor employed by a media organisation from reporting on family law cases.

The report also recommended that eight additional judges be appointed to the Circuit Court and District Court immediately to help deal with delays.

The committee was established to consider the recommendations of a report from Dr Carol Coulter on the Family Law Reporting Pilot Project.

Its members included the President of the Law Reform Commission and former judge of the Supreme Court, Mrs Justice Catherine McGuinness, Mr Justice Nicholas Kearns of the Supreme Court, who chaired the committee, Mr Justice Abbott of the High Court, Judge Michael White of the Circuit Court and Judge Ger Furlong of the District Court.

Ms Coulter had recommended that clarification be sought as to who may attend and report on family law proceedings under the Civil Liability and Courts Act 2004. The Act specifies that solicitors and barristers could attend and that others could be specified in regulations. When the regulations were introduced they did not include journalists.

In his foreword to the report, Mr Justice Kearns said the committee “was left in no doubt” that past restrictions on the reporting of family law had led to significant levels of suspicion and resentment, by men in particular.

“The provision of information about family law cases on an ongoing basis is essential,” he said.

The report said the committee “sees no obstacle to a barrister or solicitor, whether employed by a media organisation or operating independently, reporting proceedings for publication in a newspaper or other media”. It did not recommend a change in the law to allow unqualified reporters to attend.

The report also found people could wait for a divorce case for three months or two years on average, depending on which circuit court the case was to be heard in. It recommended three additional judges with support staff be appointed to the Circuit Court immediately, with three more to be appointed as soon as possible. And five additional judges should be appointed to the District Courts, it said.

The Kearns report also recommended a central register be established for joint guardianship agreements. The statutory declarations, made by a child’s unmarried parents state who its guardians are. They are witnessed by peace commissioners, but there is no facility to record them. A central register would provide proof of the existence of the declaration should the original be lost or destroyed, the report said.

The report also recommended compulsory information sessions for people involved in marriage break-up to make them aware of alternative dispute resolution models.

It recommended the introduction of clear procedures for judges who decide to take direct evidence from children in divorce cases.

Parent law ties women to men

Caroline Overington | May 29, 2009

Article from: The Australian

WIVES who follow their husbands to remote corners of Australia in search of work may find themselves stuck in their new home town, unable to leave with the children.

The Family Court has ruled that new shared-parenting laws, brought in by the Howard government in 2006, mean that the right of a child to have a relationship with both parents trumps the right of a mother to return to her home state, even if she has lived in the new location for less than a year.

In the most recent case, the court ruled that a 34-year-old mother could not leave an "isolated" town in northwest Queensland with her five-year-old daughter after her marriage broke down, because it would rupture the close relationship the girl had with her father.

The case has prompted concern among family law experts that the shared-parenting law is effectively forcing people "back into failed relationships".

Elspeth McInnes, a researcher in family law at the University of South Australia, cited research by the Family Law Council that suggested the right of women to relocate after divorce had essentially been lost, under the amendments to the Family Law Act.

"Previously, judges were prepared to consider the idea that women or mums could go where there is extended family support for them and their children," Ms McInnes said.

"Under the new laws, the meaningful relationship with both parents has moved up (to take greater priority).

"There are still ways to say the child is better served by returning to the town where she was born but basically, judges are telling resident parents, mainly women, that they have to stay put.

"They subordinate women's time with their children around a husband's work demands."

The mother in the northwest Queensland case, known in court transcripts as Mrs Rosa, got married in 2000 and had her child in 2002.

She lived with her husband in Sydney until 2007, when he got a job as a mining engineer in a remote part of Queensland. The town is not named in the transcript, but is described as "isolated".

The Rosas moved up as a family, but after eight months, the husband told the wife that the marriage was over, put her possessions in boxes, and put them on the deck.

Mrs Rosa, 34, took their daughter back to her mother's house in Sydney but the father petitioned the Family Court for their return, saying he wanted to maintain a relationship with his child.

During court proceedings, the mother argued that the father could quit his job and return to Sydney and share custody of their daughter in their home town.

He declined, saying his job had become important and was "interesting".

Under changes to the Family Law Act (1975) adopted by the Howard government in 2006, the Family Court is required to apply the presumption that shared parenting is in a child's best interests, except where there is violence.

The court ruled that the mother could not leave northwest Queensland with the child. She argued that she was isolated and impoverished. She lives in a caravan, because it is the only accommodation she can afford. She appealed to the Full Court of the Family Court, which upheld the decision on May 15.

The federal magistrate said the mother's plan to move would have a "most serious and detrimental effect upon the very close and important relationship that exists (between the daughter and her Dad)".

"In my assessment, the only means by which there can be a proper and appropriate relationship facilitated between this child and both parents is for the child to remain in northwest Queensland," he said.

He accepted the mother's "feelings of isolation and feeling of depression" about being stuck in the town where her marriage ended with little support. She said she would never leave without her daughter.

The federal magistrate had doubts about the mother's willingness to foster a relationship between the father and the child.

Family law academic Barbara Biggs, who last month organised a series of protests in major capital cities to highlight problems with the new Family Law Act, said the shared parenting laws presume that the parents "can co-operate, and get on".

"In many cases, these are couples that can't co-operate over what shelf to put the milk," Ms Biggs said. "It's a dreadful situation, to force a woman to live in a town where she has no family and no work, and to say that's the only way the child can be raised."

The rules of Victim Feminism as taught to the acolytes

Dear Patriarchy - I am a Women, therefore, a victim of your oppressive rule. As a result these are our rules of engagement after our declaration of war on all men.

This was written a few years ago to educate men on the wiles of the feminist movement and their techniques to emasculate men. Many of you have experienced this if you are involved in a Family Law proceeding and you have definitely experienced it if you are a Father's Rights Advocate.

  1. Instantly attack anyone, on a personal level, who disagrees with any feminist precept.
  2. Only push the female agenda and utterly ignore male feelings and thoughts on the issue.
  3. When attacking male views, do not aim the attacks at the man alone (unless you are alone with the man) but loudly proclaim that all "men" who think differently are living in the past. Then refuse to accept that such behaviour is sexist.
  4. Claim anything that women do is OK because its her right to choose (This does not apply if the women offends the morals of the feminist concerned). At the same time, put down everything men say, do, or believe as foolish, stupid, childish, sexist, chauvinists etc, etc.
  5. Always minimise statistics that refer to men's pain and suffering but, always maximise (or invent outrageously exaggerated statistics) for everything women suffer.
  6. Use unattributable statistics, studies and quotes in arguments. For example (From to day's news) "It is estimated that 9 out of 10 rape victims never report their rape." (An estimation it is impossible to prove correct or false) This has the effects of terrifying the female population while giving the impression that rape is happening all over the place at every moment of the day. It also serves to cement the view that all men are rapists, in the minds of the public. If anyone challenges the figures given, use techniques 1-3.
  7. While claiming all women are stronger than all men, suddenly switch to, all women are victims of all men when the conversation demands it.
  8. Refuse to accept that women are capable of violence, even when shown irrefutable evidence that they are. This can be achieved by finding excuses for female violence such as; She was only defending herself: She has a hormone imbalance: She is depressed because she has to cope with her pig of a husband and two kids, PMS, Post Partum Depression, Etc, etc, ad infinitum.
  9. Always ridicule any man who does not agree with any of the myriad of feminist precepts but refuse to see this as verbal abuse and, if forced to admit it IS verbal abuse, claim that he was abusive first because of the WAY he disagreed and you were just responding to his patriarchal need to dominate you.
  10. Call any man who dislikes the techniques used by feminists a "sexist, woman hating, dinosaur who is living in a mythical 1950`s golden age in which women were chained to the sink and he had all the power."
  11. Surround yourself with "new men" who have been thoroughly indoctrinated with feminism and therefore emasculated. Use these men to promote feminist ideas to other men or to ridicule "old men" who can see through you.
  12. Lose no occasion to appear to defend "the family" while at the same time doing all one can to dismantle it. (Margaret Hodge a UK MP is an expert at this behaviour). Notes on Hodge from Wikipedia added May 28/09 by the blog admin: Privacy International awarded Margaret Hodge the 2004 Big Brother Award for "Worst Public Servant" for her backing of controversial initiatives including the Universal Child Database. At a keynote speech to the Institute for Public Policy Research on 26 November 2004, Hodge strongly defended the idea of greater state regulation of individuals' choices, stating that "some may call it the nanny state but I call it a force for good". In the same year Father's 4 Justice campaigner Jonathan Stanesby handcuffed Hodge, stating he was arresting her for child abuse.[6] Fathers 4 Justice targeted Hodge because she was the "bogey woman of family law, who doesn't even believe in equal parenting".[7] Stanesby and colleague Jason Hatch were later cleared of a charge false imprisonment, with the court accepting it was part of a reasonable political protest[8]
  13. If caught out in an embarrassing moment of hypocrisy by a man, instantly attack him for being cruel to you by showing you up in public because he is a "control freak who has to appear superior to women" Etc, etc.)
  14. Ignore ones own disgusting personal habits but draw constant and loud attention to the the faults of every man close to you.
  15. Avoid; by changing the subject, talking LOUDLY and rapidly, going quiet, leaving the room, sulking, banging doors, etc., any conversation that begins with the phrase, "If men have all the power, how come women make all the rules?"
  16. If, in a public situation a man begins to win an argument, gather as many like minded females and "new men" as possible. Surround the man and begin shouting him down and calling him names. (This technique can be seen often on the "Trisha show." and other female led chat shows). This technique is known as "mobbing" and is similar to the behaviour exhibited by crows when a hawk flies close to them and may be the origin of the term "birds" used descriptively by men, of women in general).
  17. If all else fails resort to tears. This technique will always fool men everywhere into running to the defence of the "helpless" female and is very effective in court rooms during divorce hearings, in Internet forums and in ugly custody battles over children. Also very useful in getting reduced sentences for anything from shop lifting to murder.
  18. If a man at the office, or other place of employment, refuses to bow to feminist ideology, accuse him of sexual advances, abuse, rape, violence, flashing, unfair promotion of others, sexism etc., and have him removed.
  19. If the man in #18 is famous, seduce him and write a book about it while empathizing with his "poor wife" to avoid her coming after you in the high street with a stiletto heal. Claim in the book that he seduced you and promised to leave his wife. Call him "a love rat" and serialise your story in the News Of The World. Don't worry, the journalists are so stupid they will never see the hypocritical nature of your story and question your version of events. If they do..... cry.
  20. Claim loudly and often that the law and penal system discriminates against women because, "The laws were written to prop up the patriarchy and suppress women." This has the effect of fooling gullible politicians, judges, lawyers and journalists into demanding that no women should ever go to prison for any reason whatsoever. If however, a female is placed in jail, demonstrate loudly outside the prison and demand her release on the grounds that: She only did it because, "He abused her." Or, "He would not give her enough money." Or, because "The Judge was a sexist, biased, women hating, old fool." Etc. Failing that, get Channel 4 or the BBC to do a documentary showing how much the children are suffering because she is in jail. Then raise a petition for release.
  21. Demand the right to enter any "all male" institution, forum, or club, on the grounds that it is sexist to refuse entry to women but at the same time, demand "all women only" activities in the local gym, swimming pool, library etc., etc., on the grounds that women need to "feel safe" in an environment that has no men around. This is a very effective way of demonising and disempowering men at one and the same time.
George Rolph

Philadelphia Daily News ~ Fatimah Ali: 'Deadbeat Dads' an insult to reality

TV producers will do anything for ratings it appears even exploit the vulnerability of children's self esteem by having to watch a bounty hunter track down so called "deadbeat dads." What impact will it have on a child in their home, or when confronted by their peers in school or the playground if they or a friend sees 50% of their genetic heritage abused by the system in the guise of entertainment. The victim feminists will cheer this on as they have only their own personal grievances with their arch enemy, the patriarchy, (that's you and me if you are a man) and they really don't give a damn about the impact on children. Its one of the reasons why they don't believe parental alienation is emotional abuse. They practice it but remain in denial and a certain amount of narcissism is involved in their thinking process. This has a range from mild to obsessive. Study after study shows the vast number of fathers don't pay all of the child support because they can't afford it. Child support is actually a combination of support for the child and the mother in disguise. The victim feminists have convinced the gullible bureaucrats and feminized acolytes involved in setting up these tables it is a requirement for the well being of children when in fact, as usual, it is 1:) Something they believe is an entitlement based on the notion motherhood trumps everything and 2) They are victims of a patriarchy and cannot get ahead because of that. Most of this is BS but it's hard to change the thinking that is so ingrained with the parallel notion of "Apple Pie" in American discourse. Unfortunately this powerful and wrong headed approach to families spreads outside its borders with lots of copy cats ready to take up the banner of victim hood. It sells well. Other studies show these entitlements along with others serve as an inducement for women to divorce and lead to poor social outcomes, increase the rates of divorce and contribute to poverty. Poverty is a leading indicator for further social problems of our children. The social engineering by judges, who don't have a clue about the damage they have caused for two generations through their feminized approach to custody and marginalizing fathers, is evident across, not only this nation, but most western democracies and has spread to south Asian countries like India. I would invite all reasonable families to boycott Lifetime TV. After reading the Philadelphia article read the following one from the Cleveland Plain Dealer that clearly shows the route victim feminism takes and it's impacts. No doubt the dad was given the restraining order because of false allegations. No doubt the judge will say she is a good mother but needs more child support. Finally the last article is an example of child support bureaucracy zealots gone mad, also in Pennsylvania. It's a very sorry state of affairs when this kind of corruption evolves.MJM

JUST WHEN I thought TV couldn't sink any lower with some of its toxic programming, yet another new reality show is poised to hit the lineup - "Deadbeat Dads" on Lifetime.

The show targets fathers who refuse to pay child support, and features businessman Jim Durham's collection agency, called National Child Support.

My first "primal thought" was darn, they got here 15 years too late to help me. But my more spiritually evolved side knows better, and I realize those evil thoughts are just wrong. Durham and the Lifetime producers who created the show are the ones who should be flogged - for using the woes of single mothers and their children to boost ratings.

Unfortunately, my evil twin rears her ugly head from time to time, and recaps the unpleasant memories of what it was like not getting child support from my ex-husband. When I was a single mother, he accrued more than $150,000 in unpaid court-ordered child support, which kept me in a tizzy for years.

He made enough money, yet he neglected his obligations because he was angry at me, not because he didn't love our kids.

Despite the fact that I worked two jobs, my children and I were always struggling without his contribution. But I was a wimp and never petitioned the courts to issue an arrest warrant for his blatant disregard of our children's needs. His sudden demise made the judge's order moot. It can be almost impossible to collect back support from a dead man with a tangled-up life.

While he was still alive, the reasons I didn't want him imprisoned were simple, as well as selfish. I didn't want to have to take our children to visit him in jail because I knew it would be traumatic. But mostly I realized that having him arrested would prevent him from working and put yet another stigma on our already challenged life.

Two decades later, I still feel just as strongly that throwing deadbeat parents in jail is a stupid idea. And it definitely shouldn't be televised. This only causes. more problems in a child's life. The residual effects that deadbeat parents have on kids are way deeper than the unpaid money and leave deep psychological scars.

While researching the effects absentee fathers have on their offspring, I came across a publication called "The One Hundred Billion Dollar Man, the Annual Public Costs of Father Absence." Written by professors Stephen Nock and Christopher Einolf, of the University of Virginia and St. Paul University, respectively, their research shows that fatherless households cost U.S. taxpayers $98.9 billion a year. But this is just the tip of the iceberg of the many problems that female-headed households face.

Their findings also show that children of single parents are more likely to do poorly in school and drop out of college and are at greater risk of being incarcerated or on drugs than children who have both parents in the home.

Just a year ago, President Obama caught flak for telling black fathers to take more responsibility for their children during a speech at a Chicago church. With Father's Day just around the corner, I anticipate that his message this year will have a much wider reach than just for African-Americans.

The issue of absentee fathers isn't just a black problem, it's now an American one. And it touches nearly every community and crosses all racial and socio-economic barriers. I also think many women must share some of the blame for deciding that we can go it alone. Ladies, we've screwed up royally and our children are suffering because of it.

Feminists will probably jump all over me, but here's the real deal.

Many of us joined the women's movement decades ago without looking ahead to see what repercussions our actions would have on both our families and the economy. Now, most of us have to work, which leaves our husbands and children angry because no one is at home tending the hearth.

Our choice to be independent of men financially and of the family structure creates a wide range of problems in our children. And many men feel displaced and angry now because women are competing with them at work.

Far too many women are willing to go it alone and risk poverty and instability for shallow reasons of "self-empowerment" rather than trying to work out their marital challenges. Families need both parents in the household - not just economically but also spiritually and morally.

The whole idea of a "Deadbeat Dads" show is ludicrous. The creators are using the program to exploit what is really a much larger social problem - America's broken families. *

Fatimah Ali is a journalist, media consultant and an associate member of the Daily News editorial board.

Cleveland mother arrested after leaving 2-year-old home alone by Mark Puente/Plain Dealer Reporter
Wednesday May 20, 2009, 11:22 AM

Updated at 8:12 p.m.

CLEVELAND, Ohio -- A Cleveland mother faces child-endangering charges after police said she left her 2-year-old home alone hooked up to an empty feeding tube.

Valencia Davis, 28, left her daughter alone Tuesday afternoon with a tube running from her stomach to an empty plastic bag hanging on a wall in an East 84th Street house, according to a police report. The girl suffers from a brain condition and cerebral palsy, Davis told police.

The toddler's father called police after he visited the house to check on her. The man, who also is the father of one of the woman's two other children, told police he was barred from the home by a temporary protection order but feared for the safety of the children and went inside. Officers found the 2-year-old unresponsive, with dried mucus on her face, and living in filthy conditions, the report said. Police called an ambulance.

Before paramedics arrived, Davis returned home with the two other children and screamed at the man for having called police. Davis told police she was the real victim and that it was not wrong to leave the 2-year-old alone, according to the report.

Officers searched the house and did not find any food, except for cereal strewn on the floor.

The 2-year-old was in stable condition Wednesday at Rainbow Babies & Children's Hospital.

Davis was in City Jail and could not be reached for comment.

Man files suit after ID error put him in jail

Patriot-News, Central PA
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
BY PETE SHELLEM pshellem@patriot-news.com

A Philadelphia man who was thrown in the Dauphin County Prison four times for failing to pay support for someone else's child has filed a federal lawsuit.

In his suit, Walter Andre Sharpe charges that officials tampered with his personal information to make him appear to be the father.

The lawsuit filed in U.S. Middle District Court comes on the heels of Dauphin County District Attorney Edward M. Marsico Jr.'s announcement that no criminal charges would be filed in the case. Sharpe's attorney, Spero T. Lappas, said the lawsuit might change his outlook.

"Maybe after he reviews the information we assembled during our investigation of the lawsuit, he might want to reconsider his position," Lappas said.

The lawsuit says domestic relations officials in Montgomery County changed Sharpe's name in their computer system because he at one time used his mother's maiden name. Changes were also made in Dauphin County's systems and in a statewide computer network in 1999.

The changes in the system forced Walter Sharpe to pay $12,000 in support for another man's child and landed him in the Dauphin County Prison four times for not keeping up with the payments.

The problems began when Sharpe signed for a certified letter in 2001 addressed to Andre Sharpe, the real father. Walter Sharpe ignored the letter, thinking it was a mistake.

A county judge ruled Walter Sharpe was the father and the Domestic Relations office ordered him to pay $447 a month support, along with $5,730 in back payments.

The suit says employees of Dauphin County Domestic Relations changed his information and fought his attempts to prove he was not the father.

It took The Patriot-News less than a hour to find the real father, who said he had custody of the child.

The agency has declined to comment on the case. Officials from Montgomery County Domestic Relations have not returned phone calls.

The suit seeks unspecified damages for civil rights violations.

Wednesday, May 27, 2009

"Robin" free as a bird

The four year saga pitting the courts against "Robin" aka the man who scaled the Jacques Cartier Bridge- is over.

And our wannabe crimefighter has discovered his fate.

In our last episode, mild-mannered engineer Benoit Leroux was ready to defend his request for an unconditional discharge after being found guilty of mischief and conspiracy for dressing up as Batman's sidekick Robin and scaling the Jacques Cartier Bridge four years ago to bring attention to the rights of single dads in custody cases.

But Judge Gilles Cadieux says they have to send a message of dissuasion to the public so he gave him a conditional discharge including 180 hours of community work and two years probation, assuring Leroux the discharge meant no criminal record, so no problems travelling to the U.S. to work or to see his young daughter there.

Leroux looked and sounded tired and somewhat defeated but he is satisfied and content the four year battle is over and he can hang up his cape for good.

"It feels really well. It's a weight on my shoulders (that) is lifted even though I have to make a lot of hours of community work."

http://www.cjad.com/node/934339

United in Hate

Here's a conundrum in a spidery web of seeming feminist contradictions - but then maybe not. The new breed of victim feminist is so wrapped up in their "oppression by the patriarchy" ideology they suffer perceptual - no - rather willful blindness of the plight of Muslim women.MJM
Ashley Herzog | Monday, May 25, 2009
If you’ve ever wondered why radical leftists—who supposedly care about women’s rights—feel compelled to justify Islam’s violent oppression of women, you should read United in Hate by Jamie Glazov.
Glazov does an excellent job of examining the love affair between leftists in the West and radical Muslims who treat women as “less worthy than cows and sheep,” as Palestinian writer Souad says in the book. While some liberals in the U.S. and Europe have no problem telling the truth about Islamic gender apartheid, others fanatically defend it.
Consider the issue of rape. Rape is common in Muslim countries, and often results in a death sentence—for the victim.
“In 2004, a sixteen-year old girl, Atefeh Rajabi, was hanged in a public square in Iran,” feminist writer Phyllis Chesler wrote in her book The Death of Feminism. “Her crime? Rajabi was charged with adultery—which probably means she was raped. Her rapist was not executed.” Rape victims are frequently stoned to death with the approval of Muslim courts, and it is estimated that 75 percent of female prisoners in Pakistan are behind bars because they were raped.

Therefore, it’s not surprising when Muslim immigrants import their rape-supportive cultures to the West: in 2001, Norwegian newspapers reported that two-thirds of rape suspects were Muslim men.

How did the Western apologists respond? Unni Wikan, a professor of social anthropology at the University of Oslo, said the victims had it coming for not veiling themselves from head to toe, as women in countries like Saudi Arabia are forced to do.

“Norwegian women must take their share of responsibility for these rapes,” Wikan said. “Women must realize that we live in a multicultural society and adapt themselves to it.” (Wikan echoed Danish Muslim leader Shahid Mehdi, who said women who don’t veil themselves are “asking for rape.”)

The radical left also lies about the nature of female genital mutilation (FGM), a savage practice in which a little girl has her labia and clitoris cut out without anesthetics in order to keep her from enjoying sex. In 2007, when David Horowitz attempted to raise the issue of FGM during a speech at Emory University, angry protestors chanted “that’s not Islam!”

Really? Maybe they should explain why Sheikh Muhammed Sayyid Tantawi, “the highest spiritual authority for nearly a billion Sunni Muslims,” according to the BBC, defends FGM, calling it “a laudable practice.”

Women who have been subjected to FGM also confirm its religious roots. Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a Somali ex-Muslim and women’s rights activist, said the practice is “justified in the name of Islam.” In 2000, a brave Somali girl named Kadra secretly taped Norwegian Muslim imams encouraging their followers to practice FGM. For this, she was brutally attacked by a group of Muslim men, who broke several of her ribs.

The radical left’s response to FGM is to lecture us on “cultural sensitivity.” In a finger-wagging article in the Northwestern University Journal of International Human Rights, Rachelle Cassman said efforts to stop FGM must not include “the imposition of Western beliefs on African cultures.” She reminded readers that “all cultures are equally valid.”

Then there’s the fact that many Muslims approve of wife-beating. As Phyllis Chesler notes, “The Pakistan Institute of Medical Sciences has determined that over ninety percent of Pakistani wives have been struck, beaten, or abused sexually — for offenses on the order of cooking an unsatisfactory meal or failing to give birth to a male child.” (Domestic violence has the approval of Muslim leaders, such as Spanish Muslim cleric Mohamed Kamal Mustafa, whose book Women in Islam gave men specific instructions for hitting their wives.)

A 2002 poll taken by the Palestinian Center for Public Opinion found that most Palestinians support wife-beating, and 57 percent agreed that “a man has the right to beat up his wife if she underestimates his manhood.” Souad recalls of her childhood in Palestine, “It was the law of men. The girls and women were certainly beaten every day in the other houses, too. You could hear the crying.”

Given this uncomfortable truth, the apologists have invented an interesting excuse: It’s the Jews’ fault. “Leftist feminists admit that Palestinian men are abusive, but argue they are so only because of the humiliation they feel under Israeli ‘occupation,’” Glazov writes. “As feminist author Jan Goodwin argues…if only American and Israeli oppression stopped, Palestinian men would no longer feel a need to beat their wives.”

No matter what the evidence, people who tell the truth about radical Muslims’ abuse of women are accused of “racism,” “Islamophobia,” and my personal favorite, “cultural imperialism.” (I know—how dare I think that American culture is superior to cultures that hang rape victims?)

Why? As the title of Glazov’s book suggests, the radical left is united in hate—which includes a hatred of their own culture, and a fanatical need to excuse the horrific practices of others.

For anyone who wants to learn more about this subject, I suggest reading United in Hate and visiting http://www.TerrorismAwareness.org, which has resources on Islam’s violent oppression of women.

Copyright © 2009 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.

Power' move by male students ruffles U. of C.

chicagotribune.com

By Sara Olkon

Tribune reporter

1:58 PM CDT, May 27, 2009

Click here to find out more!

A group of University of Chicago students think it's time the campus focused more on its men. A third-year student from Lake Bluff has formed Men in Power, a student organization that promises to help men get ahead professionally. But the group's emergence has been controversial, with some critics charging that its premise is misogynistic. Others say it's about time men are championed, noting that recent job losses hit men harder and that women earn far more bachelor's and master's degrees than do men. "It's an enormous disparity now," said Warren Farrell, author of "The Myth of Male Power" and former board member of the New York chapter of the National Organization for Women. He noted, among other things, an imbalance in government and private initiatives that advance the interests of women and girls. Further, Farrell said, just because some men are doing well is hardly a reason not to applaud efforts to boost the careers of other men. "It's like saying 'is it OK for the Yankees to keep recruiting new players because the Chicago Cubs have not won as often?' " Steve Saltarelli, the president of Men in Power, wrote a satirical column in March in which he suggested forming such a group. "Anyone with an interest in both studying and learning from men in powerful positions, as well as issues involved with reverse sexism, may become a member of MiP," he wrote. Shortly after the column ran, Saltarelli started getting e-mail messages from men eager to join. "Mainly people are just excited about the idea that men can have a group as well," Saltarelli explained. Sharlene Holly, associate dean of students and the director of student activities, said the University of Chicago has approximately nine women's advocacy groups on campus; this group would be the first male advocacy group. Saltarelli said some 125 students -- including a few women -- have joined the group via its Facebook page. He said the group would host pre-professional groups in law, medicine and business, foster ties with alumni, bring in speakers to discuss masculinity and mentor local middle school students as part of its "Little Men in Power" program. Holly said she expected to approve the organization's application this week. As a registered student organization, Men in Power could then apply for event funding. The group plans to hold its first event, a student panel discussion titled "Gender and Media: Trespassing the Taboo," on June 2. Saltarelli, who plans to attend law school, said the emergence of Men in Power has angered some students, especially "people very set in their ways." To be sure, its title attracts attention. "The name implies some things that I don't love," said Liz Scoggin, a third-year student who joined the group a couple of weeks ago and now heads its outreach efforts. "I feel like it implies there aren't enough men in power or that kind of thing." But Scoggin, who is close friends with Saltarelli, said she joined after learning more about the group's aims and after she felt assured that the organization would not pursue a sexist agenda. Jessica Pan, president of Women in Business and a fourth-year student, questioned whether Men in Power's goals were being met by existing student groups. "I'm not sure we really need another student organization that focuses on pre-professional development for men," Pan said, noting that, in just the area of business, there were five or six students groups that were gender-neutral. Similarly, Ali Feenstra, a third-year student and a member of the Feminist Majority, questioned Men in Power's utility. "It's like starting 'white men in business' -- there's not really any purpose," she said. Fred Hayward, founder of Men's Rights Inc., would disagree. Hayward, who is based in Sacramento, Calif., started his men's group in 1977. Then and now, he said, women have not paid enough attention to what it means to be a man in modern society. Hayward said one of the biggest myths borne of the women's movement was that men like to help each other out. "We are competing directly for access to women and jobs," he said. The group's birth comes at a time when the recessionary ax has fallen especially hard on men. In February, the national unemployment rate for men was 8.8 percent, compared with 7.3 percent for women. Future employment is also an issue, some experts say. Since 1981, women have collected 135 for every 100 bachelor's degrees awarded to men, according to Mark Perry, an economist at the University of Michigan in Flint. The gap is even wider at the master's level, with women trumping men 150 to 100, he said. Saltarelli hopes Men in Power will help more men get ahead while raising awareness of the male experience. "If we have good men in our society, everyone benefits," he said. solkon@tribune.com