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, January 11, 2009

Dear Toronto Star ~ Let Antonia Go

The Toronto Star 1 Yonge St. Toronto, ON M5E 1E6

Joe Hall, Managing Editor Antonia Zerbisias, Resident Gender Feminist Blogger

Mr. Hall:

Ms. Zerbisias at one time was your resident media watchdog of sorts and I guess you had to find her a new role to play. I periodically read her observations in her old role. Her new responsibility has all the appearances and similarities to hundreds of other fringe Gender Feminist blogs across Canada, the U.S.A and in other English speaking countries. The commonality of all of them is they believe they are an underclass of victims, they need government handouts to ameliorate their victim hood, and they believe the patriarchy is their enemy thus they spout misandrist misinformation to "further" their goals. Given the Star's all too well known Politically Correct (PC) approach and leftish leanings and if this kind of diatribe was targeted at visible minorities, women, the handicapped or religions it would not see the light of day. But men and fathers appear to be fair targets. The Gender Feminists are, in essence, new wave feminist propagandists where truth is only a by-product of serendipity.

I' m not sure if you are familiar with Christina Hoff Sommers, who wrote the book "Who Stole Feminism", back in 1992. She defined "Equity feminism" as an ideology that aims for full civil and legal equality. Most of us from both sexes can identify with that.

The other type was "Gender feminism" which criticizes contemporary gender roles and aims to eliminate them altogether. One of their core beliefs is men are not necessary, they are an unwelcome intrusion upon divorce and should not have custody of children, but they are needed however, for their money to supply entitlements. From their rhetoric you can also discern they believe men are inherently violent, angry, abusive, and are incipient rapists, stalkers and sexual harassers. Additionally they believe the only way out of the morass of their victimhood is to have the levers and fiscal beneficences of the courts and government. This is part of a Marxist ideology that favours destruction of the family and government intervention to ensure their safety and tax supported entitlements. It also means destruction of the family as we know it with a mom, dad and children. They have been getting their way and we can see the resulting youth oriented social problems, most evident in the increase in gang violence, teen truancy, pregnancies, drug use, criminal activity and disrespect for societal limits on inappropriate behaviour.

Most of those of us in the father's rights movement have been sidelined, we believe unfairly, to the role of marginalized visitors in our children's lives. If we are lucky to see our children at all the standard amount of visitation we get is about 14% of a given month. We often call ourselves 14 percenters. (In my case I was the stay-at-home parent with the kids 24/7.) The gender feminists state we must be "bad dads" if we can't get shared and equal custody and are quite likely abusers. They also state if we take our ex to court for a custody trial because we love our kids we "must" be abusers for sure and use the courts to harass, stalk and intimidate our ex's. Zerbisias has recently, in several posts, trotted out some non-scientific studies she found on some of her sister gender feminist sites to reinforce this notion. How do we know she did this – you ask? These sites all have similar information and we are very familiar with their tactics and the so-called studies. We meet up with them frequently in debates over gender issues and, in particular, child custody debates from around the globe. Most of us use key word searches and get automatic alerts through a variety of internet "widgets". That is how your erstwhile Gender feminist blogger came to my attention initially.

This leads me to why I am writing you this letter. The Toronto Star, although not a world class newspaper by any description, is certainly Canada's largest circulation daily and has a long standing parochial presence in the GTA. It still has a lot of readers in the print edition, although declining, and many have gravitated to your website where more and more people get their news fix nowadays. The Star's lustre has waned in the eyes of many men and women over AZ's invective. They are no more than rants as nothing of substance is emanating from her distant corner of the Star's blog that we can't find on other Gender feminist sites. We expect more from your newspaper given its still current prominence as a news gathering organization. You obviously have different standards for a "blogger" as opposed to another columnist or journalist. AZ is no better than any other Gender feminist blogger. That is far from a compliment.

I recommend she be gently put out to pasture where she can blog to her hearts content free of charge on a host of services and we can employ our "ignore" widgets to block her out. She does appear to have a husband or male partner of some kind so until she can find other meaningful work perhaps he can support her as much as that would hurt. If you insist on keeping her, which will further accelerate your decline as a competent and reliable source of truthful news, may I suggest looking for a man's voice to counteract her diatribe? There are many competent and articulate voices in the men's/father's rights movement. Glenn Sacks and Stephen Baskerville are but two, albeit U.S. based. Mr. Sacks is already involved in the media and is very well known and Mr. Baskerville has published many scholarly documents and books focussing on men.

I am weary of male bashing in the media and expect more from a newspaper of your stature. Please give my thoughts some consideration.

You will likely hear more of me down the road. I will be launching a Human Rights complaint naming two government ministers in the next two weeks over gender bias in the screening of prostate cancer, which is still not fully covered, despite Mr. McGuinty's announcement in December, whereas breast cancer is; the Ontario Government spends over $208,000.000.00 annually on specific earmarked women's related issues and nothing for men, and the new laws with respect to restraining orders are clearly targeted at a single gender despite the fact DV is initiated almost as equally by women toward men as is the reverse. No man can access tax supported DV services across Canada in more than 575 shelters. I will give consideration to a federal complaint after the provincial one. I have never ever seen such gender bias surrounding the announcements on these new restraining order laws than in the press release, the website and watching the AG announce it wearing a white ribbon as though he was directly preening in front of and pandering the message to feminist voters. All of this over the tragic death of a little girl, Katelyn Sampson, at the hands of two drug addicted, dysfunctional female prostitutes who were the cause of her death not a man. (perhaps you didn't know the most dangerous place for a child is in the custody of a single parent female.) I sat shaking my head in wonder.

The whole issue of this kind of discrimination is flying under your PC radar.

Michael Murphy Father/Civil Rights Activist Marginalized Father - a 14 percenter.

Calgary Sun ~ Court OKs mom sex video in child custody case

Calgary Sun January 10, 2009 Court OKs mom sex video in child custody case By KEVIN MARTIN, SUN MEDIA Secret video that captured a Calgary woman having Internet sex with her children present was admissible in her child custody case, Alberta's top court ruled yesterday. The activity, caught on a "nanny cam" by one of the woman's ex-lovers, was properly before two lower court judges, the Alberta Court of Appeal said. Lawyer Chuck Easton had argued a "master tape" of video surveillance should not have been allowed in to show his client wasn't a good mother. Easton said the tape presented a false picture because some of the events were out of sequence and footage of her doing things a good parent does were omitted. "This is not a case about the order of events," a three-member appeal panel said, in a written ruling. "It is about whether certain conduct occurred and no more," they said. "The appellant never testified that the master tape was inaccurate, or doctored, and it was clear that it was merely a compilation of many other tapes."