Drum roll! The winner of the 2008 Award for Political Incorrectness is...
By Carey Roberts
It's that time of the year — Christmas carols, shiny-wrapped presents, surprise visits by long-lost in-laws. And of course, our announcement of the annual Award for Political Incorrectness.
Previous winners of this highly-sought after prize include California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger who took up the dicey issue of paternity fraud; columnist Phyllis Schlafly ("Shame on members of Congress who lack the courage to stand up to feminist outrages."); and Mark Inglis, the double-amputee who conquered Mt. Everest.
Last year's unanimous winners were Dave Evans, Reade Seligmann, and Collin Finnerty, the former Duke lacrosse players who bravely overcame a firestorm of rape hysteria unconscionably fanned by the media and university activists.
Let's open the envelope for 2008.
This year's award goes to an unassuming university professor who has devoted his career to the understanding and remedy of family violence. He has received funding from the National Institutes of Health and was elected president of the National Council on Family Relations and the Eastern Sociological Society. Needless to say, his resumé is lengthy and impressive.
When he began his research in the 1970s, the public was well-acquainted with the stereotype of beer-swilling men who bullied their wives. That was the good professor's assumption, as well. But when he published his research findings in 1975, everyone was amazed — women were just as likely as men to engage in partner violence.
When he did follow-up surveys over the following 20 years, the gender-equal results confirmed his original research. More surprising, when other researchers studied homosexual relationships, they found lesbians had the highest rates of partner aggression.
There was a problem, but not with the research itself.
The burgeoning feminist movement had staked out the domestic violence issue as its cri de coeur. The feminists had ginned up their own theory: Domestic violence is a hate crime perpetrated against women. Gloria Steinem said it best: "The patriarchy requires violence or the subliminal threat of violence in order to maintain itself."
But what if all the research paints a completely different picture, showing heterosexual women are equally likely to aggress, and the highest rates of battering are found among lesbians? Obviously the hate crime theory goes out the window, and Steinem's breathless claim seems pretty far-fetched, as well.
So what's a good feminist to do about the good professor's research? Well, why not start a whispering campaign? Anything for the cause of female empowerment, right?
So feminists at his university organized telephone ring accusing him of being a misogynist. He was picketed repeatedly. At the University of Massachusetts, a group of shouting and stomping women prevented him from delivering a guest lecture. (Yes, these are the same women who claim to be working for a more peaceful and tolerant society.)
In Canada, Pat Marshall, chairwoman of the Commission on Violence Against Women, made this charge to a reporter about her meeting with the professor's wife: "I have never met a woman who looked so victimized." But when the writer called the woman, she said she had never been struck. Marshall was later forced to apologize.
When the professor was elected president of the Society for the Study of Social Problems, a group of feminists stood up and walked out as he began his presidential address. And the threats continue to this day — recently one of his PhD students was told she would never find a job if she did her doctoral research with him.
In the face of such opposition, many academics would go into another line of research, or begin to skew their data to be politically acceptable. But he would have none of that. Rather than being cowed by the threats, he opted to expose the motivations behind the attacks.
In one interview, he charged the criticisms of his work are "justifications of violence by women in the guise of feminism. This is a betrayal of the feminist ideal of a nonviolent world."
Then we went on to shed the light of truth their tactics.
Writing last year in the European Journal of Criminal Policy and Research, he cast the spotlight on how feminist academics conceal, deny, and distort the evidence. Then he detailed the ways in which feminists have corrupted the research on female-perpetrated abuse, even scheming to obstruct research funds that might identify female offenders. Finally he took aim at researchers who have "let their ideological commitments overrule their scientific commitments."
Interested persons can read this no-holds-barred paper here: http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/V74-gender-symmetry-with-gramham-Kevan-Method%208-.pdf .
Congratulations, Dr. Murray Straus, director of the Family Research Laboratory at the University of New Hampshire. You are the winner of the 2008 Award for Political Incorrectness.
© Carey Roberts
Wednesday, December 31, 2008
Global Search for Missing 4 Year Old Australian Child - Andrew John THOMPSON
Dear Mike
Many thanks for joining the global search for Andrew.
Although Melinda and Andrew flew to Frankfurt, investigations conducted
by the German authorities have so far failed to find any trace of them
and they could now have left that country.
This is why I'm now asking people to send the following email to as many
people as possible in as many countries as possible (including Germany if (possible)along with a request that those people send it to as manypeople as possible, etc.
It doesn't matter if people send many emails or one email, the importantthing is that they all send it to someone else. One person in Sydney sent only one email but it went to a person in the US whose company then sent it to 10,000 people around the world.
I've also attached some material that has been translated into German andSpanish as well as a photo of a bus-shelter poster that is part of a UK campaign. Andrew is in the bottom left corner.
I'm expecting several more translations to arrive in the next few days and I will let you know when they arrive.
This is the email.....
Join the Global Search for Missing Australian Child - Andrew John
THOMPSON
Four-year-old Andrew John THOMPSON was illegally abducted from Australia on 24th April 2008 and has since disappeared without trace.
Andrew is at grave risk of emotional and physical harm. In addition to an extensive search that has been underway by international authorites for several months, an international multi-media campaign has now been launched to help the authorities find him as quickly as possible.
The following link takes you to a poster that contains links to a flyer that can be downloaded and printed. It also includes suggestions for displaying the flyer in public places. Please print this poster and display it wherever possible no matter what country you are in.
This next link will take you to a missing person website containing more information and photos of Andrew and his mother Melinda Margaret THOMPSON (who could also be using the name Melinda Margaret STRATTON).
A Facebook site has been established for Andrew and can be accessed at http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=39465030948
The next link will take you to an article published in the Daily Telegraph in Sydney (Australia) on 13th December 2008. A video interview with Andrew's father is also contained within the article.
Please forward this email to as many people as possible and ask them to pass it on to as many people as possible as well. Ask them to use the flyers to raise awareness about Andrew in their local areas in as many countries as possible.
ANDREW WILL REMAIN AT A VERY HIGH LEVEL OF RISK TO EMOTIONAL AND
PHYSICAL HARM UNTIL HE IS FOUND AND RECOVERED.
Many thanks from Andrew's Dad, and Andrew.
--
ken thompson
kenthompson@(nospam)fastmail.fm
---> Remove (nospam) to contact Ken directly if you have information on Andrew's whereabouts)
Email to Fathers 4 Justice Canada, Jeremy Swanson, F4J Global
Would you pass the above information along to your contacts across the globe to draw awareness to the kidnapping of Mr. Thompson's son. I will post the updated information in my blogs. The video link to the Australian program "A Current affair" is best viewed via the facebook link following: http://www.facebook.com/ext/share.php?sid=45877605980&h=FQU_i&u=IwjiM
This is a pass through link to MSN video and the Ozzy TV network. If you aren't on facebook try the direct link below.
http://video.msn.com/video.aspx?mkt=en-AU&brand=ninemsn&vid=527ff575-94d4-439f-957a-f70a7c10d5e6
Another important element to this tragic occurrence and Mr. Thompson's attempts to find his son is the strategic campaign to find him. It can be used as a template for any of us if our children are taken. I know how he feels as do many of you and I once lost my two youngest for 7 months. It is the most excruciating agony a parent could suffer.
If you are not familiar with the story viewing the video will give you a quick overview.
Mke Murphy
F4J Sault Ste. Marie
My own experience shows the parent who does the kidnapping will also be alienating the child. Standard things the kidnapper will cite is "Daddy doesn't care about you", "Mommy is afraid of daddy hurting them both" and the list goes on. It is despicable and narcissistic behaviour and can have life long damage to the psyche of this child. The sooner he is found the better his chances of renewing his relationship, in a positive way, with his dad and hopefully allowing the mother to be involved in some manner, albeit cautiously for a time, because I firmly believe with passion a child needs both parents in their lives, if both are fit. Andrew's mom will have to demonstrate this.
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
Alienated Father asks judge to deliver christmas presents
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
Donald Tenn of Sacramento, California is taking creative measures to ensure his Christmas gifts are delivered to his daughter in Moultrie County, Illinois.
He is asking Illinois Judge Flannell, who refuses to enforce his California visitation orders, to make the delivery for him.
Donald's partner, Shannon Phillips took their daughter 2,089 miles away to visit family in Illinois. She never returned.
Using his daughter as collateral, Phillips asked Tenn to move their small family to Illinois. His insistence that the family home was in Sacramento, where the pair has agreed to conceive and raise their child, was met with allegations of domestic violence, and the resulting restraining order.
Despite Tenn's unrelenting efforts, and new legal orders from California that demand he have visitation with his daughter, Phillips has only permitted one time in two years.
Illinois states attorney, Marvin Hanson, refuses to intervene on Tenn's behalf. Meanwhile, Phillips actions are endorsed by her patron, Dove Inc., a religious organization that generates revenue from the Violence Against Women Act.
Federal taxpayer dollars have funded the alienation of Madison from her father based on nothing but arbitrary emotions and opinions. The judiciary of Illinois has done nothing to protect Tenn's rights as a parent.
Dove is a coalition of religious organizations, volunteers, and advocates that seeks to coordinate efforts to address unmet human needs and social injustices.
"Dove, Inc. changes the lives of approximately 5,000 people a year."
Sunday, December 28, 2008
Discovery Health ~ Debunking Divorce Myths
 |  |
The following is based on USA data but a great deal of it can be applied to Canada and some other countries. Canada's Divorce rate is slightly lower (see below). Pay special note to the area where some jurisdictions have invoked shared parenting with a notable drop in the divorce rate. Incentives for divorce by the female have been reduced. Interesting what incentives do to a circumstance isn't it.
Debunking Divorce Myths
Fact: Divorce rates are rising.
Fact: Nearly half of all marriages end in divorce.
Fact: There are ten myths of divorce.
Divorce Myth 1: Because people learn from their bad experiences, second marriages tend to be more successful than first marriages.
Fact: Although many people who divorce have successful subsequent marriages, the divorce rate of remarriages is in fact higher than that of first marriages.
Divorce Myth 2: Living together before marriage is a good way to reduce the chances of eventually divorcing.
Fact: Many studies have found that those who live together before marriage have a considerably higher chance of eventually divorcing. The reasons for this are not well understood. In part, the type of people who are willing to cohabit may also be those who are more willing to divorce. There is some evidence that the act of cohabitation itself generates attitudes in people that are more conducive to divorce, for example the attitude that relationships are temporary and easily can be ended.
Divorce Myth 3: Divorce may cause problems for many of the children who are affected by it, but by and large these problems are not long lasting and the children recover relatively quickly.
Fact: Divorce increases the risk of interpersonal problems in children. There is evidence, both from small qualitative studies and from large-scale, long-term empirical studies, that many of these problems are long lasting. In fact, they may even become worse in adulthood.
Divorce Myth 4: Having a child together will help a couple to improve their marital satisfaction and prevent a divorce.
Fact: Many studies have shown that the most stressful time in a marriage is after the first child is born. Couples who have a child together have a slightly decreased risk of divorce compared to couples without children, but the decreased risk is far less than it used to be when parents with marital problems were more likely to stay together "for the sake of the children."
Divorce Myth 5: Following divorce, the woman's standard of living plummets by 73 percent while that of the man's improves by 42 percent.
Fact: This dramatic inequity, one of the most widely publicized statistics from the social sciences, was later found to be based on a faulty calculation. A reanalysis of the data determined that the woman's loss was 27 percent while the man's gain was 10 percent. Irrespective of the magnitude of the differences, the gender gap is real and seems not to have narrowed much in recent decades.
Divorce Myth 6: When parents don't get along, children are better off if their parents divorce than if they stay together.
Fact: A recent large-scale, long-term study suggests otherwise. While it found that parents' marital unhappiness and discord have a broad negative impact on virtually every dimension of their children's well-being, so does the fact of going through a divorce. In examining the negative impacts on children more closely, the study discovered that it was only the children in very high-conflict homes who benefited from the conflict removal that divorce may bring. In lower-conflict marriages that end in divorce — and the study found that perhaps as many as two thirds of the divorces were of this type — the situation of the children was made much worse following a divorce. Based on the findings of this study, therefore, except in the minority of high-conflict marriages it is better for the children if their parents stay together and work out their problems than if they divorce.
Divorce Myth 7: Because they are more cautious in entering marital relationships and also have a strong determination to avoid the possibility of divorce, children who grow up in a home broken by divorce tend to have as much success in their own marriages as those from intact homes.
Fact: Marriages of the children of divorce actually have a much higher rate of divorce than the marriages of children from intact families. A major reason for this, according to a recent study, is that children learn about marital commitment or permanence by observing their parents. In the children of divorce, the sense of commitment to a lifelong marriage has been undermined.
Divorce Myth 8: Following divorce, the children involved are better off in stepfamilies than in single-parent families.
Fact: The evidence suggests that stepfamilies are no improvement over single-parent families, even though typically income levels are higher and there is a father figure in the home. Stepfamilies tend to have their own set of problems, including interpersonal conflicts with new parent figures and a very high risk of family breakup.
Divorce Myth 9: Being very unhappy at certain points in a marriage is a good sign that the marriage will eventually end in divorce.
Fact: All marriages have their ups and downs. Recent research using a large national sample found that 86 percent of people who were unhappily married in the late 1980s, and stayed with the marriage, indicated when interviewed five years later that they were happier. Indeed, three fifths of the formerly unhappily married couples rated their marriages as either "very happy" or "quite happy."
Divorce Myth 10: It is usually men who initiate divorce proceedings.
Fact: Two-thirds of all divorces are initiated by women. One recent study found that many of the reasons for this have to do with the nature of our divorce laws. For example, in most states women have a good chance of receiving custody of their children. Because women more strongly want to keep their children with them, in states where there is a presumption of shared custody with the husband the percentage of women who initiate divorces is much lower. Also, the higher rate of women initiators is probably due to the fact that men are more likely to be "badly behaved." Husbands, for example, are more likely than wives to have problems with drinking, drug abuse, and infidelity.
Copyright 2002 by David Popenoe, the National Marriage Project at Rutgers University, New Brunswick, N.J.
David Popenoe is professor of sociology at Rutgers University, where he is also co-director of the National Marriage Project and former social and behavioral sciences dean. He specializes in the study of family and community life in modern societies and is the author or editor of nine books. His most recent books are Life Without Father: Compelling New Evidence That Fatherhood and Marriage Are Indispensable for the Good of Children and Society and Promises to Keep: Decline and Renewal of Marriage in America.
The Following Information is from Divorce Rate.org which tracks the rates in various countries.
Accoring to The Department of Justice, Child Support Initiative, Evaluation Report, August 1997, divorce rate in Canada is about 48%. What it means is, one marriage out of every two marriages end up to divorce. But remember that for many, divorces and marriages are repetitions.
Some facts about the divorce rates in Canada
Almost 75% of Canadian divorces are being initiated by women.
One year after separation or divorce, 50% of children of divorced or separated families never see their fathers again.
First marriages have about a 50% chance of ending in divorce , that risk becomes greater with each successive marriage (about 72% for second, and about 85% for third marriages).
Are divorce rates in Canada going up or down? Statistics Canada presents us with the following rates of divorce throughout the years:
| Years | No. of divorces | Rates per 100,000 population. | Rates per 100,000 Married Couples |
| 1921 | 558 | 6.4 | N/A |
| 1941 | 2,462 | 21.4 | N/A |
| 1961 | 6,563 | 36.0 | N/A |
| 1968* | 11,343 | 54.8 | N/A |
| 1969 | 26,093 | 124.2 | N/A |
| 1981 | 67,671 | 271.8 | 1,174.4 |
| 1985** | 61,980 | 253.6 | 1,103.3 |
| 1986 | 78,304 | 298.8 | 1,301.6 |
| 1987*** | 96,200 | 362.3 | 1,585.5 |
| 1990 | 80,998 | 295.8 | 1,311.5 |
| 1994 | 78,880 | 269.7 | 1,246.3 |
| 1995 | 77,636 | 262.2 | 1,221.9 |
| * Reform of Divorce Laws ** Divorce Act ("no fault") *** Peak year | |||
How common is remarriage in Canada? About 75 and 65%, respectively, of divorced men and women remarry. The probability of remarriage between the years of 35-50 for women is 48% compared to 61% for men. For younger women between 25 and 35, the probability is 66% and closer to 80% among men. Therefore, it is obvious that age discriminates against women: the older they are, the lower their chances of remarrying. But this is not the case for men. Such is the double standard. One has to consider that an unknown proportion of this 25 to 35% of men and women who do not remarry do cohabit. But this is more likely to happen for younger divorced persons than older ones, and more likely for men than women. Nevertheless, older cohabitants after a divorce are also becoming more numerous.
Friday, December 26, 2008
Man kills 8 in LA Christmas Carnage in a family law dispute
Some comments left on the CBC site with respect to the killing of "8 die after 'Santa' opens fire at L.A. Christmas party".
At least eight people are dead after a man dressed as Santa fired shots and ignited a blaze at a Christmas Eve party held at his former wife's house, then took his own life, Los Angeles police said... http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2008/12/25/santa-shooting.html?Authorized=1&AuthenticationKey=2_59_c37f851c-cd0c-4da0-8ef2-1d5e417981d8.pakceecoehmmkm
Mike Murphy wrote:Posted 2008/12/26
at 1:29 PM ET
This is a very tragic story at any time of the year especially Christmas.
I'd like to see a post mortem done on the actual crime and the antecedents of these kinds of tragedies. Most men who have some involvement or have a friend or relative involved in family court know the usual outcome where men are concerned.
I'd recommend a line of accountability be looked at including both parties to the divorce, the presiding judge, the two lawyers, some mention of lawmakers who pass the laws, the settlement reached (or not) as their certainly was no final settlement of this matter mutually agreeable to both parties.
The purpose of the post mortem would be to deal with the systemic factors evident in what would cause a person to take such a final and drastic approach to ending the lives of people who would not be a party to the original dispute and then their own life.
Forget the psychobabble he was a control freak or any other speculative details. Out of the over 3,000 male suicides it is estimated over 2,000 men in Canada take their own lives annually from family law decisions. Why did they not take others with them?
There appears to be a great deal wrong with family law on both sides of the border and elsewhere. Perhaps a post mortem, naming all the above names would increase accountability, arrive at causes, and help create a better system to deal with the tragedy of family breakdown let alone some of its worst outcomes such as this very sad story.
Footnote:
I've always believed if people who are involved in the tragedy of family breakdown had public accountability for many of the tragic results of their decisions and manipulations they would want to ensure everything they did was fair and would pass scrutiny in the court of public opinion, not just the law courts, or as some say, the law courts of family injustice - mostly against men. There are a lot of slimy characters involved in the divorce industry and if word of their tactics were publicized they would not be able to hold their head up very high when passing their neighbours. The same would apply to pyscho ex's, male or female, who use their children as weapons.
Some of my colleagues in the father's rights movement end up as victims of suicide and if a trace back to the judges and lawyers were made and it was publicized I believe sober second thought would go into decision making. In the case of Gregory Eisenhauer, of Georgia in the U.S.A, that connection was made and more of this needs to occur. Judge Lane gave him a death sentence and I hope she has nightmares for the rest of her days as well as the slimy legal people and so called counsellors involved.
Wednesday, December 24, 2008
FATHERLESS CHRISTMAS ~ By Sir BOB GELDOF
FATHERLESS CHRISTMAS
Published in the Sun, 19 Dec 2003
By Sir BOB GELDOF
NOW again it's Christmas. We're all busy spending on our loved ones, our families and, most especially, our children.
In particular this is the children's festival. The time when a kind old man will slip down a chimney or slide down a roof and bring joy to your child - FATHER Christmas.
It is the special child's time because 2,000 years ago, the story tells us, a woman and a man had a baby together and though the man knew perfectly well he was not the child's father he nonetheless loved him and his wife and raised him to be strong, independent, brave and loving.
Lucky kid, to have Joseph for a dad. Indeed, were Jesus alive today, to have any dad at all to raise him to be a good man.
For those divorced men with children, Christmas is a travesty, a repulsive contradiction of a family holiday, of a loving celebration, of a special children's time.
These are the men who will be forced to be alone without their babies, who will commit suicide most frequently at this time of year in an age when male suicides are already 300 per cent greater than women's.
These are men who, in the eyes of what is sickeningly called Family Law, committed the greatest crime - of being divorced.
Men who are guilty of the worst sin - of being fathers - because dads, to the great dismay of the secret elite who sit in secret judgment in these secret courts are, shockingly, ALL men!
And men, as everyone knows, are monsters, feckless, abusive, aggressive, thuggish, incapable of such a hugely complex task of giving love and patience, cooking baked beans or giving a bath, doing homework or combing hair and reading stories.
It's a miracle any of us got here at all, us all having had dads and everything. This Christmas Eve we will say goodnight in our homes to our over-excited children, tell them to go to sleep quickly or HE won't come, prepare for the morning and have a quiet drink of pleasure before bed.
Yet there will be many fathers forbidden by the savagery of our laws to be with their children, standing broken, as I have, outside their old homes, the keys still in their pockets, weeping and whispering goodnight as they watch each child's bedroom light switch off before turning away, maddened with grief, to the pointlessness of a lonely Christmas Day. What have we become? In whose name is this brutality done? Who are they who do this and why do they not account to us, the people? What unthinking fools perpetrated these unlawful laws?
How is it in a child's interest to remove him from his dad and why? Two people fall from love and one, though having done no wrong, is semi-criminalised and punished by having his children removed from him for ever (for childhood is never recoverable).
The extremity of Family Law is bewildering, for having your children taken away from you is only one slight degree better than them taking away your freedom. And yet you are not a criminal, nor have you done any wrong.
These same people assume that women make better parents - that a mother's love is better, more important than a father's. That somehow it's bearable for a man to be parted from his children but not a woman.
Why? These assumptions and prejudices are not simply outdated but plain wrong, dangerous and damaging.
You only have to listen to the language that the law uses when it gets involved in our private lives. It's meant to be neutral but it is cold, deadening and hopeless. In fact it becomes heartbreaking, hurtful, rage-inducing. I cannot even say the words.
A huge emptiness would well in my stomach, a deep loathing for those who would deign to tell me they would ALLOW me ACCESS to my children - those I loved above all, those I created, those who gave meaning to everything I did, those who were the very best of us two and the absolute physical manifestation of our once blinding love.
Who the fuck are they that they should use the language of the prison visit to ALLOW anything between me and that which is mine?
REASONABLE CONTACT when the situation under this law is, by definition, UNreasonable!!! CONTACT? Is this what we had before in our home or am I now some visiting alien? An ABSENT parent - labelled by those who have forced me to be absent.
A RESIDENT/NON-RESIDENT parent - words that reduce the meaning of that which was once Mum, Dad and home to the sterile language of the state institution. I cannot begin to describe the pain of being handed a note, sanctioned by your (still) wife with whom you had made these little things, with whom you had been present at their birth and previously had felt grow and kick and tumble and turn and watched the scans and felt intense manly pride. Wrestled and played with them, walked them to school, picked them up, made tea with, bathed and dressed, put them to bed, cuddled and lay with in your arms and sang to sleep. Felt them and smelt them around you at all times, alert even in sleep to the slightest shift in their breathing ... a note that will ALLOW you ACCESS to these things who are the best of you.
What have you done? Why are you being punished (for that is what it seems)? How can she be allowed to dictate what I can or can't do with regard to MY children? What we must have is a new law. Not one remnant of this, quite literally, hopeless Children Act should remain. It is barbaric and will be looked upon with dismay and laughter by lawyers of future generations as we do now on old, outdated, medieval laws. We need a human law. A law that fits the way we live now. A way that reflects the differing versions of family that we have but that still generates love and kindness and compassion. A law that does not take away the happiness of the remaining years of our grandparents' lives and allows them to continue to contribute to our society by helping to raise our children. A law that lets mums be mothers and dads be fathers. Both nurturing, both loving their children, perhaps outwardly differently but inside with the same intensity and passion. Different but the same - an equality of difference. This new law must reflect exactly that.
I am asking that this new law will say at sentence one, paragraph one: "In the interests of children, upon separation they WILL be with both parents an equal amount of the time." They will be with their father 50 per cent of the time and their mother 50 per cent of the time." This is already being implemented in some countries and states and there doesn't seem to be any extraordinary or unusual problems with it. Of course, this arrangement will not suit some people but it does mean that the already overheated emotions of divorce are cooled slightly and, through discussion, a mutually acceptable arrangement can be arrived at without anger, bitterness or hatred. It may also help to stem our uniquely epidemic divorce rates. If both parents going into divorce know that they will only see their children half the time, that financial and housing arrangements are now less cut and dried, then maybe it will give them pause for thought.
That such a powerful newspaper as The Sun, motivated by its millions of readers and their letters of outrage (which I have seen) is now supporting this call for a new law for their readers' children and grandparents means that the country, its mothers, fathers, grandparents and most importantly its children, are ready. Before more men are driven to suicide or desperate brave acts to draw attention to their plight, before more children are taken from their dads, before another empty Christmas passes, let the Government stop their endless tinkering and discussions and begin its reform. On this, the most perfect of family holidays, let us hold in our hearts those small boys and girls who have wished and wished to Santa for only one thing this Christmas ... their dad.
Tuesday, December 23, 2008
Santa is a Canadian Citizen ~ Official statement by Canadian Government
I was posting a comment to the National Post story on Santa being a Canadian Citizen and hadn't realized I was limited to 500 characters., A minuscule amount for such a profound topic being scribbled about by an Irish-Canadian imbued with copious quantities of written verbiage. So here is the rest. The column giving Santa Canadian citizenship is here. http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=1108114
I've always believed Santa was Canadian but of very special status. He is also warmly welcomed as a temporary citizen of beneficence and goodwill around the world.
After all he can be viewed as the main representative flowing out of Christs birth some 2008 years past but transcends one specific type of religion and has no problem in spreading his cheer and good will through out the whole world, not just one particular religion.
In other words Santa is not beset with the baggage of being "the one true representative of the one true religion" yet shows through his corporate mission statement that he believes in the golden rule which transcends everything.
He is a person of action and few words. My children now believe he is fictional but it was magic every Christmas morning when I could overhear their excited whispers - before getting me out of bed - about how this magical man got everything in the house so quietly.
I also will never forget the profound words of one of my 4 daughters as were driving to a store one December after I told them their older sister and her husband were coming to visit over Christmas. She said dad "we must tell Santa that they are coming to see us so he will know to bring their presents to our house". I almost cried at her concern.
Santa is a magical creation and we need to afford him the benefits of Canadian citizenship with extensions to the rest of the world.
And he resides in a multicultural nation as well, what better choice for a world representative to live!
Monday, December 22, 2008
The Real Fathers For Justice ~ Christmas message
Mothers Have A Great Christmas, Yet Thousands Of Families Lives Are Destroyed, Protect Our Childrens’ Rights
WEBWIRE – Monday, December 22, 2008
- Contact Information
- Mike Kelly
- Press Contact
- The Real Fathers For Justice
- +44 (0)778 224 007 2
- info@realfathersforjustice.org
Sunday, December 21, 2008
Is feminism about equality ~ Not in the 21st century it isn't
A debate is going on over at Antonia Zerbiasis' (AZ) blog at the Toronto "Red" Star http://thestar.blogs.com/broadsides/2008/12/group-gripe.html?cid=143137750#comments
I've commented three times shown below. Perspectives on the feminist cause certainly differ and are not likely to change anytime soon. This all got started from a quote attributed to AZ as follows "Feminism is about equality for everyone. There is no such thing as one group getting "more" equality or equal rights than others. It is impossible." That's like waving a red flag in front of those of us sidelined and marginalized by the feminist agenda.
First Post:
Second Post: This post was in response to a feminist who calls those of us who differ with them "Woman Haters" or the favourite which means the same thing Misogynist. This is the most common form of rebuttal on feminist blogs when someones logic seems to be defeating a certain argument thread. I call it the nuclear bomb of the feminist - normal people discourse. It is designed to be the final solution for someone who is losing an argument in order to indicate "my minds made up and facts won't change my view one bit."
And finally Number 3:
Some of the posters still actually seem to believe Feminism is about equality. Yes in the 60's and maybe even the 70's but it went way past equality a very long time ago. Now it is about billions of dollars in entitlements. In Ontario alone the budget for women only issues is $208,000,000.00, and not one red cent is allocated for men and no man can access any one of the 577 DV shelters across Canada - yet. That will change as it is truly anti-gender and discriminatory. It was recently declared unconstitutional in California and we all know what happens when a trend starts there.
A certain number of feminists will always argue that men dominate in many areas including lawmakers. Then how come men can't get shared and equal custody of their children, why is it that men always seem to have to pay the most emotionally and financially when it comes to marriage breakdown even though divorce is initiated in over 85% of the cases by females.
Let me elucidate a little for you. Marketers know that most of the shopping is done by females. The man hands over his share of the money and the female manages it. This is a dumb move by men. Marketing, therefore, to females is more important to all major companies save those whose products are dominated by men, like pick-up trucks and hunting stuff. Now if you are producing a sit-com where the man is a buffoon and the wife sensible you are very likely going to attract the kind of person you want to purchase your product. Can you think of any sitcoms where 2 parents are involved the man isn't a buffoon? After all it reinforces the notion females, therefore feminists, have it all together and then some. By the way there are a lot of females involved in media production but the suits that run the big studios and networks are mostly men. Go figure what a man will do for his shareholders aay. Gee, he will pander to feminists and real women who are the buyers of many of the products advertised.
The government law makers in legislatures do have men as a majority but Quebec's cabinet is 50-50. Why, if men so dominate, can feminists command such influence for the billions spent on women alone across this country? Because male lawmakers have been convinced by feminist organizations, largely funded by taxpayers, that their agenda should be followed because women as victims buys votes. Its like motherhood and apple pie and sells well even to many men including those in the judiciary.
My reply is turning into a dissertation and I should cut it off soon. Those of us who are victims of the feminist agenda know full well equality does not exist in many areas especially family law. If you tell a divorced or separated man all you want is equality expect to get a difference of opinion. He doesn't hate you but he will be, in all likelihood, passionate in his response. I adore women - I dislike demagoguery and ideologically driven people, some of whom are feminists, who pull cherry picked statistics out of a hat to caterwaul to the world how hard done by they are. It does a disservice because I'm sure some women are put at a disadvantage on occasion because, for some jobs, they may not be physically strong enough. That also applies to some men. I am an amputee and I could not entertain being a cop, firefighter, soldier, or any other job such as brain surgeon requiring greater dexterity than I can muster. Well I don't whine about it. I sucked it up a long time ago and focused on what I could do well. It worked in my working life - not in marriage where my choice was a disaster - and I'm paying for it now. If you truly want to be equal and show men you think they are above buffoonery and can actually parent then join a shared parenting association or write your MP to get it enacted in the next session of parliament. Then you will get a different reaction from scribblers like me.
Antonia - you are in a position of influence as both a feminist and writer. Use your position to influence your sisters and politicians to change the law to equal and shared parenting, barring abuse, as a presumption upon divorce or separation.
Posted by: Mike Murphy | December 21, 2008 at 10:25 PM
Haha Edson. Finally it comes out, as it does when some people discussing feminism have a difference of opinion the nuclear bomb of those who differ is dropped in that we are misogynists AKA "woman-hating." Oh dear now the rhetoric has been ratcheted upward and you wonder why we disagree with feminists who live back in the dark ages.
Feminism is not about equality - its about domination and if you truly believe it is about equality then you aren't reaching out very far to see the real world. Edson is part of that real world with her/his over the top rhetoric. There is an organization called "Real woman of Canada". They know they are equal and don't whine. They "Do."
Did you know that in family court having a difference of opinion with your female ex can be construed as abuse. That is a feminist construct. For those of us who disagree with you its not about hate its about fairness.
When the Irish settled this country and in the USA we were treated like lepers but we persevered and won equality through hard work, determination, and credible job performance to overcome the myths we we were lazy drunks. We are clearly not lazy :)
That is now ancient history and we don't need a union or a society of Irish to sell anyone on the idea of equality. We are equal and that is that. The female who is making less in a different job should do what a man does - move jobs sideways or apply for the job that pays more and stop whining. I started my first job at 35.00 a week - the lowest of the low - but I didn't whine about it. I kept applying for better jobs. Guess what I eventually persevered again and again. Guess what - if females start moving out of the low paying jobs to others then perhaps supply/demand will indicate to the employer that turnover is too high and look at the pay rate.
Feminism is not about male female...it is about getting more entitlements through whining than anything else. It is a negative word in many quarters - including "real women". You need to examine the movement in the context of the 21st century not keep seeking more money for perceived value. Earn it on merit not in handouts.
Holidays hard on parents who lose custody disputes
Holidays hard on parents who lose custody disputes
Published December 18, 2008
By Isaac Olson • TLN
Though the holiday season can be a joyous time for many Canadian families, it can also be a time of sadness for those whose children are in the legal custody of the other parent.
Officials with Fathers 4 Justice (F4J) say the country has done little to encourage co-parenting and, as divorce and separation becomes a fact of life in modern times, the government's inaction is creating a detrimental situation that could and should be avoided for the betterment of children, parents and society as a whole.
The spirit of giving
F4J Canada has recently launched "Project Save Christmas" to help impoverished families celebrate the season while reviving the spirit of giving in those who are barred from spending the holidays with their children.
According to a F4J Canada press release, 40 per cent of children in poverty are in single-parent homes. F4J officials are encouraging members who are not allowed to give gifts to their own children to instead give to children in need. Officials are also encouraging members to write or e-mail Santa Claus to let him know that "all we want for Christmas is our children and equal parenting."
"Children are the spirit of Christmas for every parent," stated Kris Titus, the National Coordinator of F4J Canada. "When a parent loses a child, Christmas becomes a nightmare, not a joy. Most feel helpless and politicians aren't listening, so this year we will appeal to Santa himself."
The fight for co-parenting
"Co-parenting can be successful as long as long as both parents' goals are to do what is right for the child," said Titus. "The reason of divorce is to separate from that person, but not to separate children from that person. There are now more than one million children in Canada that were raised by only one parent."
Citing an approximate 125,000 Quebec fathers unable to see their 300,000 children, Daniel Laforest, president of F4J Quebec, agreed with Titus. In a society where divorce has evolved into an everyday occurrence, the custody laws have failed to catch up to skyrocketing separation rates, he said.
"With more women in the work force and divorce so much easier than it was 50 years ago, we have moved to another family concept that is not stabilized right now," said Laforest. "The justice system and laws are not synchronized or adapted to the new society. We are in a transitional period and, for now, the fathers are the biggest losers. The children, unable to live with their fathers and mothers, lose as well. It has dramatic consequences on our society." Currently under court proceedings for a highflying protest in Toronto involving superhero-clad activists unfurling a banner from a crane, Titus, a mother of four boys, said she takes the fight for equal parenting very seriously.
Over the years, F4J has developed a reputation of civil disobedience as organizers work to inform the public of their message. This passion is derived from a desire to see their children as well as an urgent need to change current laws — laws they say have yet to improve. "I certainly wouldn't be getting myself arrested and potentially going to jail if I had seen any improvements," said Titus.
Societal impact
Laforest and Titus both linked the increase in children raised by one parent to the recent spikes in gangs, juvenile delinquency, high school dropouts, depression and other social issues. Children raised solely by one parent are more prone to trouble for a variety of reasons that range from poverty to a lack of proper guidance, explained Titus.
While children watch one parent get stonewalled and the other working long hours to fill the economic hole left by the separation, they often become confused, angry and, at times, delinquent, said Titus. When parents combat each other in court battles that sometimes take years, she said, children are exposed to negative life lessons that often damage social skills.
Laforest, who made an unsuccessful bid for Montreal's Laurier-Sainte-Marie riding in last October's federal election, said he has faith the laws will, with time, change to include more shared custody but, until that happens, it is vital to society that people fight for equal parenting. As it stands, his organization has over 2,000 supporters working to educate the public and change the legal system, he said.
"The best solution is to not have divorce," said Laforest. "But when divorce happens, the best solution is to give both the mother and father access to the children."
For the Sake of the Children
This year represents another milestone in family law. Dec. 9 marked the 10th Anniversary of the "For the Sake of the Children" report that recommended shared parenting as well as 47 other recommendations to improve family law in Canada. These recommendations, however, have yet to been implemented, states the F4J website.
"We never had a conclusion in respect to these recommendations over the last 10 years," said Laforest. "This has created a dramatic situation across Quebec, the country and the world. As a human a problem, it is probably the worst because of the effect on the children. We can't build a society where the fathers fight against the mothers and the mothers fight against the fathers for the children."
National Child Day
Canada's National Child Day, held on Nov. 20, was enacted in 1993 to pay tribute to the country's children while recognizing the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. The Convention, which Canada is party to, spells out the basic human rights to which the world's children are entitled.
"I don't think Canada respects the principle of National Child Day nor the resolution," said Laforest.
The day should be used to recognize children, said Titus, but Canada has yet to do anything that officially acknowledges the country's youth. For now, her organization has dubbed it "National Childless Day."
"If Canada is truly committed to helping kids, the country needs to take a hard look at the parenting structure," said Titus, who noted that, besides their hope of 50/50 co-parenting across Canada, her organization would like, at the very least, to see a federal law that stipulates a higher court, not the family court, declare whether a parent is fit for the job.
Statistics
According to Statistics Canada, custody is granted through court proceedings in three out of every 10 divorces. In the remaining divorces, couples arrived at custody arrangements outside the divorce proceedings or they did not have kids.
In 2002, Canada saw, for the first time, less than 50 per cent of mothers getting total custody. Of the 35,000 dependents for whom custody was determined through divorce proceedings in 2002, the custody of 49.5 per cent was awarded to the wife. The proportion of dependents awarded to mothers has declined steadily since 1988, when women were awarded custody 75.8 per cent of the time. In contrast, 41.8 per cent of 2002 cases resulted in joint custody.
Under a joint custody arrangement, children do not necessarily spend equal amounts of time with each parent, argues Titus. Often one parent, most commonly the father, is squeezed out of the picture by being allotted, for example, only one night a week with his kid(s), she said.
These statistics fail to cover unwed parents, which, Titus observed, is a whole other problem. When unmarried parents separate, she said, fathers are not protected under federal laws. While each province has its own laws in place, separated unwed fathers can potentially face an uphill legal battle when it comes to parenting. Often times they aren't even recognized on the birth certificate, said Titus, and therefore they have no rights to the child.
"We are going in the wrong direction," said Laforest. "We are destroying the image of fathers and creating a situation where there is no place for them in our culture. We have only one way to think in our Quebec society: women are victims and men are guilty people. We need to change that."
Saturday, December 20, 2008
Australia mom kidnaps Son and is in hiding ~ Dad is very concerned
International hunt after mum snatches Andrew, 4
Article from: 
December 13, 2008 12:00am
SITTING in his only child's colourful bedroom, NSW Fire Brigade Deputy Commissioner Ken Thompson yesterday issued an international plea for information leading to his son's safe return.
Australian authorities say Andrew, 4, was abducted by his mother, Mr Thompson's estranged wife Melinda, on April 24 this year.
The pair flew from Sydney to Singapore and then on to the German city of Frankfurt, where they disappeared.
In a rare move, the family court this week issued a publication order after Australian and German police exhausted their efforts to find Mrs Thompson, who may be travelling under her maiden name of Stratton.
The document warns anyone recognising her or her son not to approach them as 46-year-old Mrs Thompson may pose a danger to herself and her young son. They have been asked instead to contact police.
A devastated Mr Thompson yesterday told The Daily Telegraph he had been left reeling by the breakdown of his six-year marriage last Christmas and his wife's subsequent decision to snatch their son.
Before their disappearance, a psychiatric report found she was suffering from a mental condition that affected her judgment and her ability to parent effectively.
But at this point, Mr Thompson said finding Andrew was his only priority.
"He's been ripped away from everything he knows," he said.
"He's probably blissfully unaware of what's going on because he's only four but the emotional damage that's being done to this child is absolutely shocking."
While members of Mrs Thompson's family knew she planned to leave Australia, they don't know where she is now.
Both she and Andrew are Australian citizens, although Mrs Thompson, who holds an MBA, is fluent in French and German.
Mr Thompson said Interpol had issued alerts in 187 countries and a huge international media campaign would be launched, with posters featuring Andrew's image to appear on buses across the UK.
He said he was worried about his wife's mental stability, which could have deteriorated in the period since her disappearance.
 NSW Fire Brigade Deputy Commissioner Ken Thompson has issued an international plea for information leading to his son's safe return.
Video: Watch this father's heartfelt plea
How you can help Mr Thompson find Andrew l |
Parent Alienation - Composite case from actual examples
Parental Alienation
Peggy Ward Ph.D , J. Campbell Harvey, J.D.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
Antonia:
You are using misleading feminist propaganda when you state things like women make 71% of men. You do yourself a disservice and frankly I liked you up until I read that.
Women who are doing the same job as men make exactly the same amount and will go to the top of their pay scale as do men depending on their length of service. A cop, a teacher, a public servant, an assembly line worker, a reporter - dare I say - or are you accusing your employer of discrimination and sexism, et al.
The difference in overall average pay arises due to factors such as men work longer hours at more demanding and hazardous jobs. How many women tunnelers, miners, explosive experts, riggers, derrick workers are there? How many feminists do you think were in the World Trade Towers rescuing people, how many feminists are on the front lines in Afghanistan. None. Zero. Nada.
Men are more likely to travel, relocate or have long commutes for their jobs.
Men are more likely to have more consecutive years experience, because women are more likely to work part time or take years off of work to care for their children. Many women stay-at-home and are not earning income.
Given these factors, it would be very hard for men to not earn considerably more than women. It is not discrimination. Do you consider facebook posters reliable sources of information?
Mechanisms exist to deal with the other factors you raise such as similar pay for work of equal value. If women still have concerns they are ghettoized compared to parking lot attendants they have legal and personal choices. One of them is to change careers. I have a question. Are feminists by nature also self described victims. It is odd that the verbiage seems to indicate you are a permanent underclass of victims.