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.

Wednesday, March 11, 2009

Obama just became a GynOcrat ~ Is he the first President to achieve this status

Check this out. The Gynocracy is now in full force. Even Obama has fallen for the propaganda of 1 in 4 women being abused and a women makes 78% of a mans earnings. It would appear he takes it at face value given he signed a bill to ensure women make as much as men. It won't change much because women don't work for as long as men, they don't travel the same distances to work, they don't work in hazardous jobs and they seem to chooose occupations they may like but don't pay as much. Take early child care education. Most of these facilities are run by women who hire women. Will the government force the pay rates up. If so will anyone be able to afford the services. There are many dimensions to the problem that Obama doesn't seem to get. Who has his Blackberry email address so we can get him out of the "bubble". In most occupations where women do the same work as men they make the same money. He can apparently speak well but he can't analyze information. Does he see 40,000,000 women needing care as that is the number you get from 1 in 4 women are abused. 160,000,000 women in the USA (approximately) x .25 gets you 40,000,000 walking wounded. Its absurd. Obama just became a gynocrat in my book. Shall we call him GynObama or ObamaGyn.MJM

NOW logo

For Immediate Release Contact: Mai Shiozaki, 202-628-8669, ext. 116; cell 202-641-1906

NOW Cheers White House Council on Women and Girls: "We Got the Entire Cabinet!" Statement of NOW President Kim Gandy

March 11, 2009

NOW cheers the formation of the White Council on Women and Girls, which was created by executive order of President Barack Obama today. It was a pleasure for me to be at the White House to hear the president make this commitment to supporting women and girls in such strong and unequivocal terms. It was a heartening moment for those of us who have worked so hard for this day.

There can be no question that the needs of women and girls require the attention of the White House itself. As President Obama pointed out in today's speech, women still earn 78 cents for every dollar earned by men. One out of every four women will experience some form of domestic violence during her lifetime. Women make up more than half the population, yet are only 17 percent of the U.S. Congress. And while women are 49 percent of the nation's workforce, only three percent of the Fortune 500 companies are headed by women.

The make-up of the White House Council is extraordinary. It will be headed by Valerie Jarrett, assistant to the president and one of his closest friends and advisors, and will include every Cabinet secretary and the head of every Cabinet-level agency. The Executive Director of the Council will be Tina Tchen, deputy assistant to the president and a long-time advocate of women's rights.

We asked for a Cabinet-level office to work on women's issues, and we got the entire Cabinet. NOW looks forward to supporting the work of the White House Council on Women and Girls in the months ahead. There is much work to be done.

The National Post ~ Colby Cosh: The lessons of Rihanna

The following column is fairly typical of the "White Night" patriarchal approach to discussing DV. Cosh comments " I don’t want to sound like a squishy liberal here..." but he actually sounds more like a socialist by the name of Jack Layton, the CEO of the Canadian Socialist Movement and the NDP (No Dad's Party), Canada's foremost "Girly Man." The patriarchy lives inside these ill informed do-gooders who believe they know all and will step into the breech to claim the throne as chief defenders of the underclass of victims known as females. We teach our daughters they are victimized and so it will be. It is a circular argument that through its adherent’s promotion actually causes the outcome that ought not to occur. More on this later. That is the message of Cosh and others of his ilk aided and abetted by naive politicians, greedy lawyers and lazy judges. I had a trial mgmt. conference on February 27, 2008 in which Judge McMillan of the Ontario Superior Court presided. In his discussion with me the strong, suck it up, thick skinned, masculine applicant he was at times, bellicose, belligerent, threatening, condescending and dismissive. He even stated that any evidence I might have with respect to criminal behaviour by my ex for which she might profit in the "no fault" equalization of assets would likely be thrown out. Who says a criminal can't profit from their actions. McMillan clearly indicated to me they can. Only in family Law (FLAW) could this occur with the full knowledge of participants. I suggested to him in no uncertain terms if I do not challenge the law it will never be changed. He looked fairly disgusted with my comment because here was an "uppity" political activist challenging the "space" occupied by the justice/divorce industry acolytes whose comfortable pew of awarding custody to females in a 9-1 ratio and challenging the notion of the Marxist induced equalization regime/no fault divorce is being called into question. When it came to questioning the respondent female who has committed several criminal acts, the only parent to beat the children, parentally alienated them (see the prologue to my book , Chapter 111, for all of my grievances) he shows deference by lowering his tone and speaking in obvious respective mannerisms. I immediately saw the patronizing, patriarchal stance and hypocrisy of his actions. He does not believe women have the capability to "take it like a man", are lesser beings than men, and need "White Knights" like him to protect them. The feminist mantra of women as a victim underclass is looking for a new "Parent" in the Nanny State. Given they believe they are a permanent underclass of victims that were, in many cases it would seem, dependent first on parents (or quite possibly a single mother parent), then on a partner - mostly men so far, and after either graduating from being dependent on one parent, failing with the male partner, now require a new hand to guide them. The Nanny State in its benevolence becomes this new surrogate to watch over them. In this manner further dependencies are developed which then in a mutually symbiotic manner ensures hundreds of thousands of support jobs via the taxpayer, and permanency to the state of feminist dependency. The feminist cry of equality and independence cannot ever be met by its followers. Those who are Real Women and don't subscribe to the feminist chattering classes of whiners and complainers are the females who actually achieved equality by being themselves and hopefully my daughters can succeed in this way. I believe in the "Strong Fathers - Strong Mothers = Strong Children" philosophy. Both parents play an integral role in the outcome. That is the natural order of things. I would posit given what we know of the social engineering of the socialist labour government in the U.K., the lack of success on all fronts within their society, and the nature of building dependencies, the problems of DV will never be solved because it is a single gender solution using the bogus Duluth wheel as its guide which states all women are victims of abusive men. The efforts by the Nanny state are in fact Patriarchal (A man who rules a family, clan, or tribe) because it believes the fallacy that these women are victims as defined by Marxist/Feminist propaganda. In this case the new form of patriarchy is at the behest of those who thought they were escaping it. That is called circular logic. They were perceived victims dependent on someone else and have moved sideways for greater dependence on the new Patriarch - The Nanny State. It is in essence as though they never grew up. Despite the role models of tough resilient truth seeker females in movies and TV some females cannot grasp they are moving in circles rather than ahead. It cannot be anything else until a new paradigm involving all "actors" on this stage of mutual interpersonal relationships are involved in a solution.MJM

Colby Cosh: The lessons of Rihanna
Posted: March 10, 2009, 12:37 PM by NP Editor

The Los Angeles Police Department reacted with anger and threats when someone apparently leaked evidentiary photos of pop star Rihanna to a gossip Web site after she was allegedly beaten by her boyfriend Chris Brown last month. The police are right to take a dim view of employees abusing their insider status for personal gain, but I cannot help feeling a little grateful all the same. The effect of the leak has been to help keep the increasingly grotesque spectacle of Rihanna and Chris Brown — who have reunited even as felony charges against Brown are prepared — on the front burner of the news. I don’t want to sound like a squishy liberal here, but I think this will lead to a lot of important conversations.

Growing up married, growing up common-law

NO. 64
March 11, 2009
The eReview provides analysis on public policy relating to Canadian families and marriage.

Join us for our conference tomorrow, March 12, 2009. Limited space still available. Internationally-renowned speakers include the Right Honourable Iain Duncan Smith (United Kingdom), Kay Hymowitz and Jennifer Marshall (United States) and Dr. Gabor Maté and John Williamson (Canada). Come for our conference and stay for the Manning Networking Conference on March 13 and 14.

Please click here for more information and to register.

Peter Jon Mitchell, Researcher, Institute of Marriage and Family Canada

Is marriage falling out of favour? In trend-setting Hollywood, celebrity couples like funny-man Jim Carrey and partner Jenny McCarthy have dismissed marriage as just a piece of paper. [1] Oscar winner Halle Berry has sworn off marriage as well, telling a reporter “I don’t think you need a piece of paper for the child to feel loved or legitimate.” [2] Certainly, love and legitimacy are not confined to marriage, but living common-law and living as a married couple are two very different decisions, particularly when children are involved.

A new Canadian study

A new study by Dr. Frank Jones, Research Fellow at the IMFC, explores whether common-law and married homes affect children differently. Using data from Statistics Canada’s National Longitudinal Survey of Children and Youth, the study examines children of married and cohabiting parents at ages six to eleven and again eight years later at ages fourteen to nineteen, measuring responses to forty attitudes and behaviours based on family form.

The study finds that teens who as children had parents living common-law are more likely than teens of married parents to:

· smoke

· sell drugs

· engage in sexual intercourse

· have a lower age of sexual initiation

· have poor relationships with their mom and dad

· have parents who do not get along

What might account for these differences? The study explores a three-fold hypothesis.

First, married couples in the study were more likely to be more highly educated, older, have more informal educational experiences and were more likely to be religious. Collectively categorized as human capital, these attributes among parents were associated with the lower likelihood of teens to use substances and have sex.

Parental human capital was also associated with the increased likelihood of teens to delay sexual initiation and report being happier with life. Previous studies have found that common-law couples tend to be younger and less religious, and that married women tend to be older and more educated than their cohabiting counterparts. [3]

Second, common-law unions are less stable than married relationships. In the study sample, 49 percent of children age six to nine with common-law parents lived with only one biological parent in the home. On the other hand 94 percent of children age six to nine with married parents had both biological parents in the home. Other studies have also found high rates of union dissolution among common-law couples with young children. An American study found that unwed parents experience significantly more partner changes. This increases the stress on children, leading to modest increases in behavioural problems. [4] Other studies have found correlations between multi-partner change and early sexual initiation among boys and early childbearing among girls. [5]

Finally, common-law parents may be less committed to raising children. Union instability and frequent partner change may be a factor. American sociologist Bradford Wilcox also reports that married fathers are more likely to demonstrate affection to their wives and families than cohabitating men. [6]

Marriage and public policy

Marriage benefits children in ways that living together does not. Public policy should acknowledge the social good that healthy marriage delivers.

The increased likelihood of teens engaging in risky behaviours should concern more than just parents. The education system, community social programs, justice and healthcare bear the burden of assisting teens through the consequences of engaging in risky behaviour.

Marriage is a natural poverty fighter and public policy can nurture this source by removing financial disincentives, particularly for lower income individuals. Adding a marriage bonus to the Working Income Tax Benefit or moving to a family taxation model could assist families achieve greater autonomy. [7]

Public policy has attempted to make common-law look like marriage, when in fact, these are two very different choices. And perhaps some celebrities have strongly sworn off marriage precisely because they realize the two choices are not the same. Public policy should treat common-law and marriage differently because they are different. Highlighting this difference is not a condemnation of those who choose not to marry, but recognition that marriage offers unique societal benefits.


1. Jim Carrey denies marriage a possibility with Jenny McCarthy. (2008, Mar. 18) New Zealand Herald. Retrieved March 3, 2009 from http://www.nzherald.co.nz/entertainment/news/article.cfm?c_id=1501119&objectid=10498872

2. Walls, J. (2006, June 7) Berry says yes to motherhood, no to marriage. MSNBC.com Retrieved March 3, 2009 from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12993760

3. Osborne, C., McLanahan, S. (2007, November) “Partnership instability and child well-being.” Journal of Marriage and Family vol. 69, no. 4. p. 1065.

Popenoe, D. (2008) Cohabitation, marriage and child wellbeing: A cross-national perspective. (New Jersey: The National Marriage Project, Rutgers). p.10.

4. Osborne and McLanahan, p. 1079.

5. Capaldi, D., Crosby, L., Stoolmiller, M. (1996, April) “Predicting the timing of first intercourse for at-risk adolescent males.” Child Development vol. 67, no. 2, pp. 344-359.

Wu, L. (1996, June) “Effects of family instability, income and income instability on the risk of a premarital birth.” American Sociological Review, vol. 61, no.3, pp. 386-406.

6. W. Bradford Wilcox, et al. (2005) Why Marriage Matters. Twenty-Six conclusions from the social sciences, 2nd Edition (New York: Institute for American Values). p. 2.

7. For further discussion on these policy options see Taylor, P.S. (2007) “Family poverty in Canada: Raising incomes and strengthening families.” Canadian Family Views. (Ottawa, Institute of Marriage and Family Canada) http://www.imfcanada.org/article_files/Family%20Poverty.pdf

Mintz, J. (2008) “Taxing families: Does the system need an

overhaul?” IMFC Review. (Ottawa: The Institute of Marriage and Family) http://www.imfcanada.org/article_files/b.pdf

Permission is granted to reprint or broadcast this information with appropriate attribution to the Institute of Marriage and Family Canada