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.

Saturday, May 8, 2010

The moral Compass in Canada and the debate on Abortion - It is not settled as the feminists would have you believe

There has been much written on Abortion in the National Post (NP) over the past week in which I have offered copious comments. The following is my most recent based on a Lorne Gunter posting here.Those I refer to in my short essay are regular commentators on the NP's blog.

An issue like abortion boils down to the individuals moral compass and subsequent viewpoint. It deals with the ethics and values a person holds and indeed how much the propaganda of feminists has permeated their thinking process.

Feminists hold "abortion on demand" as one of their prime pillars. It is sacrosanct and, to them, boils down to dominion over their body no matter that another human also had a part to play in the pregnancy, the vast majority of which were between consenting partners.

Feminists want complete reproductive control (the Marxist philosophy of monopoly) and if they screw up on the control side, they want complete governance to dispose of their mistakes, also Marxist in nature despite, as mentioned above, two parties involved.

A goodly number of men have stated they must be right and must acquiesce to this mantra. We have acquiesced our legitimate role in creation of life, which has transferred to other areas such as family law where we are discarded as visitors to even those whom were born, not aborted, if we get to see them at all. Some patriarchy that is! In other words, feminists have won as they get complete control of reproduction, termination of life and ownership of children when born at the end of marriage. Between co-habitation and marriage we have a probable family breakdown rate of 50% within 30 years of living together. Cohabitation ends much faster than marriage. Men,  pay for all this marriage breakdown and abortion  in taxes, child support, spousal support, and many extras.

The feminists in this country then take it further and say not only do we want all this Marxist central planning over population control but we want the state to pay for it. Many men have also bought into this utter nonsense as well because they are highly feminized. The propaganda over the years has worn them down, they throw up their hands and said "shucks I have to keep peace let them have it."  They now believe they are being chivalrous by kneeling at the altar of uncontrolled abortion and have been co-opted into the further consumer shopping for the right sex of the child  by aborting the developing life because it’s the wrong gender. Gee it’s not what I wanted lets terminate this life and try again.

Its eugenics by another name.

It will lead to moral collapse, as a likely outcome and by allowing sex selection; those who support abortion on demand are leading the charge.

I posit most Canadians, when faced with the right information, will choose to restrict abortion in a reasonable manner.  After all, we are such a polite country - are we not?

If we leave it to the feminists, we cannot survive as a culture and eventually a stronger force will take over. It is called Islam and one only needs to read the daily paper(s), especially those in Europe,  or watch the world news to get an idea of their strength and our accommodating weakness.

Mr. Pilgrim represents the accommodating, passive side of the equation although he says he is pro-life. It was like pulling teeth to get him to admit it. Joe Shmoe represents the completely feminized faction and a mere sock puppet of feminist desires. I represent the side of pro-lifers who want restrictions and no tax support unless medically necessary.

What do we want to leave for our grandchildren - if anyone gets to have any in the future - the eroding of our values, population and the onslaught of a totalitarian religion - or something better and different?  By 2050 we will see we are much closer to half the country being foreign born. It’s not far off.

Women's program cuts raise feminist ire

My comments left on the Calgary Herald Site in multiple posts as they only allow short bursts.

Ms. Arab, you are very old school in your thinking. Radical Feminism took over back in the 70’s when they drummed Erin Pizzey, the woman who created refuge shelters for abused women,  out of the movement and threatened her life.  One of the reasons she was drummed out was her finding that many of the so-called abused women were also abusers. 

Feminisim today is a toxic and Marxist movement to create entitlements for feminists, create propaganda that men are abusers and marriage is a form of slavery no woman should entertain.  I have identified many flavours of this current feminism and one increasingly in favour is LifeBoat Feminism which invokes the dual term women and children. This is used to show women and children are victims of the patriarchy, when in fact, single moms are the largest single abuser of children, and is clearly shown in countries such as the USA and OZ who breakdown the information to clarify biological fathers are the least likely to harm children.

You describe some men as feminists. That is part of the propaganda machine that contributes to the feminization of men.  Feminist derives from feminine, which means “of or relating to women or girls., Characterized by or possessing qualities generally attributed to a woman, Effeminate; womanish.”  There are no doubt men displaying these qualities but the male of the species is no more a feminist than an alligator is a cat. Some have fallen for the rubric and fallacious argument feminist = equality, therefore I must need to be a feminist to portray myself as an equal being with the opposite gender. What rubbish. They sell out their own masculinity to try and prove they believe the opposite gender is equal. Feminism hasn’t been about equality since the 70’s.

There is nothing wrong with masculinity. It conquered barbarians and turned our part of the world into a democratic place where people can achieve success through their efforts not nanny state entitlements. It produced most of the worlds inventions leading to the Industrial Revolution, explored continents, the oceans, the mountains and space. It can nurture children as I did for 10 years as a stay-at-home dad and saves lives daily as first responders around the world. Who would you have wanting to save you from a collapsing and burning building, an entitled feminist living off the tax payer trough, or a burly man, big and strong enough to risk his life in a burning collapsing building, who will seek you out, find you and place you over his shoulder and carry you to safety. Masculinity works and can be as gentle as a lamb or as ferocious as a beast but in the vast majority of cases is the protector of those physically weaker including women and children. He can also believe the opposite gender is an equal human full of different strengths than he.

Feminism  focuses on the LifeBoat. It states, as an example, men and women cannot share parenting after divorce because dad is an abuser, even if he is not. This is taught by your local DV shelter, strong subscribers to radical feminist privilege,  and is often a first step for mom to ensure custody. Despite the fact DV  affects a small percentage of the population 8% female, 7% male (StatsCan 2005) they would have you believe mom needs to be in the Lifeboat with the children and dad can only be a visitor who pays dearly financially and emotionally for his marginalization. What this achieves is not good for the children (see Kruk, 2009) and continues the impression feminism brings to the market that women are but children and cannot stand on their own. 

Femisim is leading more  women on a further step with technology and seeking to be single moms through choice because they don’t have time to meet and mate the right guy. That being the case how much time will she have for her child.  More and more children are being raised by proxies. More and more children are suffering negative outcomes whether it be jail, promiscuity, obesity, diseases uncommon before including SDT’s, truancy, drug taking and more.  You can read the Kruk study for more info on these consequences A goodly part of the problems described above results from fatherlessness. Dads are the missing link and shut out of their children’s lives as an active parent and role model in over 90% of divorces and marginalized.

All of this is supported by today’s brand of feminism funded by Status of Women Canada and each of the Provincial equals. No government, at any level in Canada, has a Status of Men despite the fact 8 of us kill ourselves through suicide each and every day of the year. If this number of deaths were from the flu, WHO would call it a worldwide pandemic and Governments everywhere would be at war with the virus. It is men, however, and does not matter, as we are replaceable drones according to the feminists. SOW Canada is no more than a misandrous propaganda machine as are the Provincial equals. The real money is with the Provinces. Ontario has $208,000,000.00 alone targeted solely for women not including the 10’s of millions for legal aid intended for them solely. We, as humans socialized to suck up our pain, suffer both emotional and physical injury in DV incidents, lose our children to social engineers called judges in family courts and pay a high financial price for a divorce, 75% of which are initiated by mom. 

Feminism today is the new "F" word for very good reason, none of it positive.

The Harper government's latest showdown with women's rights groups, suggests the time has come for Canadian women -- and men -- to reclaim the word feminist. Bring it back to its mainstream roots.

A day after Conservative Senator Nancy Ruth warned aid groups that they risk a backlash if they don't "shut the f---up," news reports revealed Status of Women funding for at least 14 women's groups wasn't renewed for the current fiscal year.

According to the government, these organizations are victims of limited resources, even though they do valuable work that advances the cause of women's health, rights and equality.

So what does feminism have to do with it?

If the word were used properly, there would be less of a divide that occurs when programs rightly or wrongly get cut. Feminism simply means a belief that all people are equal, regardless of gender.

Most voting Canadians are feminists, they just might not know it. Even many men are feminists by the true definition of the word. Anyone who believes it's wrong to discriminate against the opposite sex because of their gender, falls into this category, whether they want to admit it or not.

The great 20th century author Rebecca West once wrote: "I myself have never been able to find out precisely what feminism is: I only know that people call me a feminist whenever I express sentiments that differentiate me from a door mat or a prostitute."

A decade or so after her death, universities had defined feminism. I was taught that there are three types of feminists: Most fall into the category of liberal feminists; those focused on equality. Marxist feminists believe equality can never be achieved in a capitalist society, without an overhaul of the economy. The smallest group goes to those, unfortunately, with the biggest mouths, the radical feminists, whose views are the most extreme. They include the wacky belief that women need to live in a society free of men, if patriarchy is to be truly transformed.

Yet, this small, radical view has become the mainstream definition in the past 10 years. The rise of the ultraconservative right has succeeded in turning feminism into a dirty, weak word.

Chris Hilton, a spokesman for Status of Women Minister Rona Ambrose, denies there is anything ideological about the funding decisions. "Unfortunately, not all projects that submit proposals can be accepted," he said Wednesday. True, but there is ample evidence feeding the perception.

At least two organizations in Alberta are among the casualties. Womanspace Lethbridge, a resource centre for women in southern Alberta, has since closed its office to clients, with a recorded message blaming "funding cuts."

Alberta Network of Immigrant Women is also on the wrong end of the funding decision. The network has championed a number of valuable projects geared at increasing the participation of women in all aspects of society. It's also been instrumental in building a system that addresses the recognition of internationally educated or trained professionals.
In 2000, the network partnered with the department of family practice at the University of Alberta, and eventually founded the International Medical Graduates program. The association helps integrate international graduate physicians into the Canadian health-care system, without compromising our medical standards.
Perhaps denying access to Status of Women funding is nothing more than a case of too few resources, were it not for a pattern of such questionable, ideologically driven decisions.

In his first year in power, Prime Minister Stephen Harper cancelled the Liberal's promised universal child care program, and replaced it with an old-fashioned baby bonus system, payable to parents with children under six. The $100 per month supplement is purely a symbolic nod to the traditional nuclear family. That kind of money can only buy token babysitting services
The Status of Women's independent research fund was eliminated, 12 of 16 regional offices closed, and literacy programs were cut, which benefit women most. But the most damaging policy change was the elimination of the Court Challenges Program, one of many moves applauded by REAL Women.
No longer can those who feel they've been discriminated against seek financial assistance to launch significant court cases that guarantee equal rights under the constitution.
REAL Women cheered when the feds decimated the Status of Women, expressing hope it would be eliminated entirely "since it does not represent 'women' but only represents the ideology of feminists."

That's simply untrue. There's no "ideology" in working to improve the participation of women in all aspects of society, "putting particular emphasis on increasing women's economic security and eliminating violence against women," according to the organization's mandate.

For its part, the government insists the Conservatives are committed to improving the lives of Canadian girls and women. They want accountability, "less talk and more action," said Transport Minister John Baird.

Let's hold the Conservatives to that promise, by getting over the stigma of calling oneself a feminist, and ensuring the voice for gender equality is heard.
parab@ theherald.canwest.com