Canada Court Watch has a series of videos on matters relating to citizens and their interactions with the Courts, particularly the Family Law regime, AKA as FLAW. This mechanism for resolving family disputes is very dysfunctional and very sexist. The following video gives you some insight into the relationships between the welfare system, known as Ontario Works in that Province, the role of its functionaries, and the government collection agency called, oxymoronically, the Family Responsibility Office (FRO) - (it is a sexist agency targeting almost exclusively men). These agencies interact with judges and Lawyers purportedly working in the best interest of children, a phrase that has no legal meaning, and is used ad nauseum without regard to consequences for the children.
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
Friday, January 7, 2011
What causes dads to be absent?
The following are my observations on the below article discussing why Hollywood rarely gets the story right.
Men are
the last frontier for ridicule and we white men, according to the
feminists, are the worst of the lot. We white males of privilege (WMOP)
apparently control everything and not only hold women back but
minority males as well. This is taught in feminist and minority run
sensitivity classes. If anyone sees a minority male as an incompetent
idiot or being assaulted in a commercial let me know.
Females do about 80 to 85% of the shopping for intact families and more if they are single. It makes marketing sense to reach them because they control the money. Its an interesting conundrum for the feminists who say we men control everything - is it not? Therefore, men (as common culture would have you believe) who are interested only in drinking beer, watching football, and driving their truck are a niche market for those products specifically "manly". (note the satire).
In Canada, courts award mom sole physical custody in over 90% of cases and this starts a pattern of behaviour that is negative for the child, and eventually will see 50% of dads out of touch with their children completely. They just give up trying to see them as they are constantly faced with a series of events trying to stop them, including gatekeeper, move away, and alienating moms. These moms are abusive to the children by denying a relationship with 50% of their DNA, and don't care about the negative impacts of dad not being around, only their selfish motives for revenge. Yes, there are some dads who take off, and moms too, but they are a tiny minority. Common culture wants you to believe dads are not necessary but impacted children and science says otherwise.
Other dads who continue to see their children are further marginalized as the children approach and grow through their teens. When the kids get to adolescence they care little about either parent most of the time. Friends are their main preoccupation. This means those dads who kept trying to see the children get to see them even less. It’s very uncool to go to a movie and sometimes even shopping with a dad. Mine get a tad embarrassed at water parks as I am handicapped (loss of left arm) and scold me if I appear too clumsy at boarding some tube rides. A father might be able to coax them away on holidays but all he has become and can do is the role of the Disney Dad. Trying to be a real dad which includes coaching to give them a moral compass can be perilous and result in them not wanting to see him at all for periods of time. No attempt at using discipline if they cross a boundary can work well most of the time given they can opt to not see you or want to return to their mom's immediately.
The author's figures on “one out of three kids is considered "fatherless” may be low. About 40% of children are now born in the USA out of wedlock to single moms. The dad will be sought for payment of support but little else. Baby making can be a way to getting a living from the taxpayers and the dad – even if he isn’t the biological father. The latter can happen through a variety of methods including falsifying information. These are called dead beat moms and they are growing in number.
Where shared and equal parenting has been introduced Divorce rates have gone down and more dads can stay in the lives of their children. Eventually society will understand the single mom model is a failure and not in the best interest of children.
In Canada we have Bill C-422 languishing in Parliament. Write your MP to get it passed for the sake of the children.
Judging from the depiction of fatherhood in most movies, you’d think all dads are simply a variation on three stereotypes: a bumbling but lovable idiot, a distant workaholic or a nutcase. And that’s if he’s even around.
In Sofia Coppola’s film Somewhere, which opens today in limited release, a bored, womanizing movie star named Johnny Marco, played by reputed real-life womanizer Stephen Dorff, is left to care for Elle Fanning’s Cleo, the adolescent daughter he rarely sees, in the days before she leaves for summer camp.
The problems that affect the increasing number of children without dads (or with dads who drop haphazardly in and out of their lives) and the profound social issues they generate have been documented in many studies, most of them based in the United States, where one out of three kids is considered “fatherless.” The U.S.
Census Bureau notes that children who grow up without fathers are five times more likely to be poor. And the Journal of Adolescent Health reported last fall that upper-middle-class girls without dads are likely to experience early puberty, which has been linked to early drug use and sexual activity. Fatherlessness is routinely stated to be a major predictor of criminal behaviour and poor health. Boys who grow up without fathers have a greater likelihood of repeating the pattern.So why are so many films and television shows casual about bad dads?
Andrea Litvack is a professor of social work at the University of Toronto. Asked why absent fathers are something that Hollywood rarely gets right, she says: “It may not translate well because it’s a very complex issue. There are many combinations of factors that impact on anyone’s situation.”
Except for the disapproving glare that Cleo gives her dad over breakfast after a starlet spends the night, their relationship is portrayed as fun and undemanding. Whatever feelings she has about her father aren’t discussed. The other side of this Hollywood habit of diminishing an issue is that thorny social problems are sometimes exaggerated, which is no more plausible than Ms. Coppola’s withdrawn approach.
Paul Moore, who teaches sociology at Ryerson University, says that depicting a social problem “is a form of exposure even when it isn’t realistic.” He says that sometimes issues have to be glorified to work onscreen. This is especially true when it’s something that the audience may still be figuring out. Dr. Moore cites the 1979 classic Kramer vs. Kramer as an example, and says that while it was “revolutionary for its depiction of divorce at the time, we would now see it as utterly melodramatic.”
It’s unlikely that Hollywood will change its depictions of absent dads any time soon, but innovative ideas are out there to help combat the problem. Two years ago, Tom Matlack co-founded the Good Men Project, which includes a book, a magazine and a not-for-profit foundation dedicated to at-risk boys. Mr. Matlack says: “One of the core problems with manhood in America is that so many children grow up without fathers.”
He felt that no one was really talking to boys about issues such as death, divorce, war and sex, and when he speaks to audiences in places ranging from private schools to prisons, “jaws drop.” Mr. Matlack wants to make being an engaged and active dad appealing. “What a mother gives a child is obviously essential, [but] I think what a father gives a child is equally essential and different,” he says. “Every boy is asking themselves a question, ‘How do I be a man?’ and they’re looking for role models, mentors, clues.”
Prof. Litvack points to ABC’s hit sitcom Modern Family as an example of how much the family unit has changed in the past 50 years. “We have to stop thinking of the mother, the father, the two children, the white picket fence as the norm,” she says, and that in many families an absent father is “not necessarily perceived as a negative thing.”
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/family-and-relationships/absent-dads-hollywood-rarely-gets-the-story-right/article1860456/
There
is a billion dollar plus industry tied to Divorce and the parallel
asymmetric war against men, particularly dads. Misandric Feminism has
portrayed women as perpetual victims at the hands of, based on their
description of us, evil and abusive men. It has gone on for over 40
years and now is entrenched in the culture.
Females do about 80 to 85% of the shopping for intact families and more if they are single. It makes marketing sense to reach them because they control the money. Its an interesting conundrum for the feminists who say we men control everything - is it not? Therefore, men (as common culture would have you believe) who are interested only in drinking beer, watching football, and driving their truck are a niche market for those products specifically "manly". (note the satire).
In Canada, courts award mom sole physical custody in over 90% of cases and this starts a pattern of behaviour that is negative for the child, and eventually will see 50% of dads out of touch with their children completely. They just give up trying to see them as they are constantly faced with a series of events trying to stop them, including gatekeeper, move away, and alienating moms. These moms are abusive to the children by denying a relationship with 50% of their DNA, and don't care about the negative impacts of dad not being around, only their selfish motives for revenge. Yes, there are some dads who take off, and moms too, but they are a tiny minority. Common culture wants you to believe dads are not necessary but impacted children and science says otherwise.
Other dads who continue to see their children are further marginalized as the children approach and grow through their teens. When the kids get to adolescence they care little about either parent most of the time. Friends are their main preoccupation. This means those dads who kept trying to see the children get to see them even less. It’s very uncool to go to a movie and sometimes even shopping with a dad. Mine get a tad embarrassed at water parks as I am handicapped (loss of left arm) and scold me if I appear too clumsy at boarding some tube rides. A father might be able to coax them away on holidays but all he has become and can do is the role of the Disney Dad. Trying to be a real dad which includes coaching to give them a moral compass can be perilous and result in them not wanting to see him at all for periods of time. No attempt at using discipline if they cross a boundary can work well most of the time given they can opt to not see you or want to return to their mom's immediately.
The author's figures on “one out of three kids is considered "fatherless” may be low. About 40% of children are now born in the USA out of wedlock to single moms. The dad will be sought for payment of support but little else. Baby making can be a way to getting a living from the taxpayers and the dad – even if he isn’t the biological father. The latter can happen through a variety of methods including falsifying information. These are called dead beat moms and they are growing in number.
Where shared and equal parenting has been introduced Divorce rates have gone down and more dads can stay in the lives of their children. Eventually society will understand the single mom model is a failure and not in the best interest of children.
In Canada we have Bill C-422 languishing in Parliament. Write your MP to get it passed for the sake of the children.
Leave
it to a feminist Sociology Professor quoted in the article, Andrea
Litvack, to speak gobbley gook then point out a fictional family on a
TV show as representing the real world. I watch the show but often have
to turn my head away at some of the antics of the prissy gay couple.
Her bottom unspoken line is dad's are unnecessary.MJM
Absent dads – Hollywood rarely gets the story right
KATE CARRAWAY
From Friday's Globe and Mail
Published
Last updated
7 comments
Judging from the depiction of fatherhood in most movies, you’d think all dads are simply a variation on three stereotypes: a bumbling but lovable idiot, a distant workaholic or a nutcase. And that’s if he’s even around.
In Sofia Coppola’s film Somewhere, which opens today in limited release, a bored, womanizing movie star named Johnny Marco, played by reputed real-life womanizer Stephen Dorff, is left to care for Elle Fanning’s Cleo, the adolescent daughter he rarely sees, in the days before she leaves for summer camp.
More related to this story
- From wife to widow to only parent
- In death, an estranged dad reveals himself
- Like father, like daughter
The problems that affect the increasing number of children without dads (or with dads who drop haphazardly in and out of their lives) and the profound social issues they generate have been documented in many studies, most of them based in the United States, where one out of three kids is considered “fatherless.” The U.S.
Census Bureau notes that children who grow up without fathers are five times more likely to be poor. And the Journal of Adolescent Health reported last fall that upper-middle-class girls without dads are likely to experience early puberty, which has been linked to early drug use and sexual activity. Fatherlessness is routinely stated to be a major predictor of criminal behaviour and poor health. Boys who grow up without fathers have a greater likelihood of repeating the pattern.So why are so many films and television shows casual about bad dads?
Andrea Litvack is a professor of social work at the University of Toronto. Asked why absent fathers are something that Hollywood rarely gets right, she says: “It may not translate well because it’s a very complex issue. There are many combinations of factors that impact on anyone’s situation.”
Except for the disapproving glare that Cleo gives her dad over breakfast after a starlet spends the night, their relationship is portrayed as fun and undemanding. Whatever feelings she has about her father aren’t discussed. The other side of this Hollywood habit of diminishing an issue is that thorny social problems are sometimes exaggerated, which is no more plausible than Ms. Coppola’s withdrawn approach.
Paul Moore, who teaches sociology at Ryerson University, says that depicting a social problem “is a form of exposure even when it isn’t realistic.” He says that sometimes issues have to be glorified to work onscreen. This is especially true when it’s something that the audience may still be figuring out. Dr. Moore cites the 1979 classic Kramer vs. Kramer as an example, and says that while it was “revolutionary for its depiction of divorce at the time, we would now see it as utterly melodramatic.”
It’s unlikely that Hollywood will change its depictions of absent dads any time soon, but innovative ideas are out there to help combat the problem. Two years ago, Tom Matlack co-founded the Good Men Project, which includes a book, a magazine and a not-for-profit foundation dedicated to at-risk boys. Mr. Matlack says: “One of the core problems with manhood in America is that so many children grow up without fathers.”
He felt that no one was really talking to boys about issues such as death, divorce, war and sex, and when he speaks to audiences in places ranging from private schools to prisons, “jaws drop.” Mr. Matlack wants to make being an engaged and active dad appealing. “What a mother gives a child is obviously essential, [but] I think what a father gives a child is equally essential and different,” he says. “Every boy is asking themselves a question, ‘How do I be a man?’ and they’re looking for role models, mentors, clues.”
Prof. Litvack points to ABC’s hit sitcom Modern Family as an example of how much the family unit has changed in the past 50 years. “We have to stop thinking of the mother, the father, the two children, the white picket fence as the norm,” she says, and that in many families an absent father is “not necessarily perceived as a negative thing.”
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/family-and-relationships/absent-dads-hollywood-rarely-gets-the-story-right/article1860456/
Tuesday, January 4, 2011
Is the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, Beverley McLachlin, a radical Feminist or suffering from early onset Alzheimers?
Real Women of Canada sent out the following release over some of the less cogent and potentially misandrous comments of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada. To say she is a sexist feminist is fair, based on her single gender only opinions. I pity men who are appealing sexist court decisions based on Family Law having to deal with her.
Media Release
Ottawa, Ontario
December 7, 2010
December 7, 2010
Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin – was she confused or just presumptuous?
Chief
Justice Beverley McLachlin may have confused her role as a judge in her
recent speech to the feminist oriented North-South Institute when she
made a proposal to include women’s impact assessment in future
international trade agreements. Previously this was solely the role of
legislative policy workers and elected MP’s.
Modestly
admitting that she was not a “trade policy person” she nonetheless
believed herself qualified to provide the advice to government officials
on trade.
Alternatively,
if Chief Justice McLachlin wasn’t confused, she then must believe that
her appointment as a judge provides her with rare insight and
understanding that transcends that of the experts in the field, who
would benefit from her guidance. If such is the case, her comments were
only an extension of the remarks she made in another speech, in December
2005, that judges may base their opinion on unwritten norms “even in
the face of enacted laws or hostile public opinion.” She reached this
bizarre conclusion on the belief that judges have a “judicial conscience
[which] is founded on the judges’ sworn commitment to uphold the rule
of law.”
There
is also a third possibility for the comments of the Chief Justice –
namely, that she threw all caution to the wind in her speech in pursuit
of her feminist concerns promoting the cause of women. If this were not
the case, why then was she not equally concerned about the rights of men, children, the aged and the poor in trade agreements?
Regardless
of the reasons for her agitation on behalf of women in her speech,
Chief Justice McLachlin has displayed a remarkable lack of judgment and
common sense. This discredits her personally as well as the judiciary.
For Further Information Please Contact:
C. Gwendolyn Landolt
National Vice President
(905) 731-5425, (905) 889-1993
C. Gwendolyn Landolt
National Vice President
(905) 731-5425, (905) 889-1993
Diane Watts
(613) 236-4001
Researcher
(613) 236-4001
Researcher
Monday, January 3, 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
