Trick or Treat? Is the Telegraph pulling a PBS?

Tonight I should be trick or treating with my son. Since I'm not, and therefore need something to distract myself, I thought I'd treat myself to a hunt around for the tricks people are up to.

In the London Telegraph, I feel for David and his mom Naomi. From what we are told, it does seem that justice is tricking them as an apparently genuinely unwilling David is sent to live with his dad and cut off from talking to his mother. While I cannot agree with the cutting-off of communication, I also note that the article, in a treat for mom and a trick for dad, does not offer the father's side. We have no hint of how combative or manipulative the mother might have been, there are bad words only for the father.

Of course, any injustice should be fought with all energy, especially the disenfranchisement of a parent in the absence of very, very good reasons. That said, the article seems to be something of a print version of PBS's recent trick "Breaking the Silence" -- overall perhaps a little more fair minded but trickily subtle in its attacks on what little progress that has been made in the establishment of fathers' rights.

For example: "Sir Bob Geldof and other fathers' rights campaigners may have been almost too successful" speaks for itself. A nice, in-your-face trick, that.

And, quoting the tricky Charles Pragnell: "Any man accused of abuse will realise that the best form of defence is attack. He will make counter-allegations that the mother has been indoctrinating the child or is suffering from Munchausen's Syndrome by proxy." Which while perfectly possible, makes no comment on the truth of either side's allegations and therefore qualifies as inuendo (definitely a trick). I find it interesting that he forgot to add PAS to the father's treats (or would that be tricks?), I expect PBS's effort hasn't made it across the Atlantic yet. (And haven't the Brits got a treat coming...!?)

Pragnell goes on: "These men are usually highly intelligent professionals or businessmen with considerable resources." and so it would seem that being such might be a disadvantage for a man caught up in a fight over custody, which is pretty tricky given that intelligence, professionalism and success used to be considered good things in a parent.

The quote continues: "They seem to be able to find one key social worker, usually female, to convince of their claimed innocence and accept their allegations against the mother". And if the father is innocent and his allegations honest, is this social worker, who might have been the only unbiased one he could find, not to be taken seriously? Dad's treat morphed into a trick right in front of our eyes! 'Interesting that the social worker is "usually female", I wonder what that's supposed to signify? Hmmmm. Give me a moment here. Ahah! Of course! Women are just so easily tricked into believing us naughty men, aren't they?! Those poor, gullible women social workers (well, those that aren't on mom's side, anyway)...

On the other hand, it is claimed that "the judge relied on [the opinion of] a child psychiatrist, briefed by her, who has not met [the child] and is not on the professional registry" which would be yet another example of negligent trickiness no matter which parent suffers for it. (I take it as a given that the child is more than likely going to suffer if the word of a shrink who hasn't taken the time to talk to him or her is taken to represent reality. The kids get tricked all round.)

Overall, just like "Breaking the Silence", I'd say this article would have been much better as an exposé of the nasty tricks that either side can play and how (hope springs eternal!) the establishment is treating us all by doing something to limit the damage instead of provoking it. Instead, it suggests that "the pendulum has swung too far" in favor of fathers' rights, but at least they're honest enough to give us a small treat and quote Oliver Cyriax: "Emphatically not, It is still rare for residence to be awarded to the father and contact rights are routinely ignored.".

Yup, more tricks than treats there. Bad Telegraph! No candy from grumpy old Mr. Doe.

Simulposted on Just Another Disenfranchised Father.

Click here for more.

In Support of Mr. Doe

John Doe of Hate Male Post argues that men and father’s rights activists should not use the term “feminazi.” He believes that this prevents productive discussion between the radical side of feminism and those who care about men and fathers.

I agree that “feminazi” is not a productive term to use, but for reasons that differ from those of Mr. Doe. I long ago gave up on having a rational dialog with most self-identified feminists. They reside in a twilight zone that believes that facts, logic, and science are inconveniences to a larger ideological cause. They realize that America’s propensity for hysteria far out weighs its analytic abilities. What matters, though, is what everyone else thinks about your arguments, not what the feminists themselves think.

Are many feminists something like Nazis? Yes, they are. And, they have even more in common with Stalinists. But, this is not something worth debating or quibbling over. You don't win any points with the general public when you state the obvious. Especially not when you do it with anger.

Nazi or Stalinist, the problem when you use terms like feminazi: YOU loose credibility. Feminists are very good at hiding behind the fact that they are women, and therefore weaker and deserving of special protection, whenever it suites them. (Of course, at all other times they claim to be equal and often better than men).

So, when someone refers to them as feminazis, they are able to easily paint that person with a variety of negative images. Once that happens, the logic of your point or argument is lost behind the distraction of the feminazi label you used.

Really, anyone can go around using names like "feminazi." What is MORE difficult - and much, much more valuable - is to build rational and cogent arguments for why contemporary feminism is not only wrong, but actually destructive. Those rational arguments are what will eventually win the day, not some hothead calling feminists feminazis.

In all circumstances, it is much better to label the sect of misandrist feminism "gender feminists." First, the gender feminists did not come up with that term, it was created by Christina Hoff-Sommers (who wrote the War Against Boys). So, they hate it when you use that term.

Second, it is an innocuous sounding, almost clinical sounding, and certainly scholarly sounding term. Yet, it is loaded with meaning. "Gender feminist" is clearly a negative term within contemporary epistemology. So, when you use it, you get credibility while also the satisfaction of knowing that it makes gender feminists grind their teeth.

So, while calling a woman that hates men a feminazi might help you to blow off some steam, you are actually doing a lot more damage to them and their ideology when you use the term "gender feminist." They want you to call them a feminazi, because they want you to discredit yourself. But, when you use the term gender feminist, you take away all of their tricks and all that is left is a rational and logical debate.

On that score, they loose.

Click here for more.

Witch hunting

Well, Halloween's coming so witch-hunting seems a reasonable topic. Ifeminists flags a couple of articles to whet the appetite. A now 30 year-old preschooler finally comes clean about his contributions to the McMartin preschool trials. Mind you, he's only one of 360.

Mick Hume at Spiked wonders at length why we "believe these anti-human" horror stories such as child kidnapping from the Asian tsunami zone, rapes and murders at the New Orleans Superdome, gang rapes in north England, a child lynching in Yorkshire, child rapes in Essex (UK), etc. None of these actually happened or were nothing like they were portrayed, but that didn't stop the media going loopy and authorities posturing over taking them seriously and throwing resources at them, which made the media all the more interested, which made the authorities take them even more seriously and so on and so forth until everyone looked like a bunch of bloody fools, so they went quiet and hoped it would all go away before anyone noticed which it pretty much did because the public have the attention span (and proclivity) of your average mosquito except for the occasional reporter like Hume or perhaps even an entire magazine dedicated to critical thinking which hardly anybody ever reads anyway.

Hume muses further, "There is a powerful climate of misanthropy abroad today, one which suggests that we should always believe the worst of our fellow citizens" (another Brit who doesn't know he's a subject, sigh), and "it must be these contemporary anti-human attitudes, endorsed from the top of society downwards, which make many seem willing to believe the worst." and finished with "We are in danger of losing touch with the sound instinct which ought to tell us that some stories can just seem too bad to be true."

This is where he and I part company. We never had any such "sound instinct", it isn't in the least bit "contemporary" and misanthropy has always been abroad, there's nothing special about "today". It's standard, in-group/out-group thinking. It's part of the raw material of the human animal. Tribal society was built on defenses against real dangers, real fears. The hero rallies the tribe to take out the man-eating tiger and once he's done that, he's in charge and needs a way to stay there before his cousin sticks it to him with his spear. Quick! Think of another danger, and frighten everyone back into line, and that gossip over there, tell her first, she'll spread it further than I can.

Like rats, we need to climb on top of one another to get to the top of the pile. We'll do whatever we can for advantage, including frighten our neighbors, even while frightened ourselves, to keep the club together and knock the bad guy on the head (even as he wonders what he did). There's no conspiracy, the media and the authorities don't know what they're doing, even while they're doing it. They all think they're good guys, even as they tie the rope and drop the trapdoor. The human animal needs its enemies to stay together, and if it hasn't got any, or enough, it'll make some up. It's a feedback mechanism, damped down only when it goes too far and damages the pack more than it helps. By then, for many, for the real victims, for the "witches", it's too late and the perpetrators, innocent though they may have been, in their own way, can only beat their chests and sigh a regret for a minute or two before shrugging their shoulders and changing the topic.

The McMartin accuser says: "I would love to look at the defendants from the McMartin Preschool and tell them, 'I'm sorry.' "

Too late, mate.


Simulposted at Just Another Disenfranchised Father.

Click here for more.

D is for Debt Servitude

When President Bush signed the 'Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005' it was widely ignored by men's right's pundits. The media discussed it as reducing the ability of individuals to avoid debts through bankruptcy. Even I thought, well, that's ok. Although it does bother me that large corporates can go bankrupt on an bi-annual basis, if I can't, but whatever. But that was not all that the bill does.

The bill changes bankruptcy entirely with respect to those paying child support and alimony. Per the New Jersey Law Blog, the act "prevents a debtor from obtaining ANY bankruptcy relief unless all past due alimony or child support claims are paid in full", and elevates alimony and child support to the number one priority amongst creditors - above even the tax man.

Bankruptcy mostly wasn't much of a solution for a man in divorce already, as bankruptcy was not applicable to alimony and child support. (except for some of the assets subject to equitable distribution.) - Alimony and Child Support were already a form of Debt Servitude or Slavery, or whatever you want to call it.

But this new change raises the stakes higher - if the man has any assets or income left, he can't use bankruptcy to obtain relief until he somehow pays off his ex-wife.

Just more motivation for men considering divorce to leave the country with their children.

Time was we in the west used to laugh about all the people from the eastern bloc nations 'voting with their feet' by coming west seeking personal freedom and rights. Today, men from the US are moving in the opposite direction, but for the same reason. They are seeking their rights. It is a sad commentary on the US that men might seek to escape it in persuit of personal freedom.

My best to you all in your struggles.

-M

Simulposted on MIsForMalevolent

Click here for more.

S is for Storm Warning

Last night I was involved in a conversation about men and their situation vis-à-vis marriage, and I noted that prior and during my marriage I had heard lots of horror stories about things that had happened to divorced men. I had encountered them, spoken to their friends, seen their plight used as a source of comedy, and as background for many life-stories, and yet the thought that a similar disaster might happen to me was always discounted.

I always assumed that somehow these men deserved what had happened to them. They had chosen the wrong woman, or had committed some horrible crime against their marriage, or perhaps had just gotten very unlucky.

This is one way the plight of the divorced man gets ignored, and discounted. We say ‘my cupcake would never do that to me!’ We set out from port on the sea of marriage, and we ignore the storm flags flapping in the brisk breeze, ignoring the cries of despair, and pleas for help coming over the radio. We are masters of our ship, we are familiar with the waters of relationships, and we will never find ourselves in the position of those bad pilots who beat their crews and ignore their needs, and fail to avoid the reefs ahead. It is a very male point of view. We are confident we can make things work, and sail through the toughest storm. And in the rest of our lives, mostly we can.

The problem is that the storm warnings that are out are not out for something that skill, care, attention, and intelligence can address very well. The storm that prompts the despairing cries of the other seamen is a storm of the spirit. Quite simply, once you are married, the court system gives you, the majority of your assets, and the majority of your income for the remainder of your life to your spouse, if she wants it. Never mind that it is unfair, unjust, slavery, an unconscionable contract, et cetera. None of that matters. It is hers to ask for, and legally, your only option is to give it, (with or without a huge legal expense). So you see, navigating this storm isn’t about skill, or care, or intelligence, it is all about the temptation of your spouse.

Given that the majority of marriages end in divorce, your spouse IS going to be tempted, and sorry to say, no matter how sweet she seems now, when the storm-clouds of divorce gather over your little family ship, your spouse is going to realize that if she acts quickly, she can have the ship, and the majority of the cargo, and additionally, keep you on as a slave. For her, the sailing can suddenly become smooth, and she can reap significant profits, and eliminate any future financial risk. And that is a huge temptation for any person.

Your spouse will realize that the court gives her a right that has never been granted to any other class of persons before in the history of law – the right not to worry about supporting herself or her children ever again. The court tempts her with the majority of the income you may bring home for the rest of your life, and the majority of your assets, and the home you live in. Faced with the uncertainty of divorce, the hard work of supporting herself and children, and the possibility that she may not be able to keep a job and be a part-time mother, what does she do? Does she choose self-reliance, or does she choose slave-ownership? Remember, her comfortable life, and the comfortable lives of her children are in jeopardy. All she has to do is sign a couple bits of paper, and she can live in comfort for the rest of her life, and the world and the court system will honor her and call her justified, never mind that you are chained in the hold below, rarely glimpsing daylight. Can she stand up to that temptation? The statistics show that vast numbers of women cannot. Probably your bride, your spouse, your fiancée, cannot either.

So the moment your ship rounds the edge of the harbor into the sea of marriage, you are in mortal peril. You have bet your life, and everything you have, and everything you can earn and acquire, against the odds of your marriage never finding itself near the suddenly gathering storms of divorce, and against the ability of your co-pilot to resist the temptation to throw you below-decks to serve as a slave for the rest of your life.

So to the husbands, to the grooms, to the fiancées and boyfriends out there - to every man planning a wedding or who has gone through one, I say:

BEWARE
STORM AT SEA
SKILL AND SIZE WILL NOT PROTECT YOU

THE STORM FLAGS ARE OUT, SAILORS TAKE WARNING.

Yours

-M

Simulposted on MIsForMalevolent.

Click here for more.

I don't like feminazis.

I don't like feminazis. By which I mean two things. First, I don't like many of the opinions held by those people who are frequently called "feminazis". But, second, I also don't like the term "feminazi". The word "Nazi" is hyperbole. It's a "nya, nya, you suck and we're the gang who don't like you" sort of word, it provokes more than it criticizes and consequently says more about the user than those it is directed at. Given that I have great sympathy for the view of many of the people who use the term, its use saddens me for its cost in credibility. Even the more extreme feminists are not Nazis. Although they do say some pretty unpleasant things from time to time, they are not the same league as the National Socialist Party of WWII Germany. If one is attempting to have a reasoned debate, "feminazi" is the sort of word more likely to put backs up and polarize discussion than to achieve actual progress.

I am reminded of a wonderful scene from The West Wing where Toby is assigned to talk to a crowd of protestors in an auditorium. I don't remember what they were supposedly protesting, which is telling. They have no organization, they have no agenda, they're just a loud mob. Toby finds someone with a megaphone and makes the point that he's got plenty of time, and if they can't get their act together, he'll just sit back and read the sports pages. The owner of the megaphone manages to quieten the crowd long enough for Toby to get to the podium, declare that he's there to listen to what they have to say and be silenced by a wave of heckling. He promptly sits back down and reads the sports pages. (The simultaneous interplay between Toby and his mildly macho policewoman minder is a nice piece of writing and acting too, bewailing the impression that people don't know how to protest any more.)

In my previous post, I wrote about Trish Wilson, a self-professed "progressive feminist" blogger who repeatedly belittles men's and fathers' rights activists as a bunch of macho fools. By saying this, she provokes people with valid grievances and helps to turn them into exactly what she's calling them.

True feminists should be pro men's and fathers' rights. True feminists seek equality of opportunity, not the default superiority of either gender over the other in any given theatre. By touting the opinions that she does, refusing to acknowledge that men's and fathers' rights advocates have valid positions and failing to engage them in productive debate, Ms. Wilson betrays herself not to be a feminist at all.

Is she a feminazi? Many would call her that. I'd prefer not to fall to her level and call her as she is. On many of the issues that she and others hold forth, they know they have the advantage and they know they're in the wrong. They also know that by making you angry, they reveal and promote your powerlessness, and can claim that it is deserved. In the face of implacable presentation of facts, on the other hand, they often fall into shrill defenses of morally suspect positions, which is exactly what is needed to expose them for what they are. They are reminiscent, in fact, of the male chauvinists of days gone by who opposed the admirable aims of true feminism. In reasoned debate, such people ended up looking like the bigoted fools that they were.

Yes, there is a place for protest, yes, loud, obnoxious complaints get needed attention, but there is also a place for discussion with a view to convincing the right people of the right path, even if they start off opposing it. Take the moral high ground, speak to the balcony, that's where the power lies: in getting the attention of reasonable minds. Don't let heckling from the stalls provoke you into wasting your energy on petty argument over transparently irrational positions. Even if they have unreasonable opinions, all thoughtful people want to be good guys, reactionaries don't care.

Let's use the language of their more honest predecessors, let's call them what they are: female chauvinists. Some are even female-supremacists. Believe me, I make no apology for them, but they aren't Nazis.

(Simulposted on Just Another Disenfranchised Father.)

Click here for more.

Breaking with Reality

Several father's rights groups have rallied to push back against misinformation, lies, and gender feminist propoganda in a recent PBS "documentary" entitled Breaking the Silence. This documentary should have been called Breaking with Reality, since it states myths as if they are facts.

As near as I can tell, the point of Breaking the Silence is to expose how fathers supposedly are abusing a concept called Parental Alienation Syndrome and getting custody of their children in divorce cases at will. Anyone that knows anything about the statistics of the outcomes of divorce cases knows that in the vast majority of divorces with children, the mother gets custody of the children. One need go no further than this fact in order to discredit the entire "documentary," even though practically every minute of it makes statements that are easily shown to be false.

Gender feminists love to harp on about breaking this mythical silence about topics such as domestic abuse. In reality, with $5 billion in funding from the federal government going to gender feminist organizations thanks to the misandrist Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), it's hard to hear pretty much anything but what feminists want you to hear about American families. An extraterrestrial intelligence intercepting our communications and perhaps running Google searches would have to conclude that the male human species on earth, especially men in America, are brainless brutes who ALL create their own private Idaho of violence as part of their mating ritual.

Of course, this is not true. American women are the most privileged group in the history of the world. They are the safest, the most pampered, and with the most options available to them of any group (including those horrible members of the "patriarchy") the world has ever seen. Despite this fact, their "voice" is now a shrill cacophony of loud complaints that is heard above all others.

Many women, in fact probably most women, are aware of this. Most are thankful that they live in times that give them so many options, from being a housewife with children to sitting at the head of the table in the boardroom of a major corporation. Thankful that they have the best medical care, best housing, best nutrition, most access to education, and fastest transportation ever available to any group (including men). Unfortunately, a shrill few, who are also the loudest, the angriest, the most disaffected, and most hateful, seem to have the bullhorn.

Breaking the Silence is yet another unreasonable and hateful scream from those controlling the bullhorn. Perhaps a letter recently sent to PBS provides the best picture of how distorted and gross gender politics in our generation has become. That letter follows:

****************

Dear Madison,

As a father who was initially accused of child abuse (and later,
spousal abuse), and in each instance, without any evidence to back the
allegations, and, as a father who attempted to impress upon the court
that the children of this marriage were indeed being subject to intense
parental alienation, an act also noted by the forensic evaluator, and a
father who ultimately lost custody of his children as a result of
the 'system' being unduly swayed by the feminist rant of 'PAS' being a
fraudulent science brought onto the courts by 'angry fathers', I take
great offense at your response.

Upon the release of the original 'Breaking the Silence' episode, I
contacted my local PBS station (KPBS in San Diego, CA) and informed
them of my concern. Their response was that my concerns were to be
forwarded to the station manager who I was promised would get back to
me and which, to no surprise, he/she never did.

You would claim by this piece that the researchers found that PAS is a
myth. In the interest of fair journalism, they should take a look at my
six children who now are beginning to speak as they come of age and are
just coming to grips with how the system sold them out regarding your
(and so many others) rejection of PAS as a legitimate concern. If you
dare, and if you can dare to be an informed, open-minded, and impartial
journalist, you would take on this challenge to take a look at what
many judges here in San Diego County have found to be one of the most
outrageous and bungled litigations in this county's Family Courts.

Listen to my children!

Listen to the anger of my oldest son, now 19, forced to babysit his
five younger brothers and sisters and to be the father to them I wanted
to be, while their mother went out drinking many nights and slept most
of the time when home!

Listen to my oldest daughter who now is trying to find a way to assuage
her guilt over the years she acted in 'alliance' with her mother's
agenda.

Look at my second oldest son who is now suffering from depression and
social anxiety disorder.

And if a man's word cannot be believed, look to the timeline of events
in this case, these are most difficult to dispute ...

12/1998; restraining order against father on mother's word only, no
evidence
2/1999; father given supervised visitation
4/1999; supervision of father removed, first warning to mother
5/1999; father's timeshare increased to 30% unsupervised
2/2000; father's timeshare reduced voluntarily, CPS involvement
3/2000; father's timeshare restored, judge determines perjury on part
of CPS case worker, mother cautioned again
3/2000; CPS case worker, taken off case, in retaliation, colludes with
mother and adversely influences custody evaluator
mid 2000; mother given last warning to stop alleging behavior,
emotional abuse of children
late 2000; initial judge leaves family court, case handed to new judge
through 2/2001; more allegations and numerous legal challenges money
eventually runs out, father settles for 10% timeshare and is forced to
take on over $50K in community debt
12/2002; financial decisions overturned, mother was found to have
committed perjury, order to pay remaining taxes on community and
reimburse father
12/2002; mother files child support arrearage claim with DCSS later
determined to be fraudulent
6/2003; mother files appeal of perjury finding / overturn of financial
judgment
2/2005; mother loses appeal, unanimous decision
8/2005; mother sanctioned for fraudulent application of DCSS services
10/2005; mother continues to defy court, refuses to pay sanctions,
taxes, refuses to allow visitation, files motion to increase child
support based on father's non-involvement with children despite his
consistent attempts to exercise visitation (consistent in arriving at
mother's residence for pickup/dropoff)

PAS is real, very real, and ignorance of this fact will lead to a new
generation of children subjected to a new form of abuse, that being the
wholesale emotional battering of children by their mothers and the lack
of a fraternal interest and development in their precious,
impressionable lives. And PBS appears to be leading the charge to see
that our children are freely brought up in this new environment
of 'FatherHate'.

I would suggest to you that we do need to "BREAK THE SILENCE"!
Unfortunately it is PBS, Connecticut Public Television, and the Mary
Kay Foundation that are forcing the true 'silence' on society.

I for one (and I will also encourage many others), will be taking a
stand if this 'hate' piece should be broadcasted by PBS unedited and
without any fair and unrepressed coverage of the equally horrid side of
child abuse, that being the type of abuse that is perpetrated mainly by
the angry and vindictive women of this country, PAS. If you can't do
that, then we have no need for PBS, Mary Kay, and any other entity that
would seek to preserve this mode of injury to our children they so
proudly promote and disguise.

Anyway, here is my contact info, I would welcome any journalistic
investigation of my experience. Any takers?


John van Doorn
XXXX XXXX XXXX
San Diego, CA 92131

858-XXX-XXXX [address and telephone number removed to protect Mr. van Doorn]

PS, any comment on the so-called 'mother' who dumped her three young
children into San Francisco Bay the other week. And how about one Susan
Eubanks, a so-called 'mother here in San Diego county, who shot her
four sons to death in cold blood in 2000. The oldest son's body (he was
about 15 years of age if I recall properly) was found positioned on a
bed in front of his two younger brothers and spread out in an attempt
to protect them. Susan Smith in South Carolina is another, dumping her
two young children strapped in their infant seats, into a lake in South
Carolina. Any comments? or is this just a figment of a bunch of angry
men's imaginations? Should we forgive the mother who would kill her
children because of post-partum depression or some of the other 'myths'
the professionals in the industry are willing to accept. The blood of
the children above screams out for consideration of their situation.

CAN YOU IGNORE THEIR SILENCE!!!!

Click here for more.

Trish Wilson, I'm your greatest fan!

Trish Wilson (aka "The Countess") is an annoying pain in the ass, but she may be one of fathers' rights best unintended allies. She's a very vocal blogger on the opposite side and has tons of fun slamming fathers' rights whenever she can. In fact, she blogs so much that one might wonder that she doesn't actually have to do some real work once in a while. On the other hand, she just got married, so perhaps she gets to take advantage of those aspects of the hated "patriarchy" to which her ilk conveniently turn a blind eye because they work in their favor. (I don't really know, and I don't much care to find out, but the inuendo of suggesting it amuses me.)

She is particularly outspoken against joint child custody after divorce and the idea that a mother might attempt to alienate her children from their father in the course of a custody battle. She and her cronies appear to lack the cognitive abilities required to recognize that some mothers might act in a manner not entirely to their children's best interest and that fathers might have some legitimate concerns and face real obstacles in pursuing them. As a result, she often supplies marvellous opportunities for counter-argument and publicity for more reasonable points of view via the comments sections of her posts. It is common that she and her cronies ignore the very real and cogent points brought up in response to their views and quickly degenerate into incoherent rants about their own ex's and undefendable and insulting ideas about the uselessness of men in general. These can get quite entertaining, if you can avoid letting them get your blood pressure up.

Here's a good example:

She writes a review on blogcritics of one of those ten-a-penny books on how aweful men are and ties this to her recent defense of the undefendable PBS documentary "Breaking the Silence". I wouldn't bother with the actual review, just skip to the comments. The first, from Teri of Feminist4Fathers, says: "You are not describing the fathers and family rights movement accurately. You are pointing out instances where fathers in pain with no recourse have lashed out. I can go to several places online and find mothers saying things even worse than that. What's the point?". And the very next starts with "I'm goddamned tired of whinny privaleged men bitching about them being denied their rights. Holly crap, which right do they want, the one to beat the shit out of their wife whenever they want, the right to rape their daughters and sons if they feel the need?"

Hmm. "whinny"? "privaleged"? "Holly crap" (very festive)? We obviously have a master of debate joining in here.

A selection from further comments:

"I saw a father hang himself from his neck because he gave up his fight for custody."

"The mother/female needs to learn to take the same amount of responsibility in this ongoing blame game." (from a woman, mother, abuse victim, with initimate knowledge of real PAS)

"from my own experience, and this is just a sample, I have seen that:
1) women can be just as aggressive as men,
2) in order to avoid unnecessary disagreement, it is important that both parties to the discussion are using the same definition,
3) although the written DV laws don’t support sexism, in practice it is not at all uncommon, and
4) it would be naive or insincere to suggest that a double-standard for men and women does not exist."

"my two daughters and my twin sons are all the victims of parental alienation syndrome"

And, from a, er, Trish supporter: "You stupid bitch its people like you that are putting children in harms way when you tell everyone that all mothers are reporting false abuse to keep kids from their dads! Stupid bitch! What if it was your kids how would you feel bitch? GOD! I HATE ignorant people!"

Quite. Don't we all? It would appear to be reason versus unreason. I wonder which will win?

Anyway, thank you, Trish, for providing a forum for so many to share their stories and experiences, I'm not in the least sorry that they're so contrary to your ideas. It is interesting to note that, back on her own blog, she writes "I'm going to try to write several articles a week for Blogcritics. I think it's important to get a progressive and feminist voice out there, especially since Blogcritics posts link at Yahoo News and Google News." Again, where on earth does she get the time? But hey, at least she's going to be giving us a lot more publicity opportunities.

Here's another one where she posts a copy of a pro-PBS article, but again, ignore the article, check out the comments - coherent presentation and defence of fathers' difficulties and incoherent rubbish about those nasty men that are all over the place which actually degenerates into purile gossip about who gave whom VD! They're a three-ring circus this lot!

On the other hand, I am tempted to copy here the comment from "Trina" dated Oct 26th in its entirety as an excellent example of direct experience of multiple incidences of fathers destroyed by a process that Trish claims doesn't exist, but instead I suggest you go and read it.

Yay Trish! Go Girl! Keep it up.

Simulposted at: Just Another Disenfranchised Father.

Click here for more.

D is for the Dance of Death

Rosa Lee Parks has passed on at 92.

We all are familiar with her simple story, and how it helped to change the US, and the world by by helping to break down laws that discriminated against a whole group of citizens based on their color. The bravery of this woman strikes me, and how her weakness made her strong.

Michelle Malkin has a post on her here.

I think that men similarly are weak, but strangely are seen as strong, even as our last rights are being taken away. We need to find and hold up our own Rosa Parks-like people, persuade them to make themselves visible. Unfortunately so many pass on in despair and hopelessness - finally dying rather than lose their entire life to court-enforced slavery.

It's a strange team of martyrs and saints here in the men's rights pantheon:

Perry Manley comes to mind. A man who fought for years against an unfair system, and finally gave his life in an act of protest in Seattle. Most striking to me in retrospect the interviews with his ex-wife and her deadpan lack of any apparent sense of her part in his death. 'It was really about the money'. Yes it was, wasn't it. Notice how neatly the reporters wrap it up, without really touching at all on the issues of men's rights, casting Manley as a crackpot. The word 'Garnishment' is never mentioned in the news report. Instead we hear his ex saying how he selfishly quit his high-paying job, and how in the end, it was just mean-ness that lead him to seek death at the hands of Seattle's police. We hear less about the real man and his cause. I like the comment in this article by a friend, who said that Manley was about to do something drastic, a comment that rings so true:

Tom Swanson, who accompanied Manley to the flag burning and shares Manley's belief that child support is illegal, said Manley had promised that if the flag burning didn't attract enough attention to his plight, he was going to do something "more drastic."
"Nobody would listen to us," said Swanson, who lives in his car in Tacoma and was reached by cellphone.

Nothing speaks more poignantly to the desparation of men than this simple comment of a man who now lives in his car - perhaps tied to the fact that suicide rates for divorced men dwarf any other demographic division. - A suicide EPIDEMIC, linked directly to the rulings of family courts by Augustine Kposowa of the University of California in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health. (abstract)

Others come to mind...

Darrin White, who was driven to despair after being driven from his home, denied all contact with his three children, and ordered to pay twice his annual income in alimony and support. Darrin hung himself from a tree in March 2000. No evidence of any wrongdoing was ever presented against him, and a supreme court judge commented that “There is nothing unusual about this judgment”. All too common. Other links here, here,

Other heroes:

Our various spider men and the like...(Ron Davis for example)

Or Stephen Baskerville, Phd (he even has a wiki entry), for his voice of activism and reason, and Augustine Kposowa or any of the hundreds and hundreds of other researchers who have spoken the truth to power, the truth that men do not leave, do not abuse, and that fathers are actually the least likely to harm children in any way.

and more....

How about that kid (Rylan Nitzschke) who had to pay his own child support?

Or the Granny whose life savings where seized to pay for her son's 'support debts'.

Or the juveniles who were raped and ordered to pay child support to their rapists.

Or that 85-year-old man who was raped by his housekeeper, who was ordered to pay support to his rapist for the offspring that she had, and had his pension garnished.

(see here for these and more)

There certainly are enough candidates...

I guess the thing is, to get the media to start being able to pick up the notes of the melody that is playing...

-It's a death-march for marriage and family, and it is being directed by the gender-feminists, the knee-jerk-women's-rights-legislators, greedy spouses, and the divorce industry.

I just hope people realize that it's a Danse Macabre before it is too late.

...It may already be.

-M

(simulposted on MIsForMalevolent. See Here and Here for more on the Danse Macabre)

Click here for more.

Greg Schmidt for King County Sheriff

The Seattle Times shows again that when it comes to political correctness, they will not be out done. They have endorsed Greg Schmidt's challenger in the election for King County Sheriff.

According to the Seattle Times, the King County Sheriff’s office is a paper pusher's dream:

Running a department with a $110 million budget and 1,100 employees, including 750 sworn officers, is a leadership position that builds upon knowledge of the mission and people, and demands broad experience juggling budgets and paperwork.

Actually, there is much more to consider when casting your vote for such an important position. Chief among these is whether the candidate brings an extreme ideology with him or her to the office. We need a Sheriff that is focused on law enforcement basics, not social engineering.

Sue Rahr clearly subscribes to the gender feminist “men are bad, women are good” philosophy. For example, she is a true believe in the orthodox feminist view that domestic violence is an expression of “patriarchal control and oppression.” Among her accomplishments is leading a nazi-like movement within the sheriff’s office to ensure that only men are arrested in domestic disturbances, regardless of the circumstances encountered by a deputy. She also gleefully enforces unfounded restraining orders that are often used as tactics in divorces to remove a father from the lives of his children.

Greg Schmidt has a more balanced perspective on these matters. He is also much more articulate than Rahr and has more experience working with men and women on the beat. While Rahr was learning how to push papers and play office politics (as well as gender politics), Schmidt was out working with the community and solving crime.

So, unlike the all to predictable Seattle Times, we endorse Greg Schmidt. In fact, we recommend that you make a campaign contribution to Schmidt.

Click here for more.

And you thought we had all the Wacko Rad-Fems here! NOT!!!!

Rip from a UK paper.

SPARE a thought for Swedish feminists whose newly formed party is disintegrating after hardliners presented a manifesto advocating a “man tax”, the abolition of marriage and the creation of “gender-neutral” names.

The party called also for the creation of more “gender-neutral” names such as “Robin” or “Norva” that could apply to a boy or a girl.

Rosenberg resigned from the governing board after complaining of an “anti-feminist backlash” and insulting personal attacks in the Swedish media, where she was ridiculed as part of the “lunatic left”.

Maybe because she is?????

Gudrun Schyman, another founding member of the party, came to her defence last week. “The reason for this campaign against her is that she’s a lesbian,” she said. “The attacks against her are homophobic.”


Yes, Indeed, if you can't assign any other reason, like she is a nutcase, blame it on being gay.

Going on,


She advocates what she calls a “man tax to cover the cost of violence against women in the home”. In a recent television documentary called The Gender War, she proclaimed: “Men are animals.”

The documentary noted that the shelter had printed excerpts of an extremist American feminist manifesto called Scum, which stands for the Society for Cutting Up Men. In it, women are urged to “destroy the male sex” and seize the chance made possible by science of giving birth only to females.

Well, at least men wouldn't have to be around to put up with this sheyt.

The Geezer

Click here for more.

The DV Smear Tactic Surfaces In King County Races

Well, here we go with liberal Democrats ace-in-the-hole when the going gets rough: accuse your opponent of domestic violence.

The false hysteria generated about the topic of domestic violence is covered extensively on this blog. Suffice it to say that in the current irrational environment, accusations of domestic violence are used to discredit men generally as well as men and fathers in specific settings, such as family courts. The basic strategy is straightforward – make an accusation of domestic violence and then leave the man in question (the one accused) in a discredited position and therefore unable to defend himself.

So, Sims ally in the Puget Sound blog-o-sphere is doing just that: accusing David Irons of domestic violence. Then, the Seattle PI picks up the story in their effort to save the failing campaign of Sims.

This is also the same struggle that King County Sheriff candidate Greg Schmidt faces. Schmidt once called the police after his new wife became violent, but then found himself being arrested. He spent large sums of money to clear himself of the charges and further pursued a lawsuit against King County for prosecuting him even though they had absolutely no evidence.

In Schmidts case, he faces an uphill battle against Sue Rahr, even though he is clearly the more accomplished and not to mentioned most intelligent, articulate, and savy of the two. For her part, Sue Rahr considers herself an activist in the area domestic violence and brings this up as often as possible in order to further unfairly taint Schmidt.

Given the effectiveness of a mere accusation of domestic violence in impeaching the credibility of the accused, it is no surprise that Sims and his pal at Horses Ass would resort to such a tactic.

The people of King County, and especially men and fathers, should reject this tactic and vote in overwhelming numbers for both Schmidt and Irons. Otherwise, this sort of baseless character impeachment will continue and male voters may also find that they are victims of this sort gender feminist attack themselves, especially if they land in family court.

If this tactic does not stop here and now with these two races, you can be sure that it will continue. It will then be virtually impossible for a male candidate to win political office in King County unless he is directly involved in attacking men, fathers, and families, like both Sims and Nickels are.

Click here for more.

Rights are Wrong in Family Court

Is it so hard to believe that a judge would routinely violate the most basic rights of those in her court?

Clearly, it should not be. The Seattle Times published a story about how King County District Court Judge Mary Ann Ottinger effectively sentenced an underage drinker to more than a year in jail. Ottinger apparently did not warn the young lady with the apparent drinking problem that she had a right to an attorney.

The full history of the young drinker was not explored by the article. It may well be that Ottinger saw a serious drinking problem and social menace in the making and felt the need to take about the only action at her disposal – throw this young lady into jail to teach her a lesson about where she seemed to be headed.

Now, in my book, there is never a good reason for a judge entrusted with enforcing and protecting our rights to violate those very same rights. Even when it seems to be for the best.

But, strangely, this happens on a regular basis in family courts every day in the State of Washington. Is there a special commission investigating any of these cases (as with Ottinger)? Has a newspaper or any other media bothered to look into it, as the Seattle Times felt a compelling need to do in the Ottinger case?

No, because the rights of a father simply do not measure up. As a matter of government policy, fathers are considered a menace and extracted from the lives of their children whenever the slightest excuse is presented.

Rights? Those are irrelevant when the arrogance of the state tells a family court judge that she should do what seems right.

Click here for more.

P is for Pure BS

There is a rage in the manoverse, a rage relating to PBS's 'disinformercial' misentitled 'Breaking the Silence'. A more accurate moniker might be 'Breaking Wind on Family Law'.

I would love to opine on the thing at length, but, as I am swamped, let me direct you to other men's rights authors who have opined effectively and directly on the subject at hand:

Carey Robers shows that from it's first sentance the show is loaded with whoppers.

The Divorce and Custody Blogspot is busily ripping it new um, holes, with help from Glenn Sacks in the Times Union. Glenn is also featuring this as a new campaign. Drop by his site and send some letters, and ring some phones!

The show also picks up coverage from NHCustody.org.

Oh, and How did I miss it, MensActivism.Org is on the job too. :) Bless them.

Lots going on, please help to make this more visible, and counteract the lies.

Yours,
-M
(almostsimulposted on MIsForMalevolent)

Click here for more.

W is for Women Abusers, Still Anonymous

The SAFE Blog directs us to a USA Today article entitled Studies shatter myth about abuse - The myth being that only Men abuse.

You would think I would be happy about the attention but the article is not just mediocre, it is misandrous. It starts out full of mealymouthed stuff about 'not saying anyone at fault', focusing greatly on cases of 'mutual violence'.
From there it gets worse, commenting that men must have a 'special responsibility' placed on them because they can inflict greater injury, (uh, howabout just treating both genders as equal?) ... and then noting in one quote: "[...] new data is emerging that says women are also involved in aggression. If we do not tell women that, we put them at risk." -(psychologist Miriam Ehrensaft of Columbia University) Well, it was at that point I got incensed:

HELLO! HOW ABOUT THE FLIPPIN MEN WHO ARE BEING ABUSED!

What incredible misandry! We have to tell the WOMEN that they may be abusing MEN, otherwise THEY may be at risk. Oh, what incredible and outrageous hatred of men lies behind Miriam's skirts. We have to warn women that they may be abusers.
OH RIGHT.

Then it quotes Patricia Tjaden of the Center for Policy Research, who says she has "always had trouble with the mutual-abuse argument. Where are all the male victims?" It is women, she says, who are subjected to "systematic terrorism."

Women are subjected to systematic terrorism? No male victims? First, clearly the woman is in the thrall of the 'all men are evil' gender feminists aka feminazis as evidenced by her 'systematic terrorism of women' quote, but as far as male victims, the woman is walking about with blinders on.

Let's take them off.

How about a quick walk via SAFE to an investigative report done by Barbara Walters for the TV News Show 20/20 in 1997 - almost a decade ago: (available online thanks to the Men's Rights Agency Internet Site)

I was going to excerpt the thing, but people should read it all. I especially note how every abused man interview asked for custody, and didn't get it, and of course the obvious answer to 'where all the male victims are. They are right in front of your eyes, Patricia, just open them!

Here it is:

American Television Programme on

Men as Victims of Domestic Violence

ABC Television 20/20 21st September 1997

Men Battered by their wives

Barbara Walters:
We focus a lot of attention on battered women in our society, because their plight is so common. But strange as it may sound, MEN are also victims of spousal abuse in surprisingly high numbers.

Commentator:
If you find this hard to believe .. that a woman smaller and weaker than a man could beat up on him .. then you're not alone. As Lynn Shurn (News Anchor) discovered, that perception is instilled in us form an early age. Maybe the stories you're about to hear will change what turns out to be a misperception.

Male Voice:
When I was six years old, a girl hit me and I went to hit her back, and she slickly told me 'boys can't hit girls'. So, I didn't hit her.

Shurn:
It is the law of the playground: little boys, because they are stronger and bigger are taught never to hit little girls ... even when the girls hit first.

But what if those girls grow up to be violent and abusive toward their husbands and the men still don't fight back (clip of woman being taken away in handcuffs)? That's the hidden side of domestic violence.

Abused Man:
People can't believe that a beautiful, little girl like that can hurt a big guy like me.

Second Abused Man:
I'm letting this woman terrorize me, beat me up .. it's extremely embarrassing .. you're making yourself feel like a wimp.

Third Abused Man:
We don't believe that women can step up to that level of violence.

(Hollywood clip of enraged woman beating the hell out of a sleeping man
with a large implement. The implement cannot be determined as she is swinging
it so fast.)

Voice of Battered Man:
She's beaten me up three times, and I still have her teeth marks in my side.

Another:
She grabbed my hair and started choking me.

Another:
She kicked me in the testicles and hit me in my right temple.

Another:
She stomped me across the bridge of my right foot and broke my right foot.

Shurn:
Across the country, male victims are just beginning to out, and men are victims more frequently than you might realize.

We're not suggesting that husbands are beaten as severely and as often as wives; in fact in some cases, both partners may resort to violence.

But the most recent reports from the Department of Justice documented nearly 150,000 cases against men .. ranging from attempts at violence to assault with a deadly weapon.

Experts say that, in terms of public awareness, male victims are where women were two decades ago .. and the stories are shockingly familiar.

Man:
It was just insanity, just pure insanity.

Voice Over:
Tom McKinney is a country fire investigator. He believes his erratic work hours, in part, would trigger her violent outbursts. When he'd come home late, she'd be waiting.

McKinney:
She'd throw things .. dishes ..at me, hit me with a baseball bat, ...tried to run me over with her car!

Another Man:
You feel like a prisoner in your own house; you have to be concerned about where you're walking, what your doing, you have to be always on guard .. it's a very tense kind of situation!

Shurn:
What makes a woman snap?

David Nevers said (clip of professional man, at work) when he lost his job, his wife just panicked. One day, he said, they were both (two girls) surprised when she struck him.

Nevers:
At first, I think I tried to dismiss it as something that had simply gotten out of control.

Shurn:
His response is typical of men .. taught to be powerful and protective .. don't see themselves ... don't see themselves as victims.

Nevers is a large and muscular man, he works out 5 times a week and his ex-wife is 4 inches, 100 pounds lighter. So, after one argument where she kicked him in the groin, propelling him through a plate-glass door, the humiliation was as searing as the pain ...especially when he had to take himself to the emergency room to stop the bleeding.

Nevers:
I was so ashamed and embarrassed about what happened that I told them it was an accident .. that I had backed into the door and that's how it happened.

Shurn:
Covering up for their abusive wives is a common response. Today, David Nevers is divorced, but along the way he also endured second-degree burns and was pushed down a flight of stairs by his ex-wife. Why would he stay in a relationship like this?

Nevers:
I stayed in the house, through all this, because I felt I had an opportunity to ask for custody.

Susan Steinmetz:
A man is afraid if he leaves, he won't get custody.

Shurn:
Sociologist and therapist, Susan Steinmetz, said abused husbands worry about custody with good reason .. most don't get it. David Nevers has only limited visitation rights with his children. (clip of girl hugging him)

Steinmetz also found greater numbers of male victims than anyone thought existed. Perhaps because she was using anonymous questionnaires and the couples faced no legal consequences. She found that when there is violence in a household (clip of police opening the front door), in terms of minor assaults, the man is just as likely to be the victim.

Shurn to Steinmetz:
Men are abused by their spouses as often as women are?

Steinmetz:
When you're looking at hitting, slapping, pushing, shoving, they're fairly equal.

Shurn:
I just can't visualize a woman smacking a guy around.

Steinmetz:
They have to take advantage of the fact that they are generally smaller .. so the difference here is men are going to be attacked with an object ..pans, chairs, lamps ashtrays.

Shurn:
Thrown or struck at the person?

Steinmetz:
Rights .. they wait, catch the man off guard, or they wait until he's in the shower, for example, or he's asleep.

Man:
She's taken a night-stand and crashed it over my face while I was sleeping, she's threatened to throw boiling grease on my face.

Shurn:
This is NOT an aberration. Most men in this situation just won't talk about it .. even to their friends.

Robert Saunders says the first sign of his wife's irrational temper started before they were married, when a spat during a car trip escalated into her slugging him. But, sometimes he said it was jealousy that would send her into a rage.

Shurn to Man:
When you say 'she came to hit me, my first reaction is 'come on .. you're bigger than she is ... walk away from it'.

Man:
You know I could show you the pictures .. just the scratches on my forehead .. they're not big scratches ... when she got arrested ... but if I had done that to her, I'd be in jail RIGHT NOW. I wouldn't be here ... and that happened a year ago.

Shurn:
Some women DO get arrested after attacking their husbands. Rebecca Stern spent 3 days in jail.

Stern:
I grabbed his face and my key scratched his neck and was trying to attack him. He had said 'you know I'm afraid of you.. you get a look on your face and I don't know why you get so angry'.

Shurn:
Could you have stopped yourself any time, if you wanted to?

Stern:
I don't think so.

Shurn:
So, you were out of control?

Stern: (NOD)

Shurn:
Did you want to hurt or kill him?

Stern:
I wanted to hurt him; I think I wanted to hurt him.

Shurn:
All of the men we talk to also worry about the effects of their wives abuse on their children.

Man:
My son, he was really traumatized by this behaviour because he was involved in watching it.

Shurn:
Robert Ellis, a commercial pilot, says he was so wary of his wife attacking him at night he would sleep fully clothed .. at times escaping with his son to a nearby hotel .. to remove him from the brutal scenes.

Shurn to Man:
He saw his mother strike his father?

Shurn to a group of 15 battered men:
Do any of you have custody of your children?

Men (all at once):
No

Shurn:
Did you all ask for custody?

Men (all at once)
Yes

[Changing Course - a rehabilitation programme for abusive
women]

Woman:
... I was arrested for spousal assault.

Another woman:
My name is Sylvia and I was arrested for domestic violence against my spouse.

Yet Another:
My name is Melanie and I'm here because I'm violent.

Innocent Looking woman:
My name is Janice. I'm here for breaking a temporary restraining order..
and I'm hoping to use a different tool than anger.

Shurn:
They look like neighbours ... or, even family, But all have violent pasts
(referring to group of 15 abusive women).

At a unique programme in Sacramento CA, these women hope to change their future relationships.

[ROLE PLAY MODERATOR AND WOMEN]

Group Moderator:
Where do you punch, in the face?

All Women:
Yeah!

Woman:
I pull hair, I pick up things and hit him with it .. whatever it takes. My boyfriend was down on the ground, crippled, can't walk, and I just beat him in the face with my shoe.

[THEMES]

...The roots of husband abuse are exactly like those of men who abuse their
wives.

... Growing awareness by police that battered men are not a joke.

... Men who put up with years of abuse risk being stalked by their wives
- many have to go into hiding, move to a secret location

... David Nevers refuses to leave his home without a weapon of defence (pepper
mace).

Barbara Walters to Shurn:
I believe this because I just saw the report. But, it's so hard to believe
... these big men....

Shurn:
I know that's it's fact what the men are complaining about ... that they
are greeted by authorities and family with disbelief. they just want a fair
shake, they just want to be treated equally.

20/20 Show Transcript © Copyright 1997 MRA Pty Ltd
Viewers are welcome to use the information on these pages, but should
acknowledge their source as being Men's Rights Agency Internet Site.

(Simulposted on MIsForMalevolent)

Click here for more.

R is for (Brief?) Recognition

Via Mensactivism.org: both the NY Times and the UK Times seem to be recognizing that we live in a world where the pendulum has swung and men are discriminated against.

The NY Times points out a need for education to no longer be focused so much on the needs of girls, and a need to begin tooling education to fit the needs of the more active, more physical male learners in light of the 'lace curtain', the differential success of women as opposed to men in todays educational environment. The op-ed piece starts with the line "If we want to help boys keep up with girls, we have to have an honest discussion about innate differences between the sexes." What's this about? It's about the fact that the education system is failing men, that most degrees awarded now, are awarded to women. (Mensactivism.org article here.)

Meanwhile the UK Times admits discrimination against men in prostate cancer research:
A MAN diagnosed with prostate cancer has only one-quarter of the cash spent on research into his disease compared to the amount devoted to a woman’s breast cancer.
The wide discrepancy shows the scale of the discrimination against men. The two diseases kill similar numbers.

According to the most recent available figures, total research spending by the government and the leading charity in the field comes to £36.8m a year for breast cancer against £9.7m for prostate cancer. In addition, the NHS spends £72m annually on the national breast screening programme but there is no such scheme for prostate cancer.
The government spends £4.2m a year on prostate cancer research. While it does not disclose how much is spent every year on breast cancer, the figure is estimated to be at least £12m.
High levels of funding for breast cancer research over the past decade have led to dramatic rises in survival rates. Some 64% of women diagnosed with the disease today are likely to live for at least 20 years.
Patient groups argue that the imbalance in funding will need to be addressed if men suffering from prostate cancer are to be given the same hope.

[... the article goes on to note that bias is not just in the government...]

The government-funded Medical Research Council (MRC) shows the same bias as direct state spending on research. The latest figures available from the MRC, which are for 2001, show that it spent £4.8m on breast cancer and less than £500,000 on prostate cancer.
The discrimination is just as marked in charity funding. Cancer Research UK spends £20m a year on breast cancer and £5m a year on prostate cancer. Similarly, Macmillan Cancer Relief spends £11.6m on specialist breast cancer nurses and £2.8m on prostate cancer nurses.

[... and perhaps most amusingly ...]

The evidence of anti-male bias in cancer spending may come as a particular embarrassment to Patricia Hewitt, the health secretary. It emerged last week that she had admitted breaking the sex discrimination laws when she overruled advisers and appointed a woman to an influential job instead of a better-qualified male candidate.

Rosie Winterton, the health minister, said this weekend: “Gender is not a factor in any of the government’s decisions on cancer funding.” (MensActivism.org article here )

Go read it all in detail.

It is very encouraging that the concept that men are discriminated against, at least in education and medicine is making the mass media.
The need for more prostate cancer research and funding is critical, as are the education needs of our children, but perhaps even more important is the idea that men do deserve to be treated equally. Let's not let this blip of attention fade too quickly. Mention these articles to your friends, and keep the ball in the air.

My best to you in your struggles

-M

Posted at MIsForMalevolent on Monday, 17-Oct-05

Click here for more.

Domestic Violence Close to Home

Hidden, thankfully, on B-4 of Saturday's Pee Eye Fishwrapper is the fact that multiple police officers, 50, from 18 jurisdictions went out the other day and got some of those patriarchial DV perps.

Now, one may think that sounds bold, but read on, and you will see nationwide that 1245 officers got only 1012 guys. Brilliant use of tax money.

But wait, Geez, these are bad guys, and what is this close to home? You just miss getting arrested, because we all know you are a nasty mean guy?

While jonesing for a job on the phone, there was a persistent knock at the door on Thursday. It is hard to tell if you are knocking on my door, or across the hall, and I saw a neighbor come my way just before the knock, so I ignored it.

When it persisted, I mentioned that I was on the phone, and the voice on the other side of the door announced "King County Sheriff".

Figuring it was some of Jim Fuda's buds angry that I outed his phoney diploma mill diploma, I got off the phone, and answered the door.

Well, they were Fuda's buds, as evidenced by a subsequent conversation, but they were looking for the young kid that used to live across the hall.

Inquiring as to what they wanted with him, since he moved out over FIFTEEN months ago, they mentioned it was a DV perp roundup.

Hmmmmm, does not jibe with Geezer's take on the kid. Drilled down a bit, and they mentioned it was a "former girlfriend". Now, the kid didn't have a GF, some females came by from time to time, but no GF, so after they left, I went and found one of the female friends.

She was shocked, then the ol' lightbulb lit up, and she said, "I wonder if that is about his sister". Well, old sis is one piece of work. She has a different last name, too, so the cops could have mistaken her for a GF. My source says that sweet sis, the one that soaked a rag in used motor oil, and smeared it all over my car, causing $500 in paint damage for some percieved slight I made, filed a restraining order against him, then told them not to prosecute.

Knowing how this machine works, I suppose the kid ignored stuff, trusting his whack-o sister (mom is a certified nutcase, too) that she dropped charges.

Bottom line, if this kid is typical of the roundup, they had to reach way back in the files to find the perps, and didn't even bother to check if these were really bad guys, or more innocent men being caught in the DV industry's machine.

Geezer thinks the latter.

Oh, and the cops need to get the trustees to wash their car.

Click here for more.

Ya know those annoying spammers

Who comment on your blog, only to say

Hey, you have a great blog here!


I have a washington state history site. It pretty much covers how a lot of us feel in Washington State.

Come and check it out if you get time.

--
Posted by Anonymous to The Geezer at 10/14/2005 07:39:34 AM


Well, they are annoying as hell, but just to check on the latest scam, I clicked on it.

Believe me, it was worth it as I picked myself up off the floor, after falling off my chair from laughing so hard.

YMMV

The Geezer

Click here for more.

J is for Just Wrong...

Have you seen the "All Men Are Bastards Knife Block"?. From iwantoneofthose.com, the block is shaped like a male stick figure, covered in red vinyl or eanmel, with knives protruding from it's head, it's torso, and legs. Every time you get done using a knife, you drive it back into a man. Lovely.

I don't think that the UK government would be amused if the same product was featured in a female version, and I don't think the US government would be amused either. Follow the link to MIsForMalevolent, and use the contact info there to give them a piece of your mind. People need to know that products that simulate the murder of males aren't funny.

-M

Click here for more.

Male Suicide in Virginia

This week the US Congress reauthorized the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), which provides $4 billion to gender feminist organizations bent on destroying the institution of marriage and incarcerating as many men and fathers as possible. Also, this week the National Violent Death Reporting System released a report on violent deaths in the State of Virginia.

Turns out, 60% of the violent deaths in Virginia in 2003 were suicides, and 3 out 4 of those suicides were men. As the Washington Post states:

Suicides accounted for more than half of all violent deaths in Virginia in 2003, with the majority committed by white men with marital troubles and a history of depression, according to a state study to be published today.

Yes, men with marital problems commit suicide at extremely high rates. In fact, they are more than 20 times more likely to commit suicide than kill their spouse. Many of these men are hopeless after loosing access to their children, their home, and their dignity after being falsely accused of abuse and then raped by family courts.

This is one of the results of VAWA. Is it any wonder that a group of men maintain a blog called "Hate Male Post"?

Click here for more.

Only in the Soviet Union

What does the gender feminist crowd do when the facts aren’t on their side? They keep the facts out of the picture, that’s what.

Senator Joseph Biden and his fanatical friends did that by turning Senate hearings on the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) into a feminist madrassa.

The domestic violence industry of Canada is doing the same thing, where scholarly researchers are being excluded from the Alberta-government-sponsored World Conference on the Prevention of Family Violence. These scholars held their own conference in order to give truth a chance.

VAWA passed both the House and Senate, with minor differences that were ironed out in conference and then the entire bill was attached to the Trafficking Victims Protection Act. Washington State’s representatives in Congress were gung ho supporters. Cantwell and Murray make no secret of their disdain for men and fathers, so those two are hardly a surprise. Republican David Reichert, on the other hand, counts on the male vote. Once it becomes more widely known that he has participated in the worse legislation since Jim Crow, he might find it a little harder to get it.

The opposition to VAWA was more vocal and better organized than ever before. But, with billions of VAWA dollars going to gender feminists groups that in turn funded the self-perpetuation of the money, it was hard for reasonable voices to be heard. As Congresswoman Connie Morella (R-MD) stated earlier today, "This legislation passed because of all the [Pro-VAWA] organizations out there making sure that Congress heard their voices loud and clear."

There is not much left to do at this point on the federal level. Feminist madrassas will be funded for another five years. But, most social change occurs at the local level, and this is where politicians such as David Reichert may begin to pay the price. In the meantime, men and fathers should vote with their actions, refusing to be roped into a system that is designed to destroy them. In other words, stay clear of entering into the government defined contract called marriage. Stay even more clear of co-habitation.

After President Bush signs VAWA into law, he may as well bring home the troops. There will be no Constitution for which to fight.

And, as they step off the plane into a land where they have lost their most basic civil rights, Bush himself ought to be out there to hand each returning soldier a new book entitled, "Will She Call 911 on You?," By Marc H. Rudov.

Click here for more.

V is for Victim

A man (Vincent Keningale) yells at his wife. According to the wife (Doris Keningale), he yells many, many times over the years since they met in 1991. He is also forgetful. According to the wife, he refuses to seek counseling for his yelling and forgetfulness. The man is 61. The wife is 43. One night a knife she is holding, one with an eight and a half inch blade, ends up embedded in his chest. The wife says that she intended to slap him to stop his shouting when he walked into the knife. The husband was pronounced dead at the hospital.

Key quotes:

Wife: "I did not want to kill him. I just wanted to say: 'Please stop'. He was so aggressive I could not cope any more. It was a cry for help."

from the BBC article: "[The wife] told the court that mental abuse was worse than if she had been abused physically. "

The Defense: "This is as close to an accident as it is possible to come."

The Prosecutor: "[It was] a very sad, cruel background, where the verbal abuse was intolerable".

The Judge (to the wife): "You were truly and genuinely shocked by what happened."

The Sentance: 3 years probation (Community Rehabilitation).

The BBC's Headline: "Abused woman killed husband "

Now let me change the scenario a little bit, just flip the genders. Do you think any of the above quotes would seem legitimate or likely?

The gender-modified story:

A woman yells at her husband. According to the husband, many, many times over the years since they met in 1991. She is also forgetful. According to the husband, she refuses to seek counseling for her yelling and forgetfulness. The wife is 61. The man is 43. One night a knife he is holding, one with an eight and a half inch blade, ends up embedded in the wife's chest. The husband says that he intended to slap her to stop her shouting when she walked into the knife. The wife was pronounced dead at the hospital.

I find it very unlikely that anyone would see a 43-year old man as the victim, or even as an accidental murderer under the above circumstances. Instead the media would be on him as someone who 'got rid of' his 'troublesome' wife, instead of divorcing her. His tears and claims of her shouting would be laughed off, as they should be irregardless of the gender of the murderer. And he would be in jail for a long, long time.

In this case, the real victim, murdered in his golden years, by a much younger spouse, ends up named 'abuser', while the murderer happily assumes the mantle of victim. If it were not for the mind-bogglingly biased nature of the courts the facts could never support this verdict, or the BBC's treatment of it.

I am disgusted.

-M

Simulposted on MIsForMalevolent

The BBC Article is Here.

Men's Activism.Org alerted me to the article.

Click here for more.

NOW or "THEN"?

If NOW’s approval is the only litmus test for women political candidates, women and the country will suffer mightily.

Here is the interesting case of Patricia White, who is running for Boston’s city council. She has been unable to secure an endorsement from NOW. That seems like a major plus in my book, but Patricia is nonetheless concerned.

Apparently, Patricia doesn’t measure up based on NOW’s criteria:

According to Emily Hall, acting director of NOW's political action committee, endorsements are based on an analysis of a candidate's stand on five issues: abortion rights, economic justice, racial justice, gay and lesbian rights, including same-sex marriage, and domestic violence.

NOW presents itself as “the voice” of women, as if their sex makes women into one political monolith. But, looking at the criteria for endorsement above, it would seem that NOW has little in common with most women.

For the NOW crowd, squishy terms like “economic justice” revolve around socialism, big government programs, and anti-constitutionalism. They want Big Sister's hand in most of your decisions and your family life as well. Carey Roberts sums up the result pretty well in his most recent column.

If Washington State’s crop of women politicians represent NOW’s image for women in politics, we are in trouble. First, we have Christine Gregoire, who obtained the Governor’s office through election fraud in King County. Then, we have Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell, who spend a large part of their time attacking their male constituents with every weapon at their disposal.

These three banditas do get the endorsement of NOW. The rest of the country ought to take a close look at the sorry state of Washington to get an idea of what you are in store for if someone such as Hillary Rodham or Michigan’s Debbie Stadenow ever make it to the pinnacle of power.

Click here for more.

VAWA expired 9/30, let the mayhem begin!!!!

Well, VAWA expired on Sept. 30.

Congress failed to renew VAWA by September 30th, so society has now officially collapsed, and the patriarchs and their minions are in charge, and running wild in the street.

Just look out your window right this very minute to gape at the ongoing atrocities! Men everywhere are now taking advantage of this window of opportunity by punching, kicking, dissing and dousing their girlfriends, wives and any other stray females with gasoline and lighting them ablaze! They also are taking the credit cards out of their hands, and freely having “domestic issues discussions”, without fear of the blue gunned thugs breaking down their doors to haul them off to the hoosegow for making wimmin feel bad, or in fear (of not buying the new shoes, I guess).

And wimmin’ everywhere are, geez, when I look out it seems they are carrying on as usual. Running about their business, walking down dark streets, going into supply closets with males and the like, totally oblivious to the sword of Damocles that hangs over their heads this very instant.

Don’t they realize that RAPE and WIFE-BEATING have now been legalized??? They ought to be running-around in terror, screaming their heads-off.

But then the Geezer would ask them how that is different from yesterday.

Searching for evidence that this country has been ripped asunder by the rampaging mobs of testosterone-addled patriarchal barbarians venting their pent-up maleness without anything standing in their way, the Geezer finds none.

The Geez does take great joy, however, in that hundreds of newly-graduated Wimmins’ studies majors will soon find themselves without job opportunities if federal support to Wimmin’s Centers dry-up.

Warning ladies---Brimstone is just up your street, and down your alley, soon to visit your house.


NOT!

Click here for more.

Art that Subverts

The uproar over a planned nude statue called "Father and Son" is grossly missing the point – on both sides of the debate.

Pastor Joseph Fuiten of Bothell's Cedar Park Assembly of God Church is up in arms over the fact that the two figures in the statue, a father and a son, will be depicted nude. He calls this a monument to pedophilia.

Danny Westneat of the Seattle Times responded with the usual regressive and dismissive Seattle media tone toward the concerns of evangelicals. Westneat says that art is good and important if it makes people talk. If that’s the measure, does he call the terrorist attacks of September 11 a form of art? They sure made people talk.

Matt Rosenberg of Sound Politics is worried that evangelicals in the Republican Party of Washington State drive away moderate voters when they make so much noise about something as unimportant as a nude statue. His is a valid concern. Certainly part of the problem that Republicans have in the state is that people view Pastor Fuiten as indicative of the entire party.

For my part, I love the statue. Not because it is making people talk; Westneat is sadly mistaken in his simpleton view that art should be measured by the controversy it inspires. And, I’m not worried about nudity. Humans in their natural state have no relationship to pedophilia or any other sex crime except in the eye of the beholder. If that’s what the Pastor sees, he might want to seek counseling of either the earthly or the spiritual variety.

I love it because it has meaning to me and possibly many other men in the state. Meaning is the measure of art. It might even help to wake Seattle's victim oriented gender feminists to the havoc they have wreaked by using one of the few mediums that have a chance of getting through to them. This was probably not the intent of the artist and definitely not the intent of the Seattle Art Museum, steeped in the cultural correctness that they are.

To me, the statue is symbolic of a disease that, for its prevalence and state sponsorship, is much more widespread and has longer term social and cultural implications than pedophilia or “talk.”

The statue depicts a man reaching helplessly for his son. A curtain of water separates the two. In the State of Washington, and particularly in King County and Seattle, that curtain of water is the state itself. Nearly half of all children in parts of the state are growing up without a father in their household. Meanwhile, divorce rates continue to rise and almost half of all men in their thirties in King County have never been married. Family courts routinely remove fathers from households and the lives of their children on false allegations of abuse; the practice is so wide spread that official divorce forms from the family court system practically assume that a woman will want to make charges of abuse against her spouse.

These statistics do not happen in a vacuum. Blaming men misses the point. These facts are also not a measure of the success of women, as the Seattle media would have you believe. They are indicative of the hostile stance the state has towards marriage and the male side of the equation.

My interpretation differs substantially from the official line of the Seattle Art Museum:

Nudity in this work is a symbol of emotional nakedness; the two figures stand before each other but cannot touch; they try to see each other, but never see eye to eye; they are separated by bell jars of cascading water, which prevent any contact between them. At 94 Louise Bourgeois is still finding ways to push the boundaries of her creativity. The subject of Mother and Child is classic in art, but Father and Son is especially relevant today when fathers play a more active role in their children’s lives.

It's not surprising that SAM would view "Father and Son" as an expression of the hopelessness of a father ever truly connecting with his child. Indeed, this was likely the line that artist Louise Bourgeois gave them and thus provides her intended meaning. But, most fathers can see through SAM's interpretation for the feminist propaganda it is. The beauty of this sculpture therefor lies in unintended consequences that subvert the original intent.

We have discussed the frontal attacks of the state on men, fathers, boys, families, and marriage extensively on this blog. Take a look around and the picture might become clearer to you.

Then, go take a look at the planned statue. You too may find that it is unintentionally subversive to the prevailing political cultural of our times.

Click here for more.