Fathers and Mens Rights: Oct 24, 2009

Saturday, October 24, 2009

MELANIE PHILLIPS: If we don't take children and benefits from incapable mothers, the alternative is social catastrophe

By Melanie Phillips
Last updated at 10:06 AM on 07th September 2009

Comments (149)

Once again, Britain is recoiling from the sickening spectacle of childhood innocence being turned into its monstrous antithesis.

Two young brothers aged ten and 11 from Edlington, South Yorkshire, subjected two other little boys aged nine and 11 to sadistic attack and torture, leaving one fighting for his life.

What is so horrifying is that the attackers showed no empathy whatsoever with the suffering of another living being.

A sketch of the two brothers facing Sheffield Crown Court. They will be sentenced next month.

People call these boys 'evil' because such absence of feeling is inhuman. But they are not evil. They are children.

We are all born with the capacity for both good and bad. Everything depends on whether the immature child is raised in a way that develops the good and discourages the bad, or whether something goes wrong with that process.

To label these boys 'evil' is to let the real villains off the hook. These children are the product of evil attitudes within the adult world.

Their personalities have been warped and their ability to feel for others blocked off because they have been deprived of the essential condition for developing into normally functioning human beings: a secure and loving family in which the basics of civilised life are programmed into children's characters.

Instead, they were abandoned to fend for themselves in a pit of absolute degradation, cruelty and inhumanity.

More...

Their mother, who has seven sons by three fathers, is an alcoholic and drug addict who left them to forage from rubbish bins and fed them cannabis to keep them quiet; their father is a drunken brute, who regularly beat them and forced them to watch violent horror films.

We know that there are thousands of other children being raised in broadly similar backgrounds. There are areas of the country where the overriding problem is not material poverty but social, cultural and spiritual disintegration - at the heart of which is the collapse of family life.

Children are being born to lone mothers who were themselves raised in shattered homes by mothers who in turn came from identical backgrounds. The outcome is households in which children are neglected and maltreated, subjected to drug and alcohol abuse, violence and emotional chaos; and where the cruelty and indifference they endure is often translated into the sadistic way they treat others.

Indeed, only last week we learned of another case, in West Yorkshire, where three boys aged 13 and 14 pleaded guilty to stripping, kicking and beating a 13-year-old with wire and bricks.

Of course, only a tiny minority of children grow into attackers or sadists. And many lone parents do a heroic job in raising their children to become responsible adults. But the fact remains that family disintegration sets up chronic disadvantages for a child. Where these are not addressed, a cycle of deprivation is often transmitted down through the generations which replaces civilised behaviour by sheer savagery.

For the past three decades, warnings that the disintegration of the family would result in social catastrophe were brushed aside. What was deemed more important was never to hurt the feelings of those living in fragmented households and to throw welfare benefits at them instead.

Those who objected that this merely fuelled family breakdown were told they were cruel and heartless because depriving such families of welfare benefits would harm the children.

Now in Edlington we can all see the result: four child victims, two of them horrifically attacked and tortured by two others whose very humanity has been taken away from them.

Barnardo's chief Martin Narey says babies should be removed from bad parents

The question now is what to do about a problem that has become a social and cultural emergency. When Iain Duncan Smith's Social Justice Commission refers to 'broken Britain', it is not exaggerating.

Mr Duncan Smith himself suggests various imaginative schemes to repair such families, such as ones where both mother and child are taken into care. But such projects are too expensive and intensive to be applied to all the shattered lives which are growing so exponentially.

The problem has to be tackled at source. That's why the head of Barnardo's, Martin Narey, has now said babies born to such mothers should be removed from them at birth and adopted.

That may sound harsh - but the alternative, in smashed personalities, brutality and sadism, is much harsher. And all the evidence suggests that adopted children generally do very well indeed.

By contrast, the care offered by social services is often worse than useless. Despite the fact that it knew all about the Edlington boys' previous history of sadistic behaviour, Doncaster social services - which itself has a record of gross inadequacy - placed them with a foster couple who not surprisingly were totally unable to control such deeply disturbed children.

Whatever needs to be done to address the weakness in social work, surely what is necessary is not just to try to pick up the pieces of shattered family life but to prevent it from breaking in the first place.

The key is to switch off the motor behind this catastrophe: the prevailing attitudes of a ruling elite which, pretending to be non-judgmental about family background, has actually smashed the traditional family to smithereens.

More from Melanie Phillips...

Far from alleviating poverty, distress and misery, these self-regarding 'progressives' instead created and perpetuated these ills. Holding that the real crime was not to produce neglected or emotionally disturbed children but to ' stigmatise' those who raised them in such a way, they incentivised family breakdown by handing out welfare benefits with no conditions attached to behaviour.

Through being paid automatically the birth of every child, child benefit has been an effective engine of mass fatherlessness. Other benefits, housing and child care payments offered to lone parents similarly rest on the assumption that the main problem to be addressed is always material poverty.

But this is merely one aspect of these mothers' desperate need, which is rooted overwhelmingly in the fact that they cannot cope with looking after themselves, let alone their children.

The independence afforded by the current benefits set-up is thus often a tragic delusion and cruel trap. Accordingly, a more humane response to unmarried motherhood is to treat it for what it really is - a potential disaster for both mother and baby.

Both should be looked after in motherand-baby units with specialised help. Turning off the benefits spigot would also remove the financial incentives that have made such disasters a commonplace - as indeed was intended by the well-heeled intelligentsia, who set out to make unmarried motherhood 'normal' but whose own income cushioned themselves against the worst of the damage that the removal of such constraints on behaviour inflicted upon the poor.

Hurling accusations of 'heartlessness' against their opponents concealed the fact that these 'progressives' were themselves causing unlimited damage and misery - not to mention a steady supply of jobs for themselves in interventionist programmes to 'rescue' the lives they were so cavalierly continuing to destroy.

It is those people who made morality into a dirty word. Since the essence of morality is feeling for others, and since the essence of psychopathy is the absence of any such feeling, is it any wonder that the result of the doctrines imposed by these 'progressives' has been the creation of psychopathic children?

The Edlington disaster can therefore be laid at their door. The next time they start moaning about flint-hearted 'moralisers' they should be firmly reminded of that fact. The rest of us have a society to rescue before it is all finally too late.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1211620/MELANIE-PHILLIPS.html#

6 Posed as Abuse Victims to Get Rent Subsidies, Officials Say

It will be interesting to see how far reaching the fraud is and whether any DV shelters are complicit. The latter perpetrate continuing fraud by their use of mythological, mendacious stats and denigration of men.MJM

October 21, 2009

By AL BAKER

In a notoriously expensive city, people will do anything to get a break on housing costs. They might hide a relative, change their name or suggest they earn less than they really do.

But six women went too far and were arrested in a particularly imaginative scheme for seeking the government’s help with rent payments, officials said on Tuesday.

The women have been charged with submitting fraudulent documents — including forged police reports and court orders — to portray themselves as victims of domestic violence in an apparent attempt to jump to the front of a long waiting list for government subsidized apartments, said Rose Gill Hearn, the commissioner of the city’s Department of Investigation.

Since she took her position in 2002, Ms. Gill Hearn has seen hundreds of housing fraud cases a year “of different permutations,” she said. “But this is the first time that D.O.I. has investigated and uncovered individuals who are engaging in housing fraud by posing as victims of domestic violence.”

The desire for lucrative government subsidies is deep.

As of Sept. 22, there were 127,764 families on the New York City Housing Authority’s waiting list for Section 8 vouchers, said Howard Marder, a spokesman for the agency.

The voucher program can be worth thousands of dollars a year; tenants who qualify for the subsidy must pay 30 percent of their adjusted gross income toward the rent, while the remainder is taken care of with federal money passed through the authority to a landlord.

The city Housing Authority is accepting Section 8 applications from only three groups of people: victims of domestic violence; those referred by prosecutors who are deemed intimidated witnesses in criminal cases; and certain people referred by the city’s Administration for Children’s Services.

It was similarities in some police reports and other documents — picked out by a Housing Authority manager — that drew attention to the six women in the current series of cases, officials said. The manager reported the irregularities, and the Department of Investigation began an inquiry in May.

On July 1, three people were arrested: Barbara Goss, 52, of Manhattan; Chevelle Richardson, 38; and Ms. Richardson’s daughter, Chandera Richardson, 20, officials said. The elder Ms. Richardson filed an application for Section 8 housing on Jan. 29 claiming that her daughter had been the victim of domestic violence, the officials said.

The application, and a similar one from Ms. Goss, included a court-issued temporary order of protection, a domestic incident report from the Police Department and a letter from Safe Horizon, an agency that works with domestic violence victims. All of the documents were forged, officials said.

On July 15, Shanelle Reed, 28, of Queens, was arrested and on Tuesday, Neri Garces, 44, of Yonkers, was arrested, officials said. The sixth woman, Deshanna Graham, 29, is in custody in Pennsylvania, officials said.

All of the cases are being prosecuted by the office of Robert M. Morgenthau, the Manhattan district attorney. The women face charges including criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree and third degree, and offering a false instrument for filing.

It was not immediately clear if the six women collaborated. Asked about the cluster of cases arising at once, Ms. Gill Hearn said that the women were charged separately, but that the investigation was continuing.

A call to the Legal Aid Society, which has represented some of the women, was not immediately returned. Enrico Demarco, a lawyer appointed by the court to represent Ms. Garces, said after her arraignment on Tuesday that “at this point she is denying the allegations and has entered a plea of not guilty.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/21/nyregion/21housing.html?_r=2&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1256407478-WwXhEqITLZQDqzVNu/nj5Q

Stephen Taylor: Liberals imply domestic violence caused by Tory government

Two of my comments within the thread of this article.

Oct 23 2009 4:26 AM Mike Murphy

______________________________

The DV industry in Canada is a heavily invested and multi-faceted ecosystem to promulgate misandry against men. It is the epicentre of today's 3rd wave Feminist movement focusing on victimization of women. It is called Victim, Gender or Life Boat Feminism.

Within this Industry an ideology surrounding a psuedo-scientific mantra is used that posits a patriarchy rules all women's lives and they are victims of it. It is called the Duluth Wheel and in its simplest form describes all men as abusers and women victims. According to it we men use control on females as a primary mechanism whether it be psychological or physically coercive.

That is why the feminists will tell you there are not enough women in whatever positions they identify to you whether it is MP's or in the Board Room. All things that are wrong with females not getting to high office (even if they are) are because men dictate they should not be there.

This, of course, gets feminists off the hook for everything based on merit or choice because they are mere malleable puppets in our hands. It is though they are still children in adult bodies.

It is all bunk of course but they believe it to the core and like any ideology if it is challenged they yell loudly enough that the eunuchs in the political, judicial, lawyering, and chattering classes turn on their politically correct persona and dutifully do what they are told. Iggy doesn't truly believe the crap but has no choice but to go along with it because he has been eunuchized. (similar to lobotomized but a different organ is involved) That is truly a pandemic amongst the political classes, with some notable exceptions, and there is no current vaccine other than common sense which gets seriously vaporized within the feminist rhetoric.

It is my view the DV industry exacerbates the friction involved in divorce and may be the reason for some of the more egregious acts of violence. They counsel their clients to make false allegations, leave the family, use the Duluth Wheel to indoctrinate the client to the ways of victim feminism, and offer no hope the family can be salvaged due to the psycho-babble inherent in the ideology they use. They also get all clients to sign non-disclosure agreements so the truth will not get out from their umbrella of secrecy.

Gosh I'm starting to write another chapter in my book again but this does arouse a passion in me. Let me close by advising there is great interconnectedness between the DV shelters, the lawyers in family law, academics seeking tax money for studies of women at shelters, the Police, Legal Aid Agencies in each province, the DOJ in each Province and the Status of Women Canada the lead victim feminist agency in the country. Each Province has on its payroll similar ideologues. In Ontario alone the Minister for Status of Women has $208,000,000.00 for female related issues and if you include legal aid it is far more. Chris Bentley, AG, Ontario's leading Eunuch in the Attorney Generals Department just found $150,000,000.00 more for legal aid 70% of which is targeted at women.

There is 0, non, nada, targeted for men's issues and not one tax supported DV shelter for men in the country even though at least one third of serious injuries from inter partner violence happens to men. This does not include men who are psychologically destroyed by women with serious personality problems. There are about 550 women's tax supported shelters in Canada.

DV is a serious issue but in the overall scheme of things gets far greater prominence that it should. For example when you compare the rate of homicide of intimate partners on a million couple basis you will find 999,997 women do not kill their spouse and 999,992 men do not kill their female partner. Feminists would have you believe every women is in imminent danger of her male partner. It is bogus and a canard but we have two generations of brainwashed men and women to untether from their mental image of the problem. Barb Kay is one such very brave journalist and more are realizing the mythology is hurting families and women themselves.

by Mike Murphy

Oct 23 2009
2:46 AM

"Under Stephen Harper’s Conservative government, women are increasingly at risk for domestic abuse and violence."

This is similar to many feminist statements and myths about DV.

Its interesting to observe feminist lawyers who will assert, for example, that over 50 allegations of abuse were made against a dad seeking access to a child. The purpose in making the statement to the judge and the press was to vilify the dad and not allow him access. All of the allegations were made by the mother - none were proven - but the mere fact they were made is used as a weapon against dads frequently.

An article recently appeared in the Christian Science Monitor (CSM) again using the same tactics. allegations = fact. Always read between the lines and never believe a feminist statement without fact checking. My letter to the CSM with respect to that misinformation is as follows:

Re: Christian Science Monitor, 10/14/09. Author Kathleen Russell

You allowed this author to publish unsubstantiated claims with respect to cases in Marin County CA, and offering unsupported and erroneous information relating to a theory of abuse of children called Parental Alienation Syndrome.

I am guessing this was offered to the author as an opinion piece and was published without authentication by your editor. You will escape liability for slander on it because she didn't name names but one of the cases she obliquely refers to is well known involving the kidnapping by a so called protective parent of a child. This parent was subsequently arrested, jailed and tried but found to have personality related issues, which is not uncommon. She got a gender discount.

For future reference moms are the largest cohort of abusers and killers of children in the USA. They are also given sole custody of children in 84% of all cases in the USA. Ms. Russell's opinion which states otherwise is no more than that and is factually incorrect. Allegations of abuse are not proven facts of abuse. If allegations were the only criteria of proof most of the country would be in jail. I can easily cite you any number of allegations that are untrue and ought never be used to obfuscate the truth.

I am disappointed in your publication and frankly will have trouble believing anything that appears in it again.

Mike Murphy

I note Denis used the stats from the 1999 social survey by Stats Can. These are on a 5 year cycle and the 2004 numbers show a decline in DV between males and females. The numbers for that survey show an estimated 7% of women and 6% of men representing 653,000 women and 546,000 men in a current or previous spousal relationship encountered spousal violence during the five years up to and including 2004, according to a comprehensive Statistics Canada report on family violence.

www.statcan.gc.ca/.../d050714a.htm

DV is pretty much equal in Canada and men are injured although women are injured in greater frequency due to their smaller size. The interesting thing is in recent studies it shows females initiating the violence in over 70% of cases and also it shows they are less likely to be injured if they don't initiate it.

MJM

Posted: October 22, 2009, 6:30 PM by NP Editor

Full Comment, Stephen Taylor

Something on page 24 of the Liberal Pink Book leaped out at me:

Preventing Violence Against Women

Under Stephen Harper’s Conservative government, women are increasingly at risk for domestic abuse and violence.

It’s pretty sloppy writing at best, deliberate partisan muddying on a serious issue at worst.

While the Pink Book doesn’t go on to say that Paul Martin supports child pornography and thus this gaffe will not be covered with the same vigor by the press, it deserves to be called out.

Consider that this sentence is similar:
Under Jean Chretien’s Liberal government, Canadians were murdered in the thousands.

Oct 22 2009
7:15 PM

Under any current national government, whether Conservative or Liberal, Canadians are being murdered at the rate of one hundred thousand every year.

by rossbcan

Oct 22 2009
7:28 PM

"Preventing Violence Against Women"

By definition requires preemptive justice, speculation of "experts" (undoubtedly self interested and corrupt) that some freedoms (undoubtedly of males) must be curbed or aggression initiated (against males) because they "might" choose violence.

Same as Iraq, a war crime...

Nothing is REAL until the facts are on the table. We live in an action precedes consequence REALITY.

Law can only rationally respond after the facts are on the table. Anything else is irrational, telepathetic speculation. And, VERY DANGEROUS.

by Sassylassie

Oct 22 2009
7:43 PM

Preventing violence against women is liberal speakezze for pre-crime and thought crimes just like Section 13. It's smoke and mirrors, the libs had decades to do something for females and universial childcare and they did zip well they lavished funds on Quebec for childcare didn't they?

by WCF

Oct 22 2009
7:59 PM

Correct me if I am wrong but the majority of the violence in Vancouver region is from immigrants...Would it not make sense to conclude that Jean Chretien and all those Liberal PM's before him, who supported mass immigration, are at total fault for the murders in Vancouver?

by vanbengler

Oct 22 2009
8:46 PM

Hello all;

this you may find interesting: Source: Statistics Canada. Google search command: Number of homicides in Canada

Homicide offences, number and rate, by province and territory

(Number of homicides) 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

homicides

Canada 549 624 663 606 594

Newfoundland and Labrador 5 2 11 7 3

Prince Edward Island 1 0 0 1 0

Nova Scotia 8 14 20 16 13

New Brunswick 8 7 9 7 8

Quebec 99 111 100 93 90

Ontario 178 187 219 196 201

Manitoba 43 50 49 39 62

Saskatchewan 41 39 43 42 30

Alberta 64 86 108 95 88

British Columbia 94 113 101 108 88

Yukon 1 7 1 0 2

Northwest Territories 4 4 0 0 2

Nunavut 3 4 2 2 7

Source: Statistics Canada, CANSIM, table (for fee) 253-0001.

Last modified: 2008-10-23.

Find information related to this table (CANSIM table(s); Definitions, data sources and methods; The Daily; publications; and related Summary tables).

interesting: Canadians being murdered by the hundreds of thousands? Somehow I don't think so . . .

By my calculations "we" have murdered 3036 citizens in the last five years . . . the latest statistics for murder rates in the USA in 2005 alone are over 16,000 . . .

Brian Leslie Engler

by vanbengler

Oct 22 2009
9:13 PM

Hello all;

On every package of cigarrettes (you) buy it says that cancer contributed to by smoking killed 45,000 citizens last year alone.

And we are upset by a comparatively few violent murders . . . ?

Give me a break . . . .

Brian Leslie Engler

by Denis Pakkala

Oct 22 2009
9:43 PM

The Liberal Pink Book will continue to erode the rights and liberty of men by acceptance of feminist ideology that only women are victims and men are perpetrators.

GOVERNMENT OF CANADA

www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/.../Intimate_Partner.pdf

Statistics Canada reports that "ALMOST EQUAL PROPORTIONS OF MEN AND WOMEN (7% and 8% respectively) had been the victims of intimate partner physical and psychological abuse (18% and 19% respectively). These findings were consistent with several earlier studies which reported equal rates of abuse by women and men in intimate relationships"

by vanbengler

Oct 22 2009
9:48 PM

Hey rossbcan;

Re "Law can only rationally respond after the facts are on the table. Anything else is irrational, telepathetic speculation. And, VERY DANGEROUS." (end quote)

Interestingly enough, I agree with you . . .

Now what is it really like having an idiot agree with you?

Gotcha . . . .

Brian Leslie Engler

by Straightup

Oct 22 2009
9:48 PM

Aren't they liable for making false statements and accusations: Isn't that slander. Isn't that illegal outside the HoC...

Other than that...no one reads that crap anyways.

by GuyTron

Oct 22 2009
10:06 PM

Jon34 : 'Under any current national government, whether Conservative or Liberal, Canadians are being murdered at the rate of one hundred thousand every year.' - Say what? You say 1 in 300 people are murdered every year in Canada? That sounds way too high.

by GuyTron

Oct 22 2009
10:24 PM

Thanks for the stats vanbengler. According to those stats it seems unlikely that 100,000 Canadians were even murdered in the last Century.

Thanks Denis Pakkala for the stats. They bear a reasonable likeness to the ratios of males and females who suffer from depression related illness due to physical, sexual and mental abuse from parents and step parents in similar ratios of mothers and fathers doing the abuse. Until recently the stigma of males reporting abuse had the numbers extremely skewed. Mothers have been abusing their sons and daughters for generations with out being called out to answer for it and many institutions failed the children saying they were lying if they tried to make a complaint.

by Seth Brundle

Oct 22 2009
11:08 PM

In 2005 97,254 abortions were performed in Canada. This represents a ratio of about 30 abortions to every 100 live births.

by vanbengler

Oct 22 2009
11:11 PM

Hey GuyTron;

RE: "Mothers have been abusing their sons and daughters for generations with out being called out to answer for it and many institutions failed the children saying they were lying if they tried to make a complaint." (end quote)

My personal experience confirms this . . . and thank you for the observation.

Now the trick is getting people to recognize and admit that both fathers and mothers; not just fathers may and can be abusers . . . and that children are profundly negatively affected by abuse; whether it be from mom or dad; whether it be enabled by either mom or dad; or worst of all if both mom and dad are abusers . . .

Brian Leslie Engler

by vanbengler

Oct 22 2009
11:14 PM

Hey GuyTron;

RE: "Say what? You say 1 in 300 people are murdered every year in Canada? That sounds way too high" (end quote)

Given the stats, why not accuse him of being a blatant liar? His post is in writing . . . and so are the stats as evidence.

Quite frankly I would say the evidence is conclusive . . . wouldn't you?

Brian Leslie Engler

by Seth Brundle

Oct 22 2009
11:23 PM

Worldwide annual death toll from abortion: 41.6 million October 15, 2009

by vanbengler

Oct 22 2009
11:35 PM

Hi Seth;

Conceding in advance that you are one of the more difficult posters to deal with here . . . ummm, what is your point?

Isn't it just a little off topic? If not, what is the connection to the topic? I don't get it: What is your point?

And here we go, a moralistic tirade (rant) from the self righteous "religious right" . . .

Brian Leslie Enlger

by Sassylassie

Oct 22 2009
11:48 PM

van lots of so called religious people get abortions, it's called gendercide via the cultural belief that women are inferior to male fetuses thus they abort female fetuses enmasse.

by Jacques3

Oct 22 2009
11:56 PM

If I was a woman serious about protecting herself against domestic violence, I'd get a gun.

It's the equalizer.

The police can never arrive in time to help a woman under attack by the (usually) much stronger man, and there are any number of cases in the past year where "restraining orders" were not worth the paper they were printed on.

So, the liberal policy of making it harder (and ultimately impossible) for anyone to get a gun is actually an assault on women's safety.

by Seth Brundle

Oct 23 2009
12:07 AM

murder; put to death; suppress| destroy;

legalized murder, but murder none the less.

by Denis Pakkala

Oct 23 2009
12:11 AM

Jacques,

A commonly available kitchen knife or any household blunt object is a great equalizer for women who are typically physically smaller than men.

Statistics from the US DAHMW, show that male victims of domestic violence are often attacked with weapons.

Another great equalizer for women is that that police are trained to use the "dominant aggressor" assessment, which means that whoever is bigger gets arrested. Most often, this means men are arrested, regardless of who initiated or caused the violence.

by vanbengler

Oct 23 2009
12:13 AM

Hey sassielassie;

Facts, please . . . by the way, I agree with you, but for the purposes of this conversation I would say that "a lot of" non-religious people get abortions too . . .

Now, how do we prove it?

And how is it relevant?

What difference does it make to you?

Brian Leslie Engler

by GuyTron

Oct 23 2009
12:14 AM

Sassylassie : '...thus they abort female fetuses enmasse.' - Not in Canada, we have laws against exactly that. It may happen but certainly not enmasse. There are almost twice as many females in my extended family than there are males. It is not a complaint but it proves your assertion does not hold water in this country.

by Seth Brundle

Oct 23 2009
12:17 AM

Jacques if you were my wife and you got a gun, I wouldn't be able to get a bullet proof vest in BC to protect myself from domestic violence.

by rossbcan

Oct 23 2009
12:28 AM

@Seth Brundle

I suspect the reason that the law allows abortion is not so much out of concern for women, since there are alternatives to reduce the hardship of unwanted pregnancy and, adoption laws can be streamlined and made inexpensive. This is just a pretext.

IMHO, the real reason is to legally deem the unborn "not human" so they have no rights and we can therefore enslave them with public debt which they have had no choice in and will not benefit from. In other words, the unborn are modern Jews, fair game for enslavement and extermination.

Our ancestors did not allow public debt and insisted on fiscal discipline of balanced budgets, for this very reason.

We are so immoral and irresponsible. We will soon be facing the consequences of not paying attention to what is required to survive, as a civilization.

by GuyTron

Oct 23 2009
12:31 AM

Thanks Brian.

It was my experience as well. I finally sought help for my clinical depression a number of years ago, and was amazed to discover how evenly distributed abuse was during 18 weeks of group therapy. It was a real eye opener to hear how mothers fathers and spouses abused each other and their children and even how grown children abused their elder parents, aunts or uncles. I learned how to cope with my past and deal with things in the future and now have a healthy relationship with my entire family. I am glad I got help before I repeated the cycle of abuse, and I encourage everyone else who has been abused to get help as soon as they can especially if they have become abusers.

by vanbengler

Oct 23 2009
12:34 AM

GuyTron;

With ultrasound it is now possible to determine the sex of a fetus before birth. Some cultures are shame/honour based. At the risk of over-simplifying, it is shameful to be female and honourable to be male.

In those cultures, female fetuses tend to be aborted at a higher freqencey than males. It is indeed called gendercide.

Additionally, and as a for instance (and I cannot quote source but it could probably be Googled - I haen't done that yet, but I have good invrmation)) in India if abortions are not performed, female babies (not fetuses) are literally disposed of.

While not entirely regarded as acceptable, this is regarded and acknowleged as a systemic cultural practise.

Is it wrong? I think so. Can I do anything about it? Probably not; except to let my own daughter know that I love her, that I respect her, and that I am very proud of her.

And she knows it.

Brian Leslie Engler

by GuyTron

Oct 23 2009
12:36 AM

Jacques and Seth - That kind of reasoning is... oh so immature!

If you are being abused... leave or get a divorce!

Two wrongs do not make either of you correct.

Both of you appear to need help, please seek it out.

by vanbengler

Oct 23 2009
12:43 AM

Hey Jacques3;

Re: "If I was a woman serious about protecting herself against domestic violence, I'd get a gun.

So when the wife is the abuser, and the police can't arrive in time, should the man shoot her?

Brian Leslie Engler

Just wondering . . .

Brian Leslie Engler

by rossbcan

Oct 23 2009
12:45 AM

@GuyTron

"stigma of males reporting abuse"

held firm until there was a well heeled perp (RC church) to accuse and get compensated from. This attracted the legal "profession" who "follow the money"

Not implying that the abused were not, just pointing out that matters are not dealt with until there is profit.

And, I doubt that an abused male can get satisfaction from his abusing spouse unless he is poor and she is well heeled. In that case, he would get custody (relieve social system) and compensation.

In the converse case (well heeled male, poor female), she would get custody to reduce social burden and he would get the shaft and no satisfaction since, to legally sanction a mother harms children. This is NOT "the appearance of justice being done"

Statscan could easily and probably already has proven the inverse relationship between parental income and custody awards. Good luck getting these facts.

by Seth Brundle

Oct 23 2009
1:05 AM

guytron

My response to Jacques was sarcasm.

vanbengel

The abortion post stats, were to throw some light on Jon34's post, as an aside prior to its legalization in 1969 it was considered murder, punishable by life in prison.

The law legalizing it was thrown out in 1988, and has not been replaced, but is is not a subject either the Liberals or Tories would touch with a ten foot pole.

by vanbengler

Oct 23 2009
1:27 AM

Hey Seth,

What abortion post stats? What is your source? How do we know you're just not making it up?

Facts and source, please . . .

Brian Leslie Engler

by rossbcan

Oct 23 2009
1:28 AM

@Seth Brundle

Do you have a link or citation regarding "thrown out in 1988"?

by vanbengler

Oct 23 2009
1:37 AM

Hey SEth;

RE: "murder; put to death; suppress| destroy;

legalized murder, but murder none the less." (end quote)

You could just as easily say that about war, couldn't you?

Know of any wars going on right now? Just as a question: Are you defending these wars or condoning them?

Or are you opposed to them?

By the way, what is the source of your definition? Is it verifiable? Isa it even accurate? What have you taken out of context? What have you distorte? What have you evaded or avoided by not telling the truth?

Brian Leslie Engler

by Sassylassie

Oct 23 2009
1:37 AM

End quote:--------------

Been to BC lately to see those Indo friendly ultra sound offices lately? Just because you say it does not make it so we have unrestricted abortions in Canada thanks to the Libs. No we don't have laws against gender abortions but feel free to prove me wrong but you can't. I don't care how many females are allowed to be born alive in your family my concern is those that are killed for being merely not male enough.. Forgot to mention all those females that were murdered and left in ditches in BC.

by Seth Brundle

Oct 23 2009
1:43 AM

ross

en.wikipedia.org/.../Abortion_in_Canada

About half way down the page under history.

by Seth Brundle

Oct 23 2009
1:50 AM

van

You could just as easily say that about war, couldn't you?

Better men than me have said it Van.

"He who joyfully marches to music rank and file, has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would surely suffice. This disgrace to civilization should be done away with at once. Heroism at command, how violently I hate all this, how despicable and ignoble war is; I would rather be torn to shreds than be a part of so base an action. It is my conviction that killing under the cloak of war is nothing but an act of murder."

Albert Einstein

by vanbengler

Oct 23 2009
2:10 AM

Hey SEth;

Is this it?

In its decision (Morgentaler et al. v. Her Majesty The Queen [1988] (1 S.C.R. 30) at 37), the Court stated:

"The right to liberty... guarantees a degree of personal autonomy over important decisions intimately affecting his or her private life. ... The decision whether or not to terminate a pregnancy is essentially a moral decision and in a free and democratic society, the conscience of the individual must be paramount to that of the state."

Wht do you not understand about "conscience" for instance?

That you are the only one who has one? That other people are not entitled to theirs?

That you shold be able to dictate morals and limit other people's freedom of conscience?

How would you like it if they did the same to you?

Brian Leslie Engler

by vanbengler

Oct 23 2009
2:12 AM

Hey Seth;

Better men indeed; I have read Einstein before, too . . .

But what do you say?

Do you support the war?

Just to prove it one way or another, I'll bet we could go back and find some posts, couldn't we?

Brian Leslie Engler

by vanbengler

Oct 23 2009
2:15 AM

Hey Seth;

Just to repeat;

By the way, what is the source of your definition?

Is it verifiable?

Is it even accurate?

What have you taken out of context?

What have you distorted?

What have you evaded or avoided by not telling the truth?

Brian Leslie Engler

The New Financial Post Stock Market Challenge starts in October. You could WIN your share of $60,000 in prizing. Register NOW

by welldoneson

Oct 23 2009
2:19 AM

Seth, thanks for reminding us how full of wind Einstein was outside of his work on relativity.

by Tossed Salad

Oct 23 2009
2:34 AM

seth is the reason I am an independent. Until I pass something the size of a watermelon out of an orfice as small as a vagina I have no right to tell a woman what to do with her body as long as I do not have to pay for it. Of course that is the question whether I have rights if I am damned to be a wallet for the rest of my life without my input.

by Seth Brundle

Oct 23 2009
2:38 AM

welldoneson

Acclaimed by the world as a great revolutionist of theoretical physics, his bold speculations, now become basis doctrine, will be remembered when mankind`s present troubles are long forgotten…"

focus.aps.org/.../st10

van the source of my definition is from the Latin for murder, neco

www.latin-dictionary.org/.../neco

by vanbengler

Oct 23 2009
2:46 AM

Hey SEth;

I guess that's a GOTCHA: I love this game . . .

Brian Leslie Engler

by MikeMurphy

Oct 23 2009
2:46 AM

"Under Stephen Harper’s Conservative government, women are increasingly at risk for domestic abuse and violence."

This is similar to many feminist statements and myths about DV.

Re: Christian Science Monitor, 10/14/09. Author Kathleen Russell

I am disappointed in your publication and frankly will have trouble believing anything that appears in it again.

www.statcan.gc.ca/.../d050714a.htm

by Seth Brundle

Oct 23 2009
2:53 AM

Tossed salad this is the real world, even today a majority of decisions to procure an abortion are made by men, the supreme court decisions were made by men. Woman today still have to submit to the will of men with respects to their right to have or not have a child.

by Rhino Party Whip

Oct 23 2009
3:01 AM

Mike and Denis: We have tangled in the past but I think you are spot on with this issue.

I believe there is a chilling effect on married men that short circuits normal conflict resolution out of bald terror.

This can't be healthy, and I suspect it contributes to massive blow outs.

In short, is the DV industry exacerbating the problem?

by vanbengler

Oct 23 2009
3:11 AM

Hey Seth;

"murder" at law: the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought.

To kill or slaughter inhumanly or barbarously

slang: Something extremely difficult or perilous. i.e. "that final exam was murder"

To spoil or mar through incompetence i.e. " to murder a tune".

Any rebuttal?

Lets hear some of those great excuses, huh?

Still Gotcha

Brian Leslie Engler

by Seth Brundle

Oct 23 2009
3:31 AM

van

To kill or slaughter inhumanly

as opposed to humanely murdering someone.

by vanbengler

Oct 23 2009
3:48 AM

Seth;

I already recognize that you are as slippery as an unscrupulous lawyer. And I am being very polite.

You've been had.

Now you're using my definition . . . . because your definition was indefensible and found to be spurious . . .

Pretty much like everything else you say . . . .

So, I am retiring from the field of battle.

Perhaps we will engage again.

I enjoyed it, and thanks.

Best wishes and good luck

Brian Leslie Engler

by Rhino Party Whip

Oct 23 2009
3:49 AM

Engler, Seth. You two are perfect for each other. If you would stop whapping each other with you big dictionaries and flexing your factoid muscles for a minute, you'd be BFF.

by vanbengler

Oct 23 2009
4:07 AM

Hey Whino Patsy Whimp;

You and I are perfect for each other too.

Now: Take a good look in that mirror:

Ten seconds,

Really hard slap

Head in the toilet

Let it soak in for a while.

Good vacuum assisted flush

Where were we again?

Oh yes, in a Court room and Exhibit "SFB".

Thats "shit for brains" for Seth's information.

Good night; enjoyed, and best wishes and good luck to you too

Best regards,

Brian

by MikeMurphy

Oct 23 2009
4:26 AM

@by Rhino Party Whip Oct 23 2009

3:01 AM

______________________________

This, of course, gets feminists off the hook for everything based on merit or choice because they are mere malleable puppets in our hands. It is though they are still children in adult bodies.

Gosh I'm starting to write another chapter in my book again but this does arouse a passion in me. Let me close by advising there is great interconnectedness between the DV shelters, the lawyers in family law, academics seeking tax money for studies of women at shelters, the Police, Legal Aid Agencies in each province, the DOJ in each Province and the Status of Women Canada the lead victim feminist agency in the country. Each Province has on its payroll similar ideologues. In Ontario alone the Minister for Status of Women has $208,000,000.00 for female related issues and if you include legal aid it is far more. Chris Bentley, AG, Ontario's leading Eunuch in the Attorney Generals Department just found $170,000,000.00 more for legal aid 70% of which is targeted at women.

There is 0, non, nada, targeted for men's issues and not one tax supported DV shelter for men in the country even though at least one third of serious injuries from inter partner violence happens to men. This does not include men who are psychologically destroyed by women with serious personality problems. There is about 550 women's tax supported shelters in Canada.

by Seth Brundle

Oct 23 2009
4:37 AM

RPW

Coming from IainGFould beatch thats too funny.

by Rhino Party Whip

Oct 23 2009
5:03 AM

Mike: I don't know how you have the wherewithal to synthesize all the depressing data into cogent statements, but a pussywhipped nation thanks you.

When you are done, you must look at how this well known yet unarticulated situation affects people who have not yet hit the grinder of divorce proceedings.

I live in abject terror of crossing the sisterhood.

by Rhino Party Whip

Oct 23 2009
5:21 AM

I would put $100 into solid polling to that effect, Mike.

by vilda

Oct 23 2009
6:02 AM

What nonsense and when did the Liberals care?It was 1200 women who ensured women's equal rights were enshrined in the Constitution. The Liberals had exempted them. Cry me a river is the song they should be singing.

by vanbengler

Oct 23 2009
6:20 AM

Hey Whino Patsy Whimp;

RE: "I live in abject terror of crossing the sisterhood."

I am not:

That's one of the differences between you and I; as perfect as we are for each other: I am not a Whino, a Patsy or a Whimp.

Brian Leslie Engler

by Jon34

Oct 23 2009
7:21 AM

Under any recent national government, whether Conservative or Liberal, Canadians are murdered at the rate of one hundred thousand every year.

Forced (i.e. induced) abortion is murder because it is illegally killing a human being. Currently it is not illegal according to Canadian law because there is no Canadian law on abortion. It remains, however, a violation of the Sixth Commandment; for background and context on the Sixth Commandment refer to God's covenant with our father Noah at the re-creation (renewal) of the earth after the Flood (Genesis 9). Needless to say, God is a much higher authority than the Supreme Court of Canada.

I am a Christian before I am a Canadian.

by ZeeBC

Oct 23 2009
8:37 AM

Liberal Pinko book. Is that a watered down recycled version of Mao's Little Red Book?

by MikeMurphy

Oct 23 2009
2:03 PM

@ZEEBC: The feminist movement itself is a collective and has its origins in Marxism. There are, within 3rd wave feminism, hard core ideologues who want to empower women at the expense of men and the family. In other words the current operation of the Family Law System subscribes to the notion if you are a man you are disposable. Judges award mom over 90% of physical custody in Canada. They, with some notable exceptions, are Eunuchs cow towing to political correctness brought on by victim oriented feminists. Does anyone really believe 90% of dads are that bad. I hope not.

Any man not caught up in family Law directly or through family does not know their relative worth in this country and in the U.S.A. Men are the economic engine, however, to maintain the current unilateral divorce system. Your ex, as 75% of Canadian women in divorce do, will file for divorce and you will have to spend 10's of thousands of dollars to stay in your children's lives at a rate greater than 14%. You have gone from an equal to a revenue spigot and will be required to pay for child support, possibly spousal support and your soon to become ex can move the boyfriend in with the children and he will see them 24/7. Statistically this will put them in greater danger of molestation and abuse.

Under no fault or unilateral divorce she can have committed criminal actions against you, have adulterous affairs and unless you can prove she is a drug addict she will get custody. You can thank the feminists, lawyers and gutless judges and politicians for this.

The wife or partner if cohabiting may have taken a trip to your local DV shelter to get a leg up on custody where she will get the complete package on how to twist the knife. A lawyer referral will result from this visit which starts the process of settlement and/or litigation. The man's lawyer will have told him you stand no chance at getting custody so cut your losses and take what you can get.

If it does go through the courts the average lawyer will receive something like $25,000.00 for his services from each party. Lawyers along with feminists do not want an amendment to the Divorce Act that would give a presumption of equal shared parenting to both fit parents as their current entitlements will be less.

This is an average. If the parties have deep pockets it can go over $300,000.00 and last for a decade. This happened recently in Toronto where a surgeon sought custody of his children who were severely alienated by the mom who has serious personalty problems. The dad finally won custody using very expensive expert witnesses and the judge, Faye McWatt, even gave the dad legal costs in her later judgment.

They have brought up the canard of DV as a reason. See my previous post on the mythology of DV. The legislation is for fit parents and in most western democracies the children are in greatest danger from a single mom and worse still if her new boyfriend moves in.

I do go on but the stories of feminist influence in so many areas of our national discourse are legend and mostly false. In London Ontario the Police Chief, Murray Faulkner, is a disciple of feminist mythology and in a case involving one of his active duty officers, a female, who killed a retired officer she was in a relationship with did not get classified as DV. The DV death rate is then highly suspect and this does women no favours and continues to hurt all men. This case happened in 2007 with Acting Police Inspector Kelly Johnson (female) killing Dave Lucio. She did this when Mr. Lucio was contemplating an end to the relationship with the intention of reconciling with his wife.

Many of us are working diligently through advocacy to change the rules. One of those is a Private Members Bill C-422 giving a rebuttal presumption of equal shared parenting for two fit parents as they do in some European countries and to a degree in Australia and several US States.

by rossbcan

Oct 23 2009
3:41 PM

@MikeMurphy

The educational stats which show a preponderance of females should be looked at a more closely.

Males have a preponderance in the hard sciences which cannot be subverted, else airplanes would start falling out of the sky, equations would not balance and everything technological would fail, because the laws of nature ruthlessly punish FALSITY.

Females have a preponderance in the so called social "sciences" which, IMHO, are highly subverted to achieve "social engineering". Since they are FALSE, it is just a matter of time before it all implodes, by natural law (actions inevitably have consequences).

When a the showdown between reality and opinion inevitably occurs, reality will win, because ALL of natural law is in support of those who use it.

In other words, females have been duped and educationally subverted. Their degrees (and power) becomes USELESS once it is socially accepted that "inequality under law", affirmative action, enslaving some to favor others is a social / economic dead end and threat to peace, order and good government or, civilization (the rules by which we cooperate for MUTUAL self-interest), in general.

by rossbcan

Oct 23 2009
3:47 PM

@MikeMurphy

"unless you can prove she is a drug addict she will get custody"

Wrong in my case, which you have already checked out.

BTW, I have been meaning to tell you for some time that you are asking the right questions, appear to have the basic knowledge and skills regarding how to fight to win.

Our efforts constitute a complementary pincer movement, boxing our enemies in. They try to counter me, they run into you. They try to counter you, they run into me.

by Denis Pakkala

Oct 23 2009
4:03 PM

Great discussion Men.

This is the result of several decades of manginas in abject terror of crossing the sisterhood.

Mike Murphey is doing great things for equality, more men need to speak up for equal rights.

by Advokat

Oct 23 2009
4:26 PM

Jon34: There is no such thing as 'god's law' because there is no god.

In any event, silly christian myths have no place in reasoned, rational discussion among adults. Apart from the silliness of the jesus lie, Canada has a separation of church and state, which renders religious dogma irrelevant t legislation... But if you want to follow god's law, or fairy law, or any other made up rules, go for it... Just don't be surprised when you are prosecuted if you breach Canadian law.

Abortion is not murder, in Canada. Seth's semantic games demonstrate nothing more than abject ignorance of the law. 'Murder' is a legal designation that applies ONLY if the killing is unlawful; abortion is legal and therefor cannot be murder. You may not like it, but them's the facts, dude...

by Tossed Salad

Oct 23 2009
4:29 PM

Hit www.glennsacks.com or mensactivism.org, etc.

If you can weed out the radicals and the American slant this is just one of many sites dedicated to mens issues. There are many links to other sites which deal with the problems men face vis a vis domestic violence, pa, etc. The word is getting out as I have stated. It is a trickle but it is going to take years (the gender feminists have over 40 years on us) for change but it is coming and there will be segments of society who will pay for their crimes and make no mistake they are crimes. I would be very afraid.

by Tossed Salad

Oct 23 2009
4:31 PM

Denis: Don't forget to include SassyLassie in in the discussion and IMO she is all woman.

by Denis Pakkala

Oct 23 2009
4:48 PM

There is currently a debate between leading domestic violence researchers, Dutton and Stark at www.mensnewsdaily.com

For many years, feminist researchers have avoided publically debating their ideology. It is fantastic that these debates are starting to happen and more men and women are supportive of real equality.

Sassy is primarily anti-liberal and anti-feminism and not necessarily pro-equality. I often sense that she is also supportive of traditional norms, which discriminates against both men and women.

by MikeMurphy

Oct 23 2009
5:11 PM

@rossbcan:

You are right in terms of the fields. Prof. Perry has charted 2005-6 data by bachelor's degree here mjperry.blogspot.com/.../female-male-breakdown-college-degrees.html and he has links to the raw data as well as post grad breakdowns.

My analysis of the family law field is an average situation and there are exceptions such as yourself. The exceptions usually come at a great emotional and/or financial cost for the dad but some do stay in the fray and fight until their money or emotional capital run out. My money has run out but I have copious quantities of emotional capital and the best thing of all -an undying love of my children who deserve their father in their lives more than 14% of the time to provide gender balance. Dr. Ed Kruk, of UBC has shown through research a parent needs at least 40% of time with their children to retain a parental bond.

One of my favourite father quotes is as follows:

“The job of a father is this : to help his children develop, to teach them to express and master their emotions; to avoid physiological distress, to provide a context for their experiences; to help them persevere, reach their goals and take on responsibilities; and to instil the roles of citizen, partner and parent. In short, it is to fill their bellies with bread, their brains with wisdom and their hearts with love and courage.” Camil Bouchard, “On Father’s Ground” 2002.

I add one more that is more explicit. Biological Fathers are the best protectors of their children on the face of the earth.

With no money it's problematic but necessity being the parent of invention causes one to adapt and learn the law and the administrative mechanisms in making your case.

We will regain our equality in family law eventually but persistance and patience are the hallmarks of getting there. The ultimate winners wil be our children and by vanquishing the mythology of Victim Feminism all women will benefit.

Then all of us can fight for human equality and dignity without the gender wars now in place.

by rossbcan

Oct 23 2009
6:00 PM

@Advokat

Me again, just to remind you exactly what I think regarding fake rationalizers and your "profession" in general. Collective "pitchforks and torches" in social self-defense time is approaching

'god's law'

I am tempted to throw you out of a plane at altitude, so you can learn how effective "man's law" is in saving you from the consequence of having mass in a gravity field, at a very high altitude, just one of god's laws as is the FACT that a fetus is a potential human being, no matter how much sharp hair splitting to deny reality is done.

And, since I know how much you enjoyed this last time, I will repeat myself:

"Isn't the logic behind your anti-lawyer rant..."

No, my anti-lawyer rant is based on the fact that your entire "profession" is based on opinion, with no objective measures and, we are all in a moral hazard (trap) position as a consequence, because how can we OBEY the law if we have no clue what "judicial discretion" will choose? Plus the fact that there are too many laws (some contradictory) and no basic principles that mere idiots such as myself can follow and be safe from you conflict creating bottom feeders (predators). I reject your "professions" artificially created reality that I must pay and consult your profession to protect myself from your profession. Yours is a protection racket, a zero sum game, with no winners except lawyers.

I concede the fact that some lawyers fight for "good" and others for "evil". Most lawyers fight for both, at one time or another, depending on client need to win. The Ying cancels the Yang, at a hefty and predatory cost. A pox on you all.

But, there is method in my madness. I hope that enough lawyers and judges will realize that theirs is a lost game and the prey must eventually turn on the predator. The only hope for your "profession" is to realize that people can only be tricked and fleeced for so long before they defend themselves. The only survival choice for your profession (and civilization) is to represent factual, objective law which is:

a) Sanction (and fully compensate victims - not yourselves) these who initiate aggression or cause harm.

b) Sanction (and fully compensate victims - not yourselves) those who disobey:

http://www.cli.gs/RuleOfLaw

In other words: Get objectively REAL or ELSE

As you can see, I KNOW my enemy. Nothing I have said above is unfair or untrue. It is a just verdict. It will not be long before social consensus is again achieved: Corrupt, fallible man CANNOT justly rule free persons and keep the peace. We need the "rule of law" back. It doesn't matter how many stacks of bibles one swears on. Actions speak louder than words.

And yes, if necessary, I can, have and will self-represent myself in court. Rule #4 of survival: Do not feed you enemy.

Clear enuf?

Oh yea, "scofflaw" and "lack of respect for authority or my self-proclaimed betters" is water off a ducks back.

I so enjoy rants such as this. Highly recommend as therapy and stress control.

by rossbcan

Oct 23 2009
6:06 PM

@Advokat

"abortion is legal and therefor cannot be murder."

Exactly what the Nazis said regarding Jews, when they were "legally" defined as "non human".

In all fairness, I would be tempted to define lawyers as "non human" also. Its all a matter of who has the most guns and what their agenda is.

by Advokat

Oct 23 2009
6:26 PM

Ross: We all know your views on lawyers, and as tempting as it may be to engage you on that, I know that there really is no point. Clearly you have had at least one run in with a lawyer that has left you with serious anger issues, and I am not going to waste my time. A psychiatrist would be much more helpful to you on that point than anything that I can offer in defense of my former profession.

That said, your attempt to equate abortion with the Nazi's 'final solution' is just plain silly. Are you really so wrapped up in the anti-choice movement that you are unable to distinguish the difference?!?

I am, as you may have guessed, staunchly pro-choice. But even I will admit that abortion is an issue on which intelligent minds can disagree. It is only raving fanatics and simpletons who see the world in black and white extremes - or who try to draw parallels between abortion rights (which more than half the population supports) and the holocaust.

But seriously, Ross, your 'lawyer hatred' is obviously consuming you to the point of distraction. Day after day, you post these ridiculous rants about how evil lawyers, masking your ignorance of the profession and the law with words you have obviously pulled from a thesaurus in a failed attempt to convey some sort of intellectual superiority. (On a side note, a very gifted writer once told me that if you can't articulate an idea using words that a child can understand, then the idea is probably not worth very much). Get help, man... They are doing wonderful things with medication these days...

Fathers and Mens Rights

Saturday, October 24, 2009

MELANIE PHILLIPS: If we don't take children and benefits from incapable mothers, the alternative is social catastrophe

More...

More from Melanie Phillips...

6 Posed as Abuse Victims to Get Rent Subsidies, Officials Say

Stephen Taylor: Liberals imply domestic violence caused by Tory government

Preventing Violence Against Women

Fatherhood ~ The Best Job on the Planet

Feeds on Family Law and DV Issues Worldwide

Search This Blog

Followers

My Blog List

Blog Archive

About Me

Feminism On Trial Powered By Ringsurf

Counting 1 - 2 - 3

Leading causes of Injury to Women 2006

Injury related Emergency Department Visits