Showing posts with label misandry. Show all posts
Showing posts with label misandry. Show all posts

Friday, January 29, 2010

University of Ottawa Women's Resource Centre- Hate Speech

Friday, January 29, 2010 1:30 AM 
MEDIA ALERT
Happening Right Now
Captured by Cellphone Photography The University of Ottawa Women's Resource Centre- Hate Speech-Sent to FathersCan by a third party via a student at Ottawa University. Its an "In the Window Now" Situation. Male Students report being outraged 

FathersCan asks what would the public and media reaction  be if the wording was somewhat different and reflected a male perspective about dangerous women? The reader can use their imagination Would a 'Men's Resource Centre' be allowed to display something akin to this (even were there to be such a resource centre which there isn't)  So? Hate Speech or Not? Does the Law allow this? Not for men to do for sure.

Tuesday, January 26, 2010

National Post editorial board: Women's Studies is still with us















Posted: January 26, 2010, 3:00 PM by NP Editor

If the reports are to be believed, Women’s Studies programs are disappearing at many Canadian universities. Forgive us for being skeptical. We would wave good-bye without shedding a tear, but we are pretty sure these angry, divisive and dubious programs are simply being renamed to make them appear less controversial.
The radical feminism behind these courses has done untold damage to families, our court systems, labour laws, constitutional freedoms and even the ordinary relations between men and women.

Women’s Studies courses have taught that all women — or nearly all — are victims and nearly all men are victimizers. Their professors have argued, with some success, that rights should be granted not to individuals alone, but to whole classes of people, too. This has led to employment equity — hiring quotas based on one’s gender or race rather than on an objective assessment of individual talents.

Executives, judges and university students must now sit through mandatory diversity training. Divorcing men find they lose their homes and access to their children, and must pay much of their income to their former spouses (then pay tax on the income they no longer have) largely because Women’s Studies activists convinced politicians that family law was too forgiving of men. So now a man entering court against a woman finds the deck stacked against him, thanks mostly to the radical feminist jurisprudence that found it roots and nurture in Women’s Studies.

The equality protection before and under the law, granted to all Canadians regardless of race, sex, creed or origin, has been eroded because feminist legal scholars convinced the Supreme Court to permit preferential treatment for “traditionally disadvantaged groups,” chief among whom, they contend, are women.

Over the years, Women’s Studies scholars have argued all heterosexual sex is oppression because its “penetrative nature” amounts to “occupation.” They have insisted that no male author had any business writing novels from women’s perspectives; although, interestingly, they have not often argued the converse — that female writers must avoid telling men’s stories.

They have pushed for universal daycare and mandatory government-run kindergarten, advocated higher taxes to pay for vast new social entitlements and even put forward the notion that the only differences between males and females are “relatively insignificant, external features.” All other differences are said to be the result of patriarchal brainwashing. So the only way to ensure gender equality is to turn over all education to the state, where professionals can ensure only unbiased instruction.

In sum, there would be little of rational worth left even if Women’s Studies were to disappear. Yet despite all the handwringing by the programs’ supporters, are the worst elements of Women’s programs really disappearing or just being renamed? Are the professors different? Has the basic philosophy behind the program changed? Has the curriculum been altered?
In most cases the answer is no. Little has changed but the nomenclature.
While we’d like to cheer and say “Good riddance,” we’re certain such celebration would be premature.

Tuesday, November 17, 2009

Feminist Hatred-A Compendium of: with Commentary by Jeffrey Asher

"The institution of sexual intercourse is anti-feminist"

Ti-Grace Atkinson 1974


"Feminism is the theory, lesbianism is the practice."

Ti-Grace Atkinson1996


"The price of clinging to the enemy [a man] is your life. To enter into a relationship with a man who has divested himself as completely and publicly from the male role as much as possible would still be a risk. But to relate to a man who has done any less is suicide.." "I, personally, have taken the position that I will not appear with any man publicly, where it could possibly be interpreted that we were friends."

Ti-Grace Atkinson, 1974,


"I propose that the phenomenon of love is the psychological pivot in the persecution of women."

Ti-Grace Atkinson in 'Radical Feminism and Love'


"The institution of sexual intercourse is anti-feminist".

Ti-Grace Atkinson, Amazon Odyssey (p. 86)


"(Rape) is nothing more or less than a conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear".

Susan Brownmiller, Against Our Will p.6


"We are taught, encouraged, moulded by and lulled into accepting a range of false notions about the family. As a source of some of our most profound experiences, it continues to be such an integral part of our emotional lives that it appears beyond criticism. Yet hiding from the truth of family life leaves women and children vulnerable."

Canadian Panel on Violence Against Women.


"The male is a domestic animal which, if treated with firmness...can be trained to do most things." -Jilly Cooper, SCUM (Society For Cutting Up Men, started by Valerie Solanas)


"The simple fact is that every woman must be willing to be identified as a lesbian to be fully feminist."

Shelia Cronin, National Organization for Women Times, Jan.1988


"Since marriage constitutes slavery for women, it is clear that the women's movement must concentrate on attacking this institution. Freedom for women cannot be won without the abolition of marriage."

Sheila Cronin, prominent member of NOW


"Men who are unjustly accused of rape can sometimes gain from the experience."

Catherine Comin -Vassar College. Assistant Dean of Students


"Since marriage constitutes slavery for women, it is clear that the Women's Movement must concentrate on attacking this institution. Freedom for women cannot be won without the abolition of marriage."

Sheila Cronin, in Radical Feminism - "Marriage" (1970), Koedt, Levine, and Rapone, eds., HarperCollins, 1973, p. 219)


Women are the only oppressed group in our society that lives in intimate association with their oppressors.

Evelyn Cunningham


"Men are from another planet, sent here by spaceships to copulate with female earthlings and propagate the species—a task for which science has rendered them all but redundant. We need keep only a handful of donors on a sperm farm for that purpose, where they can subsist on pizza and beer and Playboy magazine."

Rose DiManno-Toronto Star, January 11, 1999


"If life is to survive on this planet, there must be a decontamination of the Earth. I think this will be accompanied by an evolutionary process that will result in a drastic reduction of the population of males."

Mary Daly, former Professor at Boston College, 2001.


"How will the family unit be destroyed? ..The demand alone will throw the whole ideology of the family into question, so that women can begin establishing a community of work with each other and we can fight collectively. Women will feel freer to leave their husbands and become economically independent, either through a job or welfare."

Roxanne Dunbar, Female Liberation as a Basis for Social Revolution, New England Free Press, 1974)


"Heterosexual intercourse is the pure, formalized expression of contempt for women's bodies."

Andrea Dworkin


"I want to see a man beaten to a bloody pulp with a high-heel shoved in his mouth, like an apple in the mouth of a pig."

Andrea Dworkin, Ice and Fire, Weidenfeld & Nicholson, 1987


"Under patriarchy, every woman is a victim, past, present and future. Under patriarchy, every woman's daughter is a victim, past, present and future. Under patriarchy, every woman's son is her potential betrayer and also the inevitable rapist or exploiter of another woman."

Andrea Dworkin Liberty, p. 58


"The newest variations on this distressingly ancient theme center on hormones and DNA: men are biologically aggressive; their fetal brains were awash in androgen; their DNA, in order to perpetuate itself, hurls them into murder and rape."

Andrea Dworkin, Letters From a War Zone, Dutton Publishing, 1989, p. 114


"Men are rapists, batterers, plunderers, killers; these same men are religious prophets, poets, heroes, figures of romance, adventure, accomplishment, figures ennobled by tragedy and defeat. Men have claimed the earth, called it 'Her.' Men ruin Her. Men have airplanes, guns, bombs, poisonous gases, weapons so perverse and deadly that they defy any authentically human imagination."

Andrea Dworkin, Pornography: Men Possessing Women, Penguin, 1979)


"Rape is the primary heterosexual model for sexual relating.

Rape is the primary emblem of romantic love.

Rape is the means by which a woman is initiated into her womanhood as it is defined by men.

Andrea Dworkin


"On the Left, on the Right, in the Middle; Authors, statesmen, thieves; so-called humanists and self-declared fascists; the adventurous and the contemplative, in every realm of male expression and action, violence is experienced and articulated as love and freedom."

Andrea Dworkin


"Men renounce whatever they have in common with women so as to experience no commonality with women; and what is left...is one piece of flesh a few inches long, the penis. The penis is the man; the man is human; the penis signifies humanity."

Andrea Dworkin


"Heterosexual intercourse is the pure, formalized expression of contempt for women's bodies."

Andrea Dworkin


"Men, as a group, tend to be abusive, either verbally, sexually or emotionally. There are always the exceptions, but they are few and far between (I am married to one of them). There are different levels of violence and abuse and individual men buy into this system by varying degrees. But the male power structure always remains intact."

Message on FEMISA, responding to a request for arguments that men are unnecessary for a child to grow into mature adulthood.


"All men are rapists and that's all they are"

Marilyn French, Authoress; later, advisoress to Al Gore's Presidential Campaign.


"All patriarchists exalt the home and family as sacred, demanding it remain inviolate from prying eyes. Men want privacy for their violations of women... All women learn in childhood that women as a sex are men's prey."

Marilyn French, The Women's Room, Summit Books, 1977


"The media treat male assaults on women like rape, beating, and murder of wives and female lovers, or male incest with children, as individual aberrations...obscuring the fact that all male violence toward women is part of a concerted campaign."

Marilyn French, The Women's Room, Summit Books, 1977


"My own informal survey of adult women suggests that very few reach the age of twenty-one without suffering some form of male predation--incest, molestation, rape or attempted rape, beatings, and sometimes torture or imprisonment."

Marilyn French, The War Against Women, Ballantine Books, 1992, p. 195)


"My feelings about men are the result of my experience. I have little sympathy for them. Like a Jew just released from Dachau, I watch the handsome young Nazi soldier fall writhing to the ground with a bullet in his stomach and I look briefly and walk on. I don't even need to shrug. I simply don't care. What he was, as a person, I mean, what his shames and yearnings were, simply don't matter."

Marilyn French, Author "The Women's Room"


"The media treat male assaults on women like rape, beating, and murder of wives and female lovers, or male incest with children, as individual aberrations...obscuring the fact that all male violence toward women is part of a concerted campaign."

Marilyn French


"I was, in reality, bred by my parents as my father's concubine... What we take for granted as the stability of family life may well depend on the sexual slavery of our children. What's more, this is a cynical arrangement our institutions have colluded to conceal.".

Sylvia Fraser Journalist


MALE: represents a variant of or deviation from the category of female. The first males were mutants...the male sex represents a degeneration and deformity of the female.

MAN: an obsolete life form... an ordinary creature who needs to be watched...a contradictory baby-man...

From 'A Feminist Dictionary; ed. Kramarae & Triechler, Pandora Press, 1985


"Women have their faults- men have only two: everything they say and everything they do."

Popular Feminist Graffiti


"The proportion of men must be reduced to and maintained at approximately 10% of the human race."

Sally Miller Gearhart, in The Future - If There Is One - Is Female.


"[Men are] freaks of nature... full of queer obsessions about fetishistic activities and fantasy goals."

Germaine Greer, The Whole Woman, Knopf, 1999


I have a great deal of difficulty with the idea of the ideal man. As far as I'm concerned, men are the product of a damaged gene. They pretend to be normal but what they're doing sitting there with benign smiles on their faces is they're manufacturing sperm. They do it all the time. They never stop.

Germain Greer


"If women are to effect a significant amelioration in their condition it seems obvious that they must refuse to marry."

Germaine Greer, The Female Eunuch, McGraw-Hill, 1971, p. 317)


"...men bash women because they enjoy it; they torture women as they might torture an animal or pull the wings off flies."

Germaine Greer, The Whole Woman, Knopf, 1999


"The man regards (woman) as a receptacle into which he has emptied his sperm, a kind of human spittoon."

Germaine Greer, The Female Eunuch, McGraw-Hill, 1971)


"Probably the only place where a man can feel really secure is in a maximum security prison, except for the imminent threat of release."

Germaine Greer


In an interview Germaine Greer (radical feminist, writer) was asked the question, "You were once quoted as saying your idea of the ideal man is a woman with a dick. Are you still that way inclined?" Greer first denied that she had said it, and then replied, "I have a great deal of difficulty with the idea of the ideal man. As far as I'm concerned, men are the product of a damaged gene. They pretend to be normal but what they're doing sitting there with benign smiles on their faces is they're manufacturing sperm. They do it all the time. They never stop. I mean, we women are more reasonable. We pop one follicle every 28 days, whereas they are producing 400 million sperm for each ejaculation, most of which don't take place anywhere near an ovum. I don't know that the ecosphere can tolerate it."

Germaine Greer At a Hilton Hotel literary lunch, promoting her book, The Change-Women, Aging and the Menopause, Knopf, 1992 from a news report dated 11/14/91)


"The nuclear family must be destroyed, and people must find better ways of living together…. Whatever its ultimate meaning, the breakup of families now is an objectively revolutionary process…. No woman should have to deny herself any opportunities because of her special responsibilities to her children…."

Linda Gordon in "Functions of the Family," WOMEN: A Journal of Liberation, Fall, 1969


"And if the professional rapist is to be separated from the average dominant heterosexual (male), it may be mainly a quantitative difference."

Susan Griffin


"I believe that women have a capacity for understanding and compassion which a man structurally does not have. He does not have it not because he cannot have it. He's just incapable of it."

Former US Congresswoman
Barbara Jordan


Clearly you are not yet a free-thinking feminist but rather one of those women who bounce off the male-dominated, male-controlled social structures. Who cares how men feel or what they do or whether they suffer? They have had over 2000 years to dominate and made a complete hash of it. Now it is our turn. My only comment to men is, if you don't like it, bad luck - and if you get in my way I'll run you down.

Letter to the editor, signed: "Liberated Women", Boronia Herald-Sun, Melbourne, Australia - 9 February 1996


"Marriage has existed for the benefit of men and has been a legally sanctioned method of control over women.... Male society has sold us the idea of marriage.... Now we know it is the institution that has failed us and we must work to destroy it.... The end of the institution of marriage is a necessary condition for the liberation of women. Therefore, it is important for us to encourage women to leave their husbands and not to live individually with men."

Nancy Lehmann, Helen Sullinger, Declaration of Feminism, 1971


"Man-hating is everywhere, but everywhere it is twisted and transformed, disguised, tranquilized, and qualified. It coexists, never peacefully, with the love, desire, respect, and need women also feel for men. Always man-hating is shadowed by its milder, more diplomatic and doubtful twin, ambivalence."

Judith Levine


"I feel what they feel: man-hating, that volatile admixture of pity, contempt, disgust, envy, alienation, fear, and rage at men. It is hatred not only for the anonymous man who makes sucking noises on the street, not only for the rapist or the judge who acquits him, but for what the Greeks called philo-aphilos, 'hate in love,' for the men women share their lives with--husbands, lovers, friends, fathers, brothers, sons, coworkers."

Judith Levine, My Enemy, My love


"There are no boundaries between affectionate sex and slavery in (the male) world. Distinctions between pleasure and danger are academic; the dirty-laundrylist of 'sex acts'...includes rape, foot binding, fellatio, intercourse, auto eroticism, incest, anal intercourse, use and production of pornography, cunnilingus, sexual harassment, and murder."

Judith Levine; summarizing comment on the WAS document, (A southern Women's Writing Collective: Women Against Sex.)


"Men's sexuality is mean and violent, and men so powerful that they can 'reach WITHIN women to fuck/construct us from the inside out.' Satan-like, men possess women, making their wicked fantasies and desires women's own. A woman who has sex with a man, therefore, does so against her will, 'even if she does not feel forced.'

Judith Levine


"All men are good for is fucking, and running over with a truck". Statement made by A University of Maine Feminist Administrator, quoted by Richard Dinsmore, who brought a successful civil suit against the University in the amount of a $600,000.1995 settlement Richard had protested the quote; was dismissed thereafter on the grounds of harassment; and responded by bringing suit against the University..


"We can't destroy the inequities between men and women until we destroy marriage."

Robin Morgan.-From Sisterhood Is Powerful, (ed), 1970, p. 537


"I feel that 'man-hating' is an honourable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them."

Robin Morgan.-former president of the National Organization for Women (NOW) and editor of MS magazine


"I claim that rape exists any time sexual intercourse occurs when it has not been initiated by the woman, out of her own genuine affection and desire."

Robin Morgan.


"I claim that rape exists any time sexual intercourse occurs when it has not been initiated by the woman, out of her own genuine affection and desire."

Robin Morgan.


"And let's put one lie to rest for all time: the lie that men are oppressed, too, by sexism--the lie that there can be such a thing as 'men's liberation groups.' Oppression is something that one group of people commits against another group, specifically because of a 'threatening' characteristic shared by the latter group--skin, color, sex or age, etc. The oppressors are indeed FUCKED UP by being masters, but those masters are not OPPRESSED. Any master has the alternative of divesting himself of sexism or racism--the oppressed have no alternative--for they have no power but to fight. In the long run, Women's Liberation will of course free men--but in the short run it's going to cost men a lot of privilege, which no one gives up willingly or easily. Sexism is NOT the fault of women--kill your fathers, not your mothers".

Robin Morgan.


"All sex, even consensual sex between a married couple, is an act of violence perpetrated against a woman."

Catherine MacKinnon


"Feminism, Socialism, and Communism are one in the same, and Socialist/Communist government is the goal of feminism."

Catherine MacKinnon


"You grow up with your father holding you down and covering your mouth so another man can make a horrible searing pain between your legs."

Catherine MacKinnon, Feminism Unmodified: Discourses of Life and Law – Sex and Violence: A Perspective, Harvard University Press, 1987


"All sex, even consensual sex between a married couple, is an act of violence perpetrated against a woman."

Catherine MacKinnon


"Feminism, Socialism, and Communism are one in the same, and Socialist/Communist government is the goal of feminism."

Catherine MacKinnon" Toward a Feminist Theory of the State (First Harvard University Press, 1989), p.10


"In a patriarchal society, all heterosexual intercourse is rape because women, as a group, are not strong enough to give meaningful consent."

Catherine MacKinnon


"You grow up with your father holding you down and covering your mouth so another man can make a horrible searing pain between your legs."

Catherine MacKinnon (Prominent legal feminist scholar)


"When a woman reaches orgasm with a man she is only collaborating with the patriarchal system, eroticizing her own oppression..."

Sheila Jeffreys


FMS stands for: Full of Mostly (Bull) shit; For More Sadism; Felons, Murdereres, Ssumballs; Frequent Molesters Society

From a February 1995 handout at the "Stone Angels" satanic ritual abuse conference in Thunder Bay, Ontario, Canada. The conference was supported financially by the Ontario Government


"Colored people are like human weeds and are to be exterminated."

Margaret Sanger


"The most merciful thing a family can do to one of its infant members is to kill it."

Margaret Sanger, founder of planned parenthood


"To call a man an animal is to flatter him; he's a machine, a walking dildo."

Valerie Solanas, Author of the SCUM Manifesto (SCUM=Society for Cutting Up Men)


"[Males should] "...go off to the nearest friendly suicide center where they will be quickly and painlessly gassed to death."

Valerie Solanas, Author of the SCUM Manifesto (SCUM=Society for Cutting Up Men)

"Life in this society being, at best, an utter bore and no aspect of society being at all relevant to women, there remains to civic-minded, responsible, thrill-seeking females only to overthrow the government, eliminate the money system, institute complete automation, and destroy the male sex."

Valerie Solanas


"The male likes death--it excites him sexually and, already dead inside, he wants to die... The male is, by his very nature, a leech, an emotional parasite and, therefore, not ethically entitled to live, as no one has the right to live at someone else's expense."

Valerie Solanas


'To call a man an animal is to flatter him; he's a machine, a walking dildo."

Valerie
Solanas
Scum Manifesto


"If the classroom situation is very heteropatriarchal--a large beginning class of 50 to 60 students, say, with few feminist students--I am likely to define my task as largely one of recruitment...of persuading students that women are oppressed,"

Professor Joyce Trebilcot of Washington University, as quoted in Who Stole Feminism: How Women Have Betrayed Women.


"Life in this society being, at best, an utter bore and no aspect of society being at all relevant to women, there remains to civic-minded, responsible, thrill-seeking females only to overthrow the government, eliminate the money system, institute complete automation, and destroy the male sex."

Valerie Solanas, SCUM Manifesto (Society for Cutting Up Men.)


"Masculine sexuality involves the oppression of women, competition among men, and fear of homosexuality." "Rape is the end logic of masculine sexuality." "Male sexuality is negative."

Introductory texts for Women's Studies Courses at UCLA including: "More Power than We Want: Masculine Sexuality and Violence" by

Bruce Kokopeli and George Lakey [Cited in TNV]


I wondered if the woman married to a pig had read this ... Did that mean that all over the globe, in all innocence, women were marrying beasts? ... Why are so many men really beasts? "

Jeanette Winterson "Oranges are Not the Only Fruit" 1993, pp.71 -76

(Nazi propaganda referred to Jews as 'pigs,' 'intolerable,' and 'subhuman'. )


Commentary:

"Imagine the response if women's studies classes taught students that minorities are evil [Jews, blacks, Asians, Italians] and then advocated that the path to freedom was segregation, including the refusal to hire minorities or allow any into your home. And imagine the uproar if feminists announced that the root of the world's problems was actually mixed - race sex. All of these rants would be condemned as racism. And this is sexism - just what we are supposed to be fighting. For countless young women, [and men] the feminist movement doesn't only look absurd, it looks hypocritical."

Renée Denfeld: The New Victorians Warner Books Time Warner 1996


This is sexism. This is terror propaganda. This hatred is no different from racism, xenophobia, or religious bigotry. All men and women deserve to be treated with equal respect and dignity in education. Do your part to discourage and end sexism, along with all forms of hatred.


Half of the human race is condemned because it is born male. Some men also express anti-male hatred, just as members of other groups have slandered their own members. All males are thus condemned: your father, grandfathers, brothers, uncles, sons, lovers, friends, classmates, professors, employers, and co-workers.


Replace 'men' with any other group: Jews, Blacks, native peoples, or women, and read those claims aloud to friends. Teachers and students should not tolerate such slanders. 'Patriarchy' theory is a conspiracy theory. Those who call men 'pigs' and 'rapists' are no different from haters who use words like 'bitch', 'nigger', or 'kike'. Some misandrists laugh at violence against men, and others justify offensive violence against men. Would you laugh if someone joked about violence against Asians? ... Arabs? .Homosexuals? Speak out against prejudice. Teachers and students should not tolerate such slanders.

You have the right to complain, whether you are male or female.


Professor (Ret'd) Jeffrey Asher

Ottawa

Thursday, October 29, 2009

A Mangina Journalist makes sport of female on male violence ~ Go ballistic to protect the family jewels

My observations of Mr. Baron's misandry:
|
fromMike Murphy
sender timeSent at 13:44 (GMT-04:00). Current time there: 17:33. ✆
toEBaron@png.canwest.com,
wmoriarty@png.canwest.com,
ERolfsen@png.canwest.com,
KMercer@png.canwest.com
ccJeremy Swanson
date29 October 2009 13:44
subjectGo ballistic to protect the family jewels Liberals make it harder for men to defend themselves BY ETHAN BARON,
mailed-bygmail.com



Ethon:

Re: Go ballistic to protect the family jewels
- Liberals make it harder for men to defend themselves
BY ETHAN BARON, THE PROVINCE
OCTOBER 29, 2009 7:23 AM


You are making light of a vicious assault on a man. Would you do the same had the gender's been reversed. Not likely I do believe. Your editors are far too feminized and sanitized for that. We have copious numbers of manginas working in journalism who are clearly unable to see the double standard they represent when publishing such - whats that word - oh yes - drivel.

Next time you want to seem funny at the expense of another man look in the mirror and ask yourself - would I do this if it were about a female. It is a very simple test.

You are no David Letterman whose squirrel jokes are in far better taste than yours and that's not reaching a high plateau. Just ask his feminist critics or Sarah Palin. I do like Dave, however.

Mike Murphy
Promote Bill C-422 Equal Shared Parenting









Liberals make it harder for men to defend themselves

For men living in Langley, or even just visiting, I offer the same advice I get from my neighbourhood squirrels: Watch your nuts.

It appears a woman randomly assaulted a man in Langley, by kicking him where it counts.

Anthony Clark says he was strolling along 200th Street when a young woman walked up and delivered a powerful blow to his groin with her foot.

The kick exploded his testicle, which had to be surgically removed, Clark says.

His description of the assailant -- young, slim, average height -- doesn't narrow the field enough to be very helpful.

"To say, 'Yeah, beware of all women walking down the street, that would be tough,'" says Langley RCMP Sgt. Don Davidson.

Because the victim didn't report any robbery, and random attacks by women against men are exceedingly rare, RCMP remain puzzled about a motive. The woman may be mentally ill, have an axe to grind against men, or there may be more to the story, Davidson suggests.

For men, I offer the following solution: Armour yourselves.

You have several choices, and one of them is on sale.

For $199.95 US, marked down from $249.95 until Saturday, Tamiami Armor is selling a Level IIIA "ballistic cup." This snazzy little number, made of high-tech ceramic like that used in military flak vests, is fitted into a companion jockstrap.

"It stops all handgun bullets," says a company spokesman, who inexplicably declined to be identified.

Given that we're talking about an attack in the Lower Mainland, where gang-war bullets could potentially fly anywhere at any time, this tactical device would serve a double purpose.

It would protect the family jewels from this female suspect as well as from gangsters' random slugs.

The problem is, you'd soon find your protected package snarled in red tape, as the provincial government is bringing in legislation to outlaw body armour for ordinary citizens -- except by special permit.

Banned will be any "garment or item designed, intended or adapted for the purpose of protecting the body from projectiles discharged from a firearm," the draft legislation says.

Fortunately, less-expensive protection is available, without a permit, at martial-arts equipment stores. At the low end, you can buy a $15 plastic cup with jockstrap, but considering the force of the blow received by Clark, these cups might not be up to the job.

"Being plastic, it's possible you could crack them," says Sam Logan, manager of Golden Arrow Martial Arts in Vancouver.

It makes more sense to spring for the $40 steel cup.

"It's a special order," Logan says.

Clark says RCMP told him constables had heard of three or four similar attacks in Langley.

Davidson says Langley Mounties are not aware of other such incidents.

"They're saying they never told him that kind of thing," Davidson says.

In the meantime, it may make sense to buy some protective gear.

When it comes to safeguarding the important things in life, it's better to err on the side of caution.

Just ask any squirrel.

Friday, August 21, 2009

Divorce law needs updating, but Tory's proposal is not the answer

Antonia Zerbisias (AZ) is at it again. One wonders how someone with such slip shod research is allowed to publish a column in a MSM newspaper. The Trawna Red Star sometimes doesn't demonstrate high journalistic standard as evidenced by their left leaning rants that often cause a truth to suffer an indignity for the sake of ideology. AZ though is in a whole other class of scribblers who use feminist propaganda sites like the Liz library to score points. The scoring though is below the start gate where the truth runs into the "wall" before the marathon begins. We also have some of her propaganda acolytes like Martin Dufresne pompously spewing his vindictive rhetoric against his own gender. He says he's a father which is an interesting concept for Canad's leading male feminist. :) I guess he has to look like he's got his nose in the right spot to get those translation contracts from SOW Canada.

Then we have t
he likes of the infamous man hater Rowan Kelly. See below for their comments. If this is as good as the "feminists for mom having everything after divorce" side gets its a pity. I expect better than that silliness. Thank goodness for loose cannons like her though because it clearly shows the kind of mentality that wants to discriminate against good dads.







Aug 21, 2009 04:30 AM

Comments on this story (47)

One of the great things about Stephen Harper's minority Conservative government is that its hidden agenda isn't really hidden.

Take, for example, last year's Bill C-484, ostensibly all about protecting "unborn children" but definitely not, oh no no no, about limiting women's reproductive choices.

Until, of course, on the eve of the election, when it was killed because the Conservatives didn't want "to reopen the abortion debate." That, months after the bill had passed second reading.

Then there's the pesky women's equality thing.

In 2006, one of the first things the Harpies did was strip the word "equality" from the Status of Women's mandate – as if ensuring women's equality wasn't the ministry's raison d'être.

Then, last year, only after howls of outrage from feminist groups, did they sneak it back in. Not that it made a difference since they had already cut the funding necessary to advocate for equal rights.

Now comes C-422, An Act to Amend the Divorce Act.

It's a private member's bill introduced in June by one of the most socially conservative backbenchers in the government, Saskatoon- Wanuskewin's Maurice Vellacott. He is past co-chair of the Pro-Life Caucus, an advocate of creationism in education, a vocal opponent of gay rights and, lest we forget, so harsh in his criticism of former Conservative-converted-to- Liberal MP Belinda Stronach, that the word "prostitute" came up in his diatribe.

The good news is, private member's bills are rarely passed.

The bad news is, research shows that they influence government policy – and, as the record shows, often reflect party policy.

Just so you know where this is all coming from.

The main aim of C-422 is to automatically award "equal parenting" rights to both parents in a divorce decision because, as research shows, children have better outcomes when both mother and father are (positive) presences in their lives.

In other words, judges should presume that equal parenting is in the "best interests of the child," unless proven otherwise.

Which, at first glance, sounds great. Who can argue with the idea of an engaged, loving and caring father remaining involved in his child's life – and not just as an every other weekend, cheque- writing daddy?

I see the men on my street and in my neighbourhood so very much part of rearing their children, doing much more than manning the barbecue and ferrying them to hockey practice.

But marriages break up.

Many do so amicably enough, with couples working out their parenting responsibilities without dragging armies of lawyers into the courts which, by the way, now award joint custody in almost half the cases.

I also know great fathers who have struggled to maintain their relationships in the face of angry exes, who use the kids as pawns, cut them off from their extended families and worse.

Fortunately, such women are in the minority.

But C-422 will cause more problems than it will solve, say women's and legal groups such as the Quebec Bar Association.

In fact, last month at the annual meeting of the Canadian Bar Association, federal Justice Minister Rob Nicholson was cheered when he hinted that, personally, he wasn't 100 per cent behind the bill.

To outline all the reasons that the bill is flawed, even dangerous to women and children, not to mention potentially costly to the court system, would take the whole page – and I don't have that.

But here's just one example: Among the secondary considerations a judge must take into account is whether there's "family violence committed in the presence of the child." If the abuse occurs behind closed doors, hey, no problem. That despite how research shows that, in half the cases of violence, the battering begins after separation.

Nobody is saying that our divorce laws, last significantly changed in 1986, don't need an overhaul. They do.

But C-422 is not the reform we need.

Not when you consider the source, the context and that Conservative agenda.

Antonia Zerbisias is a Living section columnist. azerbisias@thestar.ca. She blogs at thestar.blogs.com.

what reform is needed?

You said an overhaul is needed, but you didn't say what it should be. Personally, I think the law is already clear enough about men=$$$ and woman=custody.

Submitted by BenC. at 8:11 AM Friday, August 21 2009

God forbid.....

....the reverse discrimination against men ever end....the divorce laws are a weapon wielded by too many women in order to exact financial and psychological revenge on their ex-spouses. Big changes are needed now and this is a start. There could certainly be some changes made to the bill, but its intent and direction are long overdue.

Submitted by Canada for Canadians at 8:50 AM Friday, August 21 2009

What (Amazonian) planet is Zerbisias living on?

She trots out the "abuse" trump card and claims the proposal is "dangerous to women and children" but gives virtually no evidence to support such a contention, except that women's and legal groups are opposed to the plan. Women and lawyers both have an inherent reason to see the status quo continue---let the father gravy train continue to flow! Incidentally, Ms. Zerbisias apparently does not even realize that "joint custody" doesn't even legally exist anymore, rather the "shared custody" defined by the 40% doctrine passed in the Divorce Act of 1997.

Submitted by Suzanne Carlson at 9:55 AM Friday, August 21 2009

Cloaking divorce reform in terms of feminist equality is wrong-headed

Current legislation and judicial practice permit outrageous discrimation against a caring involved father who simply wants to be part of a child's life. After multiple court appearances (and all of the savings earmaked for her university edcuation) just to visit with my daughter, I know this firsthand. I would sooner choke on my tongue than speak well of Harper but in this case, the proposed legislation is spot on.

Submitted by amicusfelix at 10:02 AM Friday, August 21 2009

Keep the myth alive

I wonder why you left out the fact the bill was seconded by *gasp* a LIBERAL WOMAN (MP Raymonde Folco from Laval) and supported by MP's from all parties. I would love to see your explanation of what is wrong with equal and shared parenting. As well, what you think is wrong with the current divorce system. Interestingly, you stated that about half of court outcomes result in joint custody (half results in custody to the mother... around 5% for Dad). Do you understand how much that cost to "win" joint custody? And how long it took? Do you have any idea the financial and emotional toll family law court extracts? Finally, the standard defence against shared parenting, domestic violence, is one of the many biases fathers are fighting against. Can YOU name any law that is designed because someone MAY fit a certain profile? Oh that's right, all Dad's that want joint custody and access are wife-beaters and deadbeats. I get your point now.

Submitted by ReformTheAct at 10:03 AM Friday, August 21 2009

Cause more problems? How?

I'm no fan of the Conservatives but honestly I don't see anything wrong with this proposed law. Antonia, you say there are "dangers" that could take up a whole page, and use an example that from a legal standpoint is a bit of a stretch. Any reasonable judge would rule a man battering his (ex) wife in the next room occured in the presence of a child. I am big fan of yours but this time I'm really surprised/disappointed. The regressive stance here is yours. I note with interest you point out that Bill C-422 is flawed but you offer no viable solution. Instead you're reling on the same-old, same-old knee jerk reactions of special interest groups that think in purely absolute terms and do nothing by try to victimize their entire gender at the expense of the the other.

Submitted by Terry_70 at 10:03 AM Friday, August 21 2009

No Real Surprise here........

the author is against anything giving equal parenting rights to men. she mentions that women who use their children as pawns are in the majority. that is willful ignorance or worse. it is WIDELY known that it does happen. and in more than a few cases. but they are just men in her eyes and it is ok to mess with them in any possible way. C-422 is just the START of what we need. but it would give men one more right and take away a weapon that women frequently use. it would give men in a divorce a leg up and the author absolutely cant stand that. the war is far from over and the pendulum is swinging our way. she may win this battle but the war is already lost. and THATS what is really getting her goat.

Submitted by samuel cogley at 10:09 AM Friday, August 21 2009

its all wrong headed

the divorce laws as they stand today are wrong headed, money cannot compensate for the absence of a dad. and then there is the police and the CAS who see the dad as a devil after divorce, how convenient and avoid acess. and then you have government depertments to harass an already harassed man about payments, when his life has collapsed. its cruel and that is why the institution of marriage is no longer based on trust, infact its fast vanishing thanks to bone headed lawyers and politicians and oh yes how could i forget the womens equality movement and political correctness. well who cares right as the poor kid cannot speak for himself/herself.

Submitted by vik kumar at 10:18 AM Friday, August 21 2009

My daughter wants this for her child, her husband is still too angry and hostile to even talk civilly to her. Shared parenting? Not automatic by any means and definitely not a starting point.

Submitted by suzzi at 10:24 AM Friday, August 21 2009

Wow, I agree with the Harper Government

Equal parenting is absolutely a right and one that needs to be legislated because it is not happening. I am not a right winger and I am not divorced (or a parent for that matter), but kids are used as pawns far too often when separation occurs. The best thing that could ever happen to the average divorcing couple would be to lock them in a room until they finally agree to stop bickering and start raising their kids together. And yes, the bill takes situations of violence into account, so I don't see that being a valid consideration either. I just can't believe I'm approving of something done by someone as vile as Mr. Vellacott!

Submitted by Mr. Monster at 10:32 AM Friday, August 21 2009

Flawed?

I think this Bill needs to passed very soon... not put on the back burner... We need 50/50 custody... We also need mandatory DNA testing at birth. The courts are all big about how they want to maintain the kid's status quo when it comes to lifestyle, Well, the kids status quo was two parents looking after them equally... and it should stay that way unless there is a compelling reason otherwise...This article is a perfect example of why gender bias should NOT be a part of custody agreements.

Submitted by Fantasm at 10:39 AM Friday, August 21 2009

marriage

This is why men over thirty know better than to get married.

Submitted by BenC. at 11:21 AM Friday, August 21 2009


The real truth is....

Feminist groups are against equal parenting for one reason, and one reason only...MONEY...If mom and dad share the child equally, in most cases, the mother will not be entitled to child support. Do not let feminist organizations propped up by LAWYERS destroy families more than they already have. Single mothers abuse children at a higher rate than single fathers. Antonia is not telling the whole truth.

Submitted by MensRightsNow at 11:31 AM Friday, August 21 2009

Pure Propaganda - a disappointment

Typically Antonia's articles make me think even if I disagree with them. This article simply used guilt-by-association (the sponsor of the bill is pro-abortion) and name-calling ("the bill is flawed, even dangerous to women and children"). I wouldn't dream of voting for for Harper but the last line about considering the source and Conservative agenda revolts me - a party I disagree with can have good ideas and I want to be engaged on those ideas. Your example that judges must consider family violence but only, implicitly, violence in the presence of a child is an important observation but the legal argument (turning on interpretation is somewhat unclear) - add to this the next sentence about research into when family violence occurs (which has nothing to do with violence "in the presence of the child" or no) and the only substantive argument you give is weak at best. This is an important issue; please write another article with some substantive arguments instead of partisan smears.

Submitted by 2faraway at 11:41 AM Friday, August 21 2009

Discrimination works both ways

Women are sterotyped as caregivers and men as breadwinners. This hurts women in the workplace and men in custody hearings. Just as we should move to address the inequity in the workplace, we should also do this in the custody area. The numbers don't lie. A woman is about ten times as likely to be awarded solecustody as a man. Allowing more men to be caregivers will help women reach equality in the long run by lessening the stereotypes.

Submitted by Shag Bag at 11:49 AM Friday, August 21 2009

I agree with Antonia

I agree that this bill could be problematic. First of all, the government's intervention in family matters troubles me. And secondly, there are many cases in which joint custory is not an option because it could jeopardize the safety of the mother and the children.

Submitted by herstorian at 11:49 AM Friday, August 21 2009

"Hidden agenda"? For The Sake Of The Children, an "ALL" party document submitted as a blueprint to revamp our outdated divorce laws over 10 years ago, fully supported the concept of rebuttable equal shared parenting. MP Vellacott's private members bill addresses the need for judges to consider family violence during and post separation in deciding best interests of the child. A Nanos Poll in March 2009 showed an overwhelming public and cross party support (in the 75% to 86% range) for Equal Shared Parenting. If Ms. Zerbisais suggests we dismiss "the source, the context and that Conservative agenda" then she must also consider all of our political parties and the public at large as suspect as well. Who's left to govern? Perhaps Ms. Zerbisias can step off her nay saying box and offer something positive to the debate.

Submitted by rocer at 12:06 PM Friday, August 21 2009

Why I support equal parenting

As a woman, a child of divorce who grew up without her dad, a divorced mother of two boys, and a second wife, I am proud to support equal parenting. I support it because children deserve their parents being present and active in their lives. I support it because 'child support' is about more than money, it is physical, emotional, spiritual. I support it because courts need new direction. Our system is based on common law, it is precedent based. The precedent in place is one of maternal primary care. We need to set new precedents. I support it because women deserve the same opportunities as men and deserve the benefits of sharing the responsibilities of child rearing. I support it because the current system is bankrupting families and stealing their wealth, what's more it is stealing children. I support it because it is the logical next step in gender equality. The balance to equality in the workplace is equality in the home. This is not partisan politics Antonia, your bias is showing.

Submitted by Kristin Titus at 12:12 PM Friday, August 21 2009

@HERSTORIAN

See, it's all about the children despite single mothers abusing children, even murdering them and you've been brainwashed to believe that it is men only doing this. It's embarrassing.

Submitted by MensRightsNow at 12:19 PM Friday, August 21 2009

Go Ahead ... Disenfranchise Married Men.

Ever since the one-sided misandrist divorce legislations of the 70's & 80's, marriage has been a death trap for men. Now you are trying to stall the very legislation which would start evening the field. Your article is a very transparent attempt to block reform Ms. Zerbisias. Look at Canada's marriage rates. They have been crashing unstoppably over the last three decades. How can this systematic disenfranchising of men be good for Canadian society over the long run? Being a proud Greek-Canadian, you should know better. Do you know how the Golden Age of Ancient Greece ended? It all came crashing down in the late-Antiquity era when Greek men were similarly disenfranchised and felt they no longer had a stake in the survival of the very society that turned its back on them. Read and learn. History doesn't always repeat, but it sure does RHYME.

Submitted by puma at 12:32 PM Friday, August 21 2009

So if the Divorce Laws favoured men...

would Antonia Zerbisias or others who believe in "equality but only if it benefits me" be raising a stink about adding more equality? I think not. Only in Canada can a child have one mother but many fathers (paying) even if the child isn't their own or was passed on fraudulently by its mother.

Submitted by golfingsteve at 12:37 PM Friday, August 21 2009

Face it Antonia...

...you don't like anything that has to do with Stephen Harper. Hidden agenda? Please - if it was hidden, nobody would know about it. And if somebody did know about it, that person would know the details and spread them around. So...no hidden agenda. Conservative agenda? Funny how the left-wing criticizes PM Harper for straying far from his Conservativer roots and mandate. Please - the Libs did no better. Did you criticize the Liberals' agenda? Did you talk about the Liberals' hidden agenda (adscam, entitlements, gst lie...etc)? No matter what the Harper government or no matter what any man does or suggests, you'll be against it.

Submitted by forevergreen2000 at 12:51 PM Friday, August 21 2009

scrap it

no-fault divorce has been an unmitigated disaster and a benefit only to lawyers.

Submitted by gonzo at 12:52 PM Friday, August 21 2009

You have been scolded by your masters on more than one occasion for lack of research and this isn't even in your blog. "...courts which, by the way, now award joint custody in almost half the cases." Joint custody is awarded in many cases but physical custody goes to mom in over 85% of joint custody awards. Dad is a visitor for two weekends a month if he is lucky. The CBA meeting was last week not last month. As usual you launch your tirades in an ad hominem manner trotting out the beliefs of someone without looking at the merits of the legislation. If you read it you may not have done so for comprehension. You also trot out the canard of DV but it is pretty much equal between genders and females in some cases are the majority of initiators. Moms are by far the majority in the abuse and killing of children in the USA and OZ. I find it interesting when equality for men rears its head you use a shotgun approach to try and shatter the notion.

Submitted by Mike Murphy at 1:23 PM Friday, August 21 2009


Equality?

Is the word equality not a derivitive of the word equal? Hmmmm? Do you not support equality Antonia?...you use that word quite freely. Equal shared parenting...has a nice equal ring to it!

Submitted by MensRightsNow at 1:58 PM Friday, August 21 2009

Partisanship or not!

You are a very leftist oriented individual but then so is feminism as it is a "collective" ideology. Given your partisan attack on Mr. Vellacott and the CPC you may wish to research a report done by a bi-partisan committee of the House and Senate over 10 years ago during the reign of the Liberals. (most of this and last century I believe). It is called "For the Sake of the Children." It is still available on the Parliamentary web site and collecting dust in the Parliamentary Library. It proposed much the same thing as does C-422 but the new legislation looks a little deeper at "The best interest of the Children" mantra and tries to provide a framework for high conflct cases. The simplest solution to high conflict divorce is to award custody to the cooperative parent. Its not rocket science. This is about whats best for the children not an ideology or a political parties doctrine. Children need and want both their parents in their lives. The social outcomes are far more beneficial.

Submitted by Mike Murphy at 2:16 PM Friday, August 21 2009

guys

why do you even bother getting married? you seem to hate women so much, or is that only after they divorce you?I think this article clearly states that while Antonia is for equal parent time she worries about the other points in the bill- the devil is always in the details. Antonia, i think you need to write another article detailing what dangerous stuff is held within the bill.

Submitted by dperogie at 2:26 PM Friday, August 21 2009

Immature

Ms. Zerbisias your style of writing is churlish and immature. Harpies? You sound as bad as some of the people who post such drivel all over these pages. Every child has the right to both parents and fathers have just as much right to their children as mothers do. That's what this bill addresses. It's a first step towards repairing our badly broken family law system. You see, in this country, the family law system was developed by feminists to the benefit of women. Men have few rights when it comes to divorce and custody and women hold all the cards. Men are always assumed to be in the wrong. All claims made by women are assumed to be true. I've heard horror stories or women falsely claiming that they or their children were abused by their estanged husbands and there are never any consequences for making such false claims - even when they result in false arrest and other hardships for the man. Men and women are supposed to be equal yet there is no equality in family law.

Submitted by Mantis at 2:32 PM Friday, August 21 2009

Bill C-422 IS THE ANSWER

I am a sister, aunt, step-mom and second wife, had a Dad, Mom, and Brother. Worst memory was no younger sibling. I support equal parenting. I had two parents, so why in divorce, does the law destroy kids. Both my parents were active with me. They gave up “me” attitude for “us” attitude. As Kristin T wrote “I support it because 'child support' is about more than money, it is physical, emotional, spiritual.” The courts have to change, women want equality, then total equality means 50-50 for the kids. I support it, the courts need new purpose, stop feeding $300.00/hr lawyers on $18.00/hr salaries. The Cleaver society is gone, both work same goal, bring up kids, teach them well, nurture them to be better, today it takes two incomes to keep a home. Men as 4 day a month babysitter, ATM’s no more. Accept gender equality. Children are the equality/balance to keep families in check, parents must be in 50%. Kristin T said “This is not partisan politics Antonia, your bias is showing”

Submitted by Kris Zegota at 2:34 PM Friday, August 21 2009

Good on you Antonia

Seems you got your point across as evident from the vicious neo-con attack dogs. Nothingshows you've been exposed more than attacking the person who spilled the details of a bill they wanted hidden. I suggest you write an even more detailed account of what the bill will do and do more stories on the hidden agenda. Its funny, you'd think they'd be attacking there own party for canceling the stealth anti-abortion bill or returning equality to SWC. They wanna shut you down before this bill gets canned. Keep up the good reporting!

Submitted by T-Roy-To at 2:43 PM Friday, August 21 2009

Two Points

Firstly, by your own admission most divorces end "amicably" as you stated, if thats the case why wouldn't you be behind automatic shared custody if the standard is an amicable separation. Why do you feel the exception (the small percentage of divroces resulting from violence) should be the standard rule? Secondly, Time Magazine just published research indicating that in almost every aspect of life, drugs, education, response to authourity, income, growth, violence, etc .etc. etc. Children from dual parent upbringing consistently out perform those from a single parent household. The only thing you demonstrate in this article is your clear and total bias towards men, and if the comments are any indication you are quite disconnected from the general public. Shame on you and your editor for allowing such dribble to be published. I was old enough to remember my parents divorce, the violence card was raised despite never being proven and ended up being thrown out.

Submitted by foodie4life at 2:58 PM Friday, August 21 2009

@dperogie DUH

I quote Ms. Zerbisias "But C-422 is not the reform we need. Not when you consider the source, the context and that Conservative agenda." So you think she clearly states she's for equal parent time? Hmm...your rationalization causes me to have a conundrum over logic...I must ruminate on it some more. I would advise you that when a man or woman - as you will note there are several in opposition to your columnist - indicate they have a difference of opinion it is not - as they teach you at the local DV shelter - because of hatred of women. The corollary of that is those of you who would deny a child the right to have equal time with fit parents after divorce hate children. Can you see where your kind of logic leads. To a fallacious and unsupported conclusion I suggest. As to ever getting married - well hindsight is 20-20 and many of us - women included - would think twice about it.

Submitted by Mike Murphy at 2:59 PM Friday, August 21 2009

T-Roy-To at 2:43 PM Friday,

Are you living in a dark basement without electricity? Google C-422 and see how hidden it is. Neo Con attack dogs hey - :) How Iggy, who also supports equal shared parenting, as described in his book would be petrified. He doesn't consider himself a neo-con or an attack dog. Do you have any more hyperbole for today or will that be all?

Submitted by Mike Murphy at 3:04 PM Friday, August 21 2009

Bad fathers shouldn't try to hide behind the good ones

I find it a bit repugnant to see the worst of fathers - the ones looking for an out to avoid paying child support, the ones abusive to their partner/children, the ones that haven't done the parenting tasks that Zerbisias generously alludes to - using the image of the committed, equalitarian father to try and push through a law that would put ALL biological parents on an equal footing, regardless of skills, merits or letality, regardless even of who will dothe primary caretaking after divorce. Our children deserve better. Here is a resource on the major problems with C-422: http://www.nawl.ca/ns/en/documents/2009.08-BillC-422brief.pdf I completely concur with it. Nothing should trump the child's best interest, especially when h/se is at risk of continuing violence from a self-estranged parent. By creating new hurdles for divorcing women, C-422 reflects a conservative, equality-hating agenda. And it compromises the safety and welfare of children.

Submitted by MartinDufresne at 3:28 PM Friday, August 21 2009

Excellent Antonia

Good initial expose article, more please!

Submitted by voicefromtherockies at 3:28 PM Friday, August 21 2009

Cheers Antonia,..:-}

Marriage as we know it today is an invention of male thinking to make sure who the sire is,.. most males are possessive and jealous. Let's look back to pre-his-story. Women didn't need anything written to prove who was who,.. who cares? Let's re-write the divorce laws to reflect the best interest of the children, usually that is with the Mother,.. Some "fathers" are dangerous or deranged and need to be kept a safe distance from their progeny. There are some sicko Moms too, I am not sure the psycho ratio, but I think 20 males to one Female would be about right.

Submitted by Rowan Kelly at 3:41 PM Friday, August 21 2009


We need more info re C422 Details

Antonia, I think you need to write the whole page about the concerns & flaws in Bill C422, so people can have a clearer view about this issue. As you said, & so many posters have pointed out - No-one would argue against equal parenting as the being in the best interests of the child... in the majority of cases. BUT - BIG "but" here - this private bill is sponsored by Maurice Vellacott. I know good old Maurice. He is the most reactionary far-Right member of absolutely anyone in Harper's entire party. In fact, Maurice makes Stephen look positively liberal on many things. The man is not taken seriously by any but a very very few really extreme-believing people. SO, there is something going on here with this bill. It cannot be an innocuous as it sounds - not if Maurice is behind it. More info please, Antonia.

Submitted by Canadian Nurse at 3:43 PM Friday, August 21 2009

What?

I liked Antonia when she made Bernie Farber cry, but this article hints that fathers are a danger to their children. It ignores statistics collected by North American child protective agencies and the Canada Health Agency in particular that shows the opposite - the mother is the #1 abuser of her children in terms of physical abuse, neglect and emotional abuse. I also highly doubt that sour vindictive exes who play games with their children's access to their fathers form a "minority". She also ignored new research that shows that time with both parents is critical for a child's well-being - I read about this in The Star a while back. A little research never hurt, Antonia, and I doubt the facts would take up the whole page. Apparently an underhanded shot at men in general didn't either.

Submitted by trimax at 4:23 PM Friday, August 21 2009

Misandry and Myths about Domestic Violence

There have been many studies in the past 10 years that have refuted feminist mythology that men are aggressors and women are victims. Partner violence is nearly equal between genders and is often reciprocal, with women receiving more severe injuries in the most severe cases (very small percentage). If a judge were confronted with a very clear case that a woman (or man) had been physically assaulted and has injuries as evidence then the presumption is easilly rebutted. However, in the majority of cases of partner violence, it is simply a matter of he said / she said. We should be supporting both parents and treating them equally after divorce and providing mediation and services for high-conflict cases. The lawyers don't want mediation, they want all conflicts to be played out in court where they are generously compensated.

Submitted by Denis Pakkala at 5:03 PM Friday, August 21 2009

Both Parents Need Support in Divorce

Supporting both parents to provide “cash and care” to their children after separation means an over-haul of the tax, benefits and child support systems. We need to look at the costs of parenting for each parent, how much they share care and each parent’s income. We need to: 1. see fathers as an INdisposable part of childrens lives 2. when parents separate, make them explain why they can’t both play substantial roles in their children’s lives, rather than make them justify why this should happen. 3. review the tax, benefits and child support systems which are blocking this kind of sharing of care after separation 4. provide proper services including mediation for separated and separating families, especially in high conflict cases. 5. Avoid court whenever possible, because it increases conflict rather than decreases it.

Submitted by Denis Pakkala at 5:10 PM Friday, August 21 2009

@rowan

Yes, men are deranged lunatics that want to harm children, you sound like one of them. Try looking up stats on abuse by mothers and you may have a different perspective. Again, shared parenting excludes abusive situations. Children love their dads too ladies. Sorry about that! Let's deconstruct 30 years of misandry in the family courts by allowing fathers equal access to their children.

Submitted by MensRightsNow at 5:20 PM Friday, August 21 2009

I'm waiting for the 'whole page' part...

What kind of argument is that? Antonia argues that the bill is flawed, dangerous to women and children, but doesn't have enough pages to argue why? Is this article a university paper with a word limit?---or is it that you don't really have a good argument(s)?

Submitted by just_joe at 5:23 PM Friday, August 21 2009

C-422 would tie judges' hands about children's welfare

Deadbeat dads groups have been fuming since the federal administration established decent child support guidelines in 1997. First they tried to use a clause that allows reducing child support when children spend at least 40% of the time with the non-custodial parent. But most of the battling dads do NOT want to do that much work. So the current battle plan is to have custody written out of divorce legislation altogether, to NOT have past/future parenting work taken into account. C-422 would force judges to PRESUME that fathers will be sharing equally and to give them near-total control. Indeed, no disposition in C-422 can force such a real sharing since, as we all know, goodwill and love for one's children cannot be legislated. This lobby has fashioned an out for the fathers that have NOT shared this work and do not intend to. Men would be able to blackmail women and children out of their basic enitlements to support and safety. As a committed sharing father myself, I object.

Submitted by MartinDufresne at 5:43 PM Friday, August 21 2009

Fear mongering

I find the kind of fear mongering that occurs in these articles and some of these comments distasteful. The greatest victimizers of women and children in Canada is not men, but this type of radical feminist diatribe. Ms. Zerbisias and I see she has a posse, would prefer to see women kept in the home 'relegated' to the status of sole-custodial parent. How conducive is sole custody to mom in providing her time and opportunity to pursue additional goals for herself and her children? It is the radical feminist agenda that continues to put women and children, as they seem to be incapable of separating the two, in the status and role of victim. Most of us are too smart for that now. My son's are not perpetrators, but if left to the vices of these characters, they'd be tarred and feathered before they ever had a chance to be one. For shame!

Submitted by Kristin Titus at 5:49 PM Friday, August 21 2009

A word to the wise

MikeMurphy, you may be tipping your hand a little by claiming that Mr. Ignatieff is supportive of Mr. Vellacott's bill, especially on the basis of an ambiguous sentence written six years ago. Your "Fathers4Justice" lobby may be shooting itself in the foot by attempting to lock him in to your extreme anti-mothers rhetoric. Better stick to comic superheroes...;-)

Submitted by MartinDufresne at 5:50 PM Friday, August 21 2009

Like a Red Rag to a Bull

Every time an article appears that gives any mention about women and marriage/divorce, we get all these poor guys out there who obviously need help to resolve their issues around gender and sundry related hurts hurling abuse at the writer. If ever there was an example of a need to cover psychological treatment under public health care, here it is. The hate spewed out here by faceless males - not adult `men' - is chilling.

Submitted by xdirector at 5:51 PM Friday, August 21 2009

Shaming Tactics

Yes xdirector is right. If you have your house taken away, your bank accounts frozen, your assets split, and your future shackled to lifetime alimony ... it must be a psychological condition. It's not real guys, it's all in your head! Oh yes, you are in prison due to alimony arrears, and you are getting raped there, but hey ... it's all psychological!

Submitted by puma at 6:19 PM Friday, August 21 2009