My letter to the editor with respect to the column:Editor - National PostMr. Coren's column was very accurate. I had read Erin Pizzey's family history article in the Mail Online last Wednesday, 23/9/09 and was profoundly touched by her childhood tribulations. She is an extraordinary woman whose career and strength is inspiring to both men and women Mr. Coren's understanding of the systemic problems many men face is helpful and his commentary very accurate. The ecosystem that caters to female victimization has made eunuchs of many men, especially those of the political, legal and judicial classes. One dad spent 47 days in jail for throwing a sock at his wife while she was berating him. He, while throwing this harmful item said metaphorically "put a sock in it." Now to test the lethality of your sock, take it off and throw it at something, even your computer screen, with normal velocity. (Do not throw it if you have been jogging in the rain for 10K it will get the item wet). She called the police and got away with verbal abuse but he was arrested for assault. Where did our judgment go with mandatory arrest policies? This is just one of hundreds upon hundreds of stories, in many cases, based on false allegations, where husbands and dads are criminalized and vilified by the feminist mantra we are all abusers. Remember Tom' Cruises' so called sci-fi movie "Minority Report" about stopping a crime that hasn't yet occurred. With men we are already convicted in certain quarters, especially those mentioned above, well before anything happens. Its got to stop.Mike MurphyGrowing up in Britain in the 1970s it was impossible not to be awareof Erin Pizzey. She was the iconic face of feminism, as she appeared ontelevision seemingly every other night to expose what she saw as theoppression of women. She also founded of one of the first domesticviolence shelters in the world. They were known as battered women’shomes in those days but the nomenclature, as well as the politics, haschanged over the years. So, it seems, has Erin Pizzey.
“I would go so far as to say,” she wrote last week, “that themovement, which proclaimed that all men are potential rapists andbatterers, was based on a lie that, if allowed to flourish, wouldresult in the complete destruction of family life ... Feminism, Irealized, was a lie. Women and men are both capable of extraordinarycruelty. Indeed, the only thing a child really needs — two biologicalparents under one roof — was being undermined by the very ideologywhich claimed to speak up for women’s rights.”
Pizzey seems to have arrived views which run delightfully,diametrically against the very core of contemporary feminism. And it’sdifficult to know which claim will cause the most offence to thewomen’s movement. The battle of assumptions — that all women are merelya step away from abuse — was actually won some time ago. As early asthe 1980s we were told that 50% of all women had been abused by theirmale partners at some point, and to question the statistic implied thatthe critic had something to hide.
The figures are largely inflated, heavily politicized and includewomen who during an argument with their husbands or lovers have beenshouted at. When, by the way, sociologists tried to research the ratesof lesbian abuse and indicated that they appeared to be extremely highthey were told that such work was redundant and the results far toosubjective to be reliable. What is beyond dispute is that women aresometimes abused, that they are seldom as physically strong as men andthat there was far greater acceptance of such base behaviour 40 yearsago than there is now.
It’s a crime. But one that is treated with a particular aggressionand activism by police, lawyers and judges. The mere claim of domesticviolence invariably leads to a man being removed from his home, oftenaway from his children. He is presumed guilty until he can proveotherwise, and if the incident occurs during a break-up or divorce it’sunlikely his spouse is going to suddenly admit that it was a mutualargument and that she called the police out of spite.
A very different scenario from that of a man who is, perhaps,repeatedly slapped, punched or emotionally abused by his wife. It’slikely that he will be too embarrassed to call for help and, even if hedoes, he will not be taken seriously. If the marriage ends he will belucky to see his children one day a week and perhaps every secondweekend. If, though, he misses his sometimes exorbitant supportpayments he will be called a deadbeat by allegedly responsiblepoliticians and probably treated like a career criminal.
The other aspect of Pizzey’s new analysis of feminism will probablycause even more outrage, even though it seems axiomatic and harmless:“two biological parents under one roof.” This is a philosophical warcrime for the new moralists. If we were force-fed the notion that womenwere perennial victims, we were given intravenous doses of the ideathat single-parent families were equal to the traditional variety. It’sjust not true. No child needs a bad father or dysfunctional parents butthis should not be — but frequently is — considered the conventionalnorm to which any alternative is compared.
The genuine choice is, with the exception of orthodox adoption,between two good natural parents and, yes, a broken home. Honestresearch constantly shows that we should aspire to both genders as rolemodels, male and female, to show different but equally valid forms oflove and care, the safety and certainty that there is a physical linkbetween parent and child and the stability, if at all possible, ofbeing raised in a permanent home with mum and dad rather than a daycare with someone else’s mum and dad.
Erin Pizzey has discovered a great deal over the years. Some wouldargue that her conclusions were always obvious, if only we were willingto look.
National Post
Michael Coren is a TV host and author. His website is www.michaelcoren.com.Sep 29 2009 1:31 PM
Many feminists would have it that men are responsible for almost all domestic abuse. Such a fiction is propagated at the expense of the children.
by Mel from Calgary Sep 29 2009
2:09 PM
"The genuine choice is, with the exception of orthodox adoption, between two good natural parents and, yes, a broken home."
There are only so many "orthodox adoption" parents out there and with "natural parents" being human we need plan "B" for when this doesn't happen.
I love Michael Coren clumsy use of code words.
by Sassylassie Sep 29 2009
2:25 PM
Feminism is no longer a relevant cause, the political left cling to their lies and propaganda for government grants and to achieve special status in Academia. Personally I believe it was never about gender equality but gender supremacy by assigning victim status to all women.
Harper drastically cut funding to the mother of all feminist groups SOW and then in the next budget he returned funding to it's orginal levels. Sickening really, millions going to women to do studies on stupid subjects that have no relevance for real women.
by Anonymous66 Sep 29 2009
2:49 PM
In my opinion, Ms. Pizzey should have been challenged a lot more harshly about forgetting that "exception of adoption".
by Dirt farmer Sep 29 2009
2:54 PM
The left likes to keep the lies going in order to destroy the family and lay the ground work to create the new "Soviet" man. It should be more important for society to work on and fix the dysfunctional characteristics of both men and women.
by rossbcan Sep 29 2009
3:01 PM
“that the movement, which proclaimed that all men are potential rapists and batterers, was based on a lie..."
Yes, but the lie is far more pervasive and deadly than this narrow issue.
Easily refuted:
We live in an action precedes consequence reality. Nothing is REAL until an action occurs, spawning a consequence according to the laws of physical reality. This means, that all allegations of fixed "nature" implying "potential to X" to an individual or group is sheer speculation and slander, at a minimum.
This particular lie is a product of a provoked gender war between men and women, initiated by the legal "profession", aided by their partners in crime, the equally corrupt psychiatric and social "science" "professions". They feed and prosper from divorce court conflict, a protection racket by threatening the survival of BOTH spouses. The children are caught in the crossfire, abused collateral damage. When the litigants are impoverished, the legal "profession" loses all interest.
This in turn is a particular aspect of the general methodology of WAR (used most recently against Iraq, Iran now in the target sights):
1) Demonize target group (enemy) using false allegations, speculation regarding "potentialities" equated to reality by fake "experts"
2) Watch public response. When "idea" takes hold that enemy is a threat, get real and initiate aggression, with public "tolerance". Alternatively, aggress in a more subtle manner, evoking a defensive response from the enemy, which is spun as the enemy "initiating aggression"
3) Duke it out. Economic interests profit by feeding BOTH sides of the conflict and prepare to profit by rebuilding.
4) Once force has prevailed and enemy is incapable of organized defense, prey by stealing resources and enslaving the people. Demonize any dissidents as terrorists.
5) Provoke new enemy, start again at (1)
Our far wiser ancestors once stopped this madness and placed us on the path to civilization with the "rule of law" which is:
Sanction those who initiate aggression (and compensate victims) and OBEY:
http://www.cli.gs/RuleOfLawHow do I know this? Our corrupt divorce courts taught me. A fatal tactical error, to attack an enemy while ignorant of their capabilities. What you do not know WILL kill you.
by Rectificatif Sep 29 2009
3:03 PM
Michael, this is an excellent and important article.
BUT: You should have referenced your quotes from Mrs Pizzey. Was this the source?
www.celticsurf.net/.../pizzey.htmlStats now tell us that an entire generation of young men are being disenfranchised and disadvantaged in various ways. The fabric of society, men and women together, is undermined, as natural male roles and masculine postures are ridiculued and stigmatised. Example: Rona Hardware, which has run the most virulent anti-male TV advertising we've ever seen, over and over for the past 6 months. You know the one: the husband who builds a deck inside his living room to avoid talking to his wife.
Canadian men are eunuchs; if they weren't, they'd have closed down Rona inside a month by boycotting it. But no, anti-male theology is undisputed.
Mrs Pizzey helped found the true women's movement in the UK. I hope she can reclaim that movement and help it recover from the lesbian putsch.
Read more:
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/09/29/330834.aspx#comments#ixzz0SW60aJ71 by Sassylassie Sep 29 2009
2:25 PM
Feminism is no longer a relevant cause, the political left cling to their lies and propaganda for government grants and to achieve special status in Academia. Personally I believe it was never about gender equality but gender supremacy by assigning victim status to all women.
Harper drastically cut funding to the mother of all feminist groups SOW and then in the next budget he returned funding to it's orginal levels. Sickening really, millions going to women to do studies on stupid subjects that have no relevance for real women.
by Anonymous66 Sep 29 2009
2:49 PM
In my opinion, Ms. Pizzey should have been challenged a lot more harshly about forgetting that "exception of adoption".
by Dirt farmer Sep 29 2009
2:54 PM
The left likes to keep the lies going in order to destroy the family and lay the ground work to create the new "Soviet" man. It should be more important for society to work on and fix the dysfunctional characteristics of both men and women.
by rossbcan Sep 29 2009
3:01 PM
“that the movement, which proclaimed that all men are potential rapists and batterers, was based on a lie..."
Yes, but the lie is far more pervasive and deadly than this narrow issue.
Easily refuted:
We live in an action precedes consequence reality. Nothing is REAL until an action occurs, spawning a consequence according to the laws of physical reality. This means, that all allegations of fixed "nature" implying "potential to X" to an individual or group is sheer speculation and slander, at a minimum.
This particular lie is a product of a provoked gender war between men and women, initiated by the legal "profession", aided by their partners in crime, the equally corrupt psychiatric and social "science" "professions". They feed and prosper from divorce court conflict, a protection racket by threatening the survival of BOTH spouses. The children are caught in the crossfire, abused collateral damage. When the litigants are impoverished, the legal "profession" loses all interest.
This in turn is a particular aspect of the general methodology of WAR (used most recently against Iraq, Iran now in the target sights):
1) Demonize target group (enemy) using false allegations, speculation regarding "potentialities" equated to reality by fake "experts"
2) Watch public response. When "idea" takes hold that enemy is a threat, get real and initiate aggression, with public "tolerance". Alternatively, aggress in a more subtle manner, evoking a defensive response from the enemy, which is spun as the enemy "initiating aggression"
3) Duke it out. Economic interests profit by feeding BOTH sides of the conflict and prepare to profit by rebuilding.
4) Once force has prevailed and enemy is incapable of organized defense, prey by stealing resources and enslaving the people. Demonize any dissidents as terrorists.
5) Provoke new enemy, start again at (1)
Our far wiser ancestors once stopped this madness and placed us on the path to civilization with the "rule of law" which is:
Sanction those who initiate aggression (and compensate victims) and OBEY:
http://www.cli.gs/RuleOfLawHow do I know this? Our corrupt divorce courts taught me. A fatal tactical error, to attack an enemy while ignorant of their capabilities. What you do not know WILL kill you.
by Rectificatif Sep 29 2009
3:03 PM
Michael, this is an excellent and important article.
BUT: You should have referenced your quotes from Mrs Pizzey. Was this the source?
www.celticsurf.net/.../pizzey.htmlStats now tell us that an entire generation of young men are being disenfranchised and disadvantaged in various ways. The fabric of society, men and women together, is undermined, as natural male roles and masculine postures are ridiculued and stigmatised. Example: Rona Hardware, which has run the most virulent anti-male TV advertising we've ever seen, over and over for the past 6 months. You know the one: the husband who builds a deck inside his living room to avoid talking to his wife.
Canadian men are eunuchs; if they weren't, they'd have closed down Rona inside a month by boycotting it. But no, anti-male theology is undisputed.
Mrs Pizzey helped found the true women's movement in the UK. I hope she can reclaim that movement and help it recover from the lesbian putsch.
by MikeMurphy Sep 29 2009
5:10 PM
I am a researcher and activist dealing with the current flavour of 3rd wave feminism (call it Victim, Lifeboat, or Gender if you like, they are all the same). Mr. Coren has apparently seen the light and had an epiphany which I salute.
I will be launching a HRC against Deb Matthews, Chris Bentley, Premier McQuinty and the local DV shelter in the coming months based on gender discrimination as they offer no services for Battered men. This has changed in Australia, the UK and in California. Its time has come in Ontario and the rest of Canada.
My goal has been for several years to find an equivalent service for men that provides tax supported emergency and reasonable term housing, food, and counselling for an abused man and his children. There is none in Sault Ste. Marie today as I experienced in 2006 when I first called local agencies.
This is unfortunate as I could have used this counselling a very long time ago. Had it been available perhaps it could have saved my marriage and my children a great deal of grief. I will re-commence the completion of my Human Rights Complaint once the decision on my custody battle with the ex is known.
Keep in mind an equal or greater proportion of DV related to sexual assault, robbery, bodily harm, discharging a firearm with intent, criminal negligence causing bodily harm, criminal harassment, and uttering threats, occurs after separation/divorce, not during the marriage. Eight (8)% of major assault and 40% of common assault also occurs after separation. (Stats Canada, 2008 report on Family Violence in Canada).
But look at this chart from a Stats Can Social Survey in 2005 looking at the trends to 2004. (Go here to see chart -
parentalalienationcanada.blogspot.com/.../deb-matthews-feminist-minister-for.html) It clearly shows the rates of spousal violence after separation, shown in blue, are higher by a wide margin.
The social surveys draw information from a much broader sample than police reports and so I would conclude these DV shelters may well be part of a bigger problem that causes a greater degree of conflict after separation. This is not rocket science and it will not be one source but can I point you in a direction. DV shelters, family court judges ( a 9-1 ratio in awarding physical custody to moms), marginalizing men and using them as revenue spigots. An ecosystem designed to feed the female appetite for victimization.
Feminists or their sympathizers working in agencies like the CAS who don't solve problems and purport to know the right "maternal" way to do things, feminist sympathizers at other agencies who receive tax dollars for supervised access and who ostensibly deal with the mental health of children but would rather spend money on lawyers to try and intimidate dads who seek information on their children.
Did I mention many lawyers who say they only have the best interest of children in mind but as soon as your money runs out they are gone. The best interest of the Lawyer and the revenue lining their pockets is all that matters to most of them. Did I also mention that 75% of divorces in Canada are initiated by women! Do you start to get a better image of the deck and how it is stacked.
Also in the report and in my letter to Matthews is the 2006 table 4.1, page 43, from the same Stats Can 2008 report on the most recent spousal homicide numbers for 2006.
Male deaths 22 up from 12 in 2005, 56 Female deaths down 6 from 2005 and the rate per million spouses of 2.6 for men and 6.3 for women.
Turn those numbers around because they are based on 1,000,000 spouses, and as Dr. Don Dutton, PhD, UBC points out, you get 999,997.4 women do not kill their partners and 999,993.7 men do not kill their female partners. Does this warrant $208,000,000.00 for women's issues and not a cent for men.
It is pretty clear what the value of the gender of men is to the Liberal Government of Ontario and they will not even fund prostate cancer tests for men unless he already has symptoms. Women, on the other hand, can get all kinds of tests done free of charge including breast xrays. The patriarchy and feminists in government obviously like "boobs."
As these data include common law spouses where a greater degree of DV and homicide occur. All data available clearly point to the safest place for men, women and children is in a marriage. Yet these shelters are doing exactly the opposite and counselling women to "empower" themselves into single motherhood with all its attendant negative social outcomes, especially for children.
A new paradigm for DV is needed that involves all parties who are affected by it in the family.
Matthews recently decided to maintain the current gender paradigm (ie men are abusers and women victims) and she did this by having some feminist ideologues at the University of Ontario Institutue of Technology write a report confirming this should be government policy. I have asked if this contract was soul sourced in order to determine if the terms of reference were stacked to get the result Matthews want before the report was written. You can read my letter to the Matthews here if you so choose and a tiny part of my research
parentalalienationcanada.blogspot.com/.../deb-matthews-feminist-minister-for.htmlI am told it has the bureaucrats in a tizzy with lots of electronic messaging going on within the "Sisterhood" including the above mentioned academics at UOIT. Many of these self same bureaucrats are "Sisterhood" ideologues as well.
by Denis Pakkala Sep 29 2009
5:17 PM
Thank You Michael Coren for speaking the truth, rather than the politically correct feminist mythology that has slowly destroyed families and eroded the rights of men to being second class citizens.
The left and the right are scared of feminist backlash and have quietly played along with the feminist agenda of blaming men and helping women.
Excellent comments above. Canadian men are eunuchs, especially politicians.
by Rectificatif Sep 29 2009
5:27 PM
Mike Murphy, God bless you.
by teatime25 Sep 29 2009
5:32 PM
Take Back the Night marches are a bunch of phoney-victim-BS too. Interesting note about lesbian abuse Mr. Coren. Of course the feminazi's protect their own and don't want those statistics to be known.
Bigger question: where are all the so-called feminists while women in Islamic countries suffer daily under the oppression of sharia law? That is true subjugation, not the loser-mentality they teach at women's studies courses at universities.
by Rhino Party Whip Sep 29 2009
5:32 PM
Go Mike Murphy!
Sep 29 2009
6:20 PM
MikeMurphy - HRC's are evil, and using them taints the cause you're trying to advance. You have some good points, but it would be more admirable to advance them by the political process than the kangaroo courts.
Sep 29 2009
6:24 PM
@Mike Murphy
HRC's are not about fact, reason or law. The are about the private social "engineering" agendas and profit of those who run them.
The best you can do is further discredit them. But "justice", c'mon.
Ask Ezra
Besides, when the cons get their majority, bybye HRC's.
Yours is a matter of objective law and reparations. Good luck. Opening this can of worms risks a class action far larger than residential schools.
Try to find a "Plan B" that does not involve the agreement (or profit) of those who profit from this.
Sep 29 2009
6:39 PM
Umm,
Yeah, so what happened the night D'Arcy Sheppard was placed in the back of a cruiser on a domestic disturbance call?
Just wondering, cause of all those warrants ya know.
Sep 29 2009
6:43 PM
I did open the first refuge in the world in chiswick London in 1971. I knew that violence in the family was not a gender issue. both my parents were violent and it was my mother who battered me. I said from the very beginning and I warned everyone that my vision was hi-jacked by the emerging feminist movement across the western world. They wanted a just cause and funding so they demonised all men and deified all women. The result has been the distruction of family life and fathers have been made redundant. The reason why now people are suddenly discovering what I have always been saying is that only now fifty years later am I being given a hearing. erin pizzey
Sep 29 2009
6:45 PM
Applaud your efforts, Mike...the imbalance needs to be brought to the forefront.
Teatime...take back the night is less about feminism than it is about how rape of women/children doesn't really get the consequences for the perp that it should in the criminal justice system.
Having agreed with most of what Mike's post was about, and feminism to the side for a moment, I would think that we could all agree that our daughters, mothers, sisters and wives should feel at least as safe as men from the fear of rape. This doesn't in any way shape or form discount the valid argument Mike put forward...it just happens to be a basis of fact. I want the streets as safe as possible for men, women and children. Random violence is not gender specific, I know...but the facts remain that more women and children are raped than men (though male rape absolutely does happen.)
Let's not confuse or equate feminism with wanting equal measures of safety for those more suceptible physically to violence.
Sep 29 2009
6:57 PM
by Anonymous66 Sep 29 2009
6:20 PM
MikeMurphy - HRC's are evil, and using them taints the cause you're trying to advance. You have some good points, but it would be more admirable to advance them by the political process than the kangaroo courts.
____________________________
You must be new to the game. We have been trying with the political process for over 20 years. A good general when waging a battle will use any means that appear to move his strategy forward. Sun Tzu has said many wise things and this is but one.
"It is essential to seek out enemy agents who have come to conduct espionage against you and to bribe them to serve you. Give them instructions and care for them. Thus doubled agents are recruited and used."
One can look at HRC's as the enemy but they are ostensibly there for all sides. If they do not take up the issue then you can be assured they are as evil as many state. That, in and of itself, will be more ammunition to eliminate them.
One must and cannot ignore agents of change simply because they have served a purpose that does not suit another's viewpoint or agenda. To ignore any and all mechanisms to achieve a strategic goal is to accept defeat. You are seeing one of my tactics but you do not know the overall strategy. I believe that at times one must use the system in place, however distasteful, to change it.
Always keep in mind when in battle, and this is indeed a battle, to look at all your options. If you do not and the enemy sees it you will be thwarted and they will take advantage of it.
The feminists have a ample resources from your pocket and mine courtesy of many levels of government from municipal to federal. We do not.
Sep 29 2009
7:05 PM
Congratulations to Michael Coren. No doubt, the publicly-funded, United Way Campaign- supported thriving Canadian women’s groups and feminist organisations will mobilise their network of “volunteers” to target Mr. Coren as misogynist, for anyone who disagrees with their prejudices and stereotypes, is a misogynist. Meanwhile, the feminists at Statistics Canada will soon come out with their misleading: report on: “Family Violence in Canada” for 2009 again reporting only half of the domestic violence reality in Canada, as well as perpetuating the stereotype of women=poor victims, and men=violent abuser/ bad. A report which includes, as an actual act of violence against women, accusations made by women which are later found to be unfounded claims and/or mere vindictive fabrications. A report which relies on “Data Sources” such as biased women’s organisations and shelters, with not one men’s organisation or men’s abuse shelter consulted nor involved in the data gathering (since the constructed prejudice is that men do not need such services!). Thank you Mr. Coren, for your courage in addressing a reality that Canadians have been conditioned (for over 34 years) never to question nor challenge.
Sep 29 2009
7:13 PM
My Plan B:
http://www.cli.gs/FamilyCourt
When aggressed against, basic choice is FIGHT or FLIGHT. When children are involved, FLIGHT is morally unacceptable. If you do, you bear full moral responsibility for what happens to them. That leaves FIGHT.
The problem is, the FIGHT is moderated and orchestrated by the legal "profession". Why on earth would they allow it to be resolved before impoverishment of the most prosperous spouse?
It is a TRAP (moral hazard of misdefined marriage), laid by "no fault" divorce which is really a license for one spouse to prey on the other during and after marriage.
Lawyers are the snake in the garden, promising entitlements and irresponsibility for those who initiate divorce under the impression they can have their spouses prosperity, without said spouse.
Sep 29 2009
7:18 PM
Hunter 902 This isn't about ignoring violence. Its about crushing an ideology that promotes violence as a one way unidirectional process - from male to female.
I have 4 daughters who are pretty independent, self sufficient, traditional in many ways, and I would want the two youngest to train in martial arts (they are reluctant so far) to give them a greater degree of self confidence. They are strong girls regardless.
Violence against a weaker person is wrong no matter who carries it out. Keep in mind too Lesbian violence in partnerships is greater than in hetero relationships. In a case in Florida not that long ago the one female partner stabbed the other a total of 222 times "Carol Anne Burger killed her former lover by stabbing her 222 times with a Phillips-head screwdriver and then took pains to hide her crime, police said Wednesday." This was in Boynton Beach Florida in October, 2008. parentalalienationcanada.blogspot.com/2008_10_30_archive.html
We may see more of this violence go public in jurisdictions allowing same sex marriage because they will now have to go through the same painful and adversarial legal process the rest of us do. The latter getting changed is also part of a longer term strategy.
Sep 29 2009
7:39 PM
Gay on gay lover spats are often the worst kind of violence. Ask any ER nurse. Multiple stab wounds are common when homo's have a tiff.
Sep 29 2009
7:56 PM
You go Mike, the CHRC is suppose to protect people from Human Rights Violation, sic, not just violations against females as a protected group. It's time the CHRC provided services for all Canadians and that includes the discrimination of men. Go get them. It's discrimination to deny men access to domestic abuse shelters, it's discrimination to deny men access to community violence case workers the list of services denied men is long.
Mike I highly recommend you encourage your daughters to take self defense classes, they are much more concentrated towards stopping an assailant.
Sep 29 2009
8:01 PM
Mike,
That was exactly my point - to teatime...
Your earlier post hit a lot of major points that should be on everyone's radar, then came teatime's post.
Take Back the night is all about promoting safety. It still takes nothing away from your articulate viewpoint or merit in its content. Going forward, I'm sure you'll be gaining more support than you bargained for!
Sep 29 2009
8:15 PM
Murphy is correct to bother the HRC on this if he legitimately feels that his human rights have been violated. It forces the hrc to reveal its biological biases.
But, big butt, don't let the hrc bureaucracy silence you while they pee all over the case for 18 months. You must be aggressive and seek other means.
Other than that, we yearn for a political party, or at the least, a _group_, ready to defend fathers and the male population. Can Sterility be reversed?
Gentlemen, you put up with anything for Sex and Silence.
Sep 29 2009
11:43 PM
I applaud Mike Murphy's efforts to raise awareness of Equal Rights issues.
In the past 10 years there has been a rapidly growing field of credible peer reviewed research and professional support for treating domestic violence without gender bias.
Domestic violence is quickly becoming a big topic of debate. Any and all public awareness of these Equal rights issues is worth it.
Sep 30 2009
1:00 AM
Feminism is the only political movement that is directly funded by the Canadian government, with your tax dollars. I wish the Canadian people understood how dangerous it is to publicly fund this political ideology.
We do understand the danger when it comes to traditional political parties, but feminism, paternalistic attitudes toward women, and pandering for the woman's vote have led us to a place where we can't question feminist dogma, even when we know it's false. It's a crying shame that what started as an equality movement has gone so wrong, and become a movement to get power and privilege. Millions of people have been victimized by feminism, including men, women, and children, without anyone in authority either recognizing it or daring to speak up about it.
The world is improved by Michael Coren's recognition that the "man bad/woman good" approach to reality is dangerous to children. Media, politicians, academia, "helping" professionals, and law bureaucrats have all used bent reasoning and bent research for decades now to promote irrational fear and loathing of men. I hope Coren's conversion is an indicator of change among the nation's opinion leaders.
We use radical feminist reasoning by default to examine every social issue, even though most women long ago repudiated it as an extremist view. We have persuaded married people that they don't have an obligation to stay together and work things out between them. We have fooled ourselves about childrens' actual parenting needs, which include secure dependence on both parents. We have frightened ourselves into treating every father in a family breakup as if he were a danger to the rest of the family either physically or psychologically, when he is actually the most powerful safety factor for the ordinary family, even those threatened with divorce.
All of this foolishness causes untold grief for millions of children that we claim to care about, and millions of women that we definitely do care about (and who don't divorce as wealthy and happy as they're led to expect), and millions of men and boys that we should care about but don't.
It's long past time to wise up, but we're so shot through and saturated with destructive myths that it is going to take a long, hard, conscious effort to recognize all of the hate and fear that we have built into virtually every social system we have. That will put us half way to rooting out our hateful habits.
-Eric Tarkington
Sep 30 2009
8:20 AM
Laws and policies that marginalize and criminalize divorced fathers won't help women and certainly won't help children. In fact, they are stupidly, viciously and dangerously wrong. No one is more dangerous than a man with nothing to lose.
(For the record, I'm neither divorced nor a father.)
