Showing posts with label fathers rights. Show all posts
Showing posts with label fathers rights. Show all posts

Monday, March 1, 2010

Hockey night in Canada ~ or how to make a case for equal rights and ruin Canada even more

This is one of the more important substantive articles on the state of so called human rights in Canada and the couch potato laissez faire state of men.  Note the authors last observation. Men in Canada have no idea how their rights are being removed right under their noses. Not until the wife hands him his divorce papers will he know how second class he is compared to the other gender and all those who are hybrids. Seventy five percent of divorces are initiated by the wife and 90% of them get sole physical custody, child support, spousal support if the judge is so inclined and 50% of everything else. She may have been cheating on him, stealing from him, gone to jail for theft, fraud and forgery, beat the children and emotionally abused them, and even on the rare occasion the dad may have even been raising the children from home while she worked. It doesn't matter because she's got boobs or the other hybrids  have more rights because the judiciary and Human Rights Commissions say so.  The subtlety embedded in what Mr. Warren states is profound.MJM


David 
Warren

Photograph by: The Ottawa Citizen,

David Warren


The Ottawa Citizen

I have sometimes thought it would be diverting to put a hockey team together. This idea is not, in itself, very original, but there are a couple of twists in my proposal that might make it uniquely entertaining. For I should like to have a "politically correct" hockey team.

Not sure, just yet, what league it would play in, but by the time it was assembled, I'm not sure what league would dare to turn it down.

The team I have in mind would consist of a couple of goalies, two defensive lines, three forward lines, for a total of 15 players; plus a coach, an assistant coach, a couple of trainers, a general manager and 43 lawyers. While the ethnicities and sexual orientations of the "invisible majority" off-ice staff wouldn't really matter, I'd go to tireless lengths to be sure the players themselves represented as much "diversity" as it was mathematically possible to pack into just 15 persons.

We'd try to represent every possible skin colour and shading, all major non-European language groups, the least probable national origins, some interesting religious affiliations, the widest possible range of body weights and ages, a selection of common physical disabilities, and as many sexual orientations as we were able to identify through diligent research -- all to be included through combinations of faculties, or absence of faculties, to the exclusion only of white heterosexual males.

And yet for all the extremes, the team would be carefully balanced. For instance, I have in mind six nominal male-type persons, six apparent females, and three unimpeachable transvestites. Though I admit that is a fairly arbitrary balance, and I'd be open to juggling the numbers in other ways.

Now, down to business. I'd certainly want my team to practise, and that's where the trainers would come in: teaching players who might never have put on a pair of skates before -- or might refuse to wear them now -- how to stand up on the ice; how to put on safety-regulation shin pads and visor helmets and so forth. We might call in some publicity and fashion consultants to make sure they all looked very spiffy for the group photographs.

Before we'd ever played a game, I would expect rave affirmative coverage from, say, the Toronto Star, and CBC television. In fact, I would suggest some sort of "countdown" feature to the media, as the team made heroic preparations for its first game. Indeed, I would make cocky declarations about how good we were -- sports journalists seem magnetically attracted to such rhetoric -- and angle for an exhibition match against, say, the NHL All-Stars.

Then the big night. After some initial, cursory protests about who was singing the national anthem, and why, we would take to the ice. All 15 at the same time, including both goalies -- who would be instructed to lean a 4-by-8 sheet of plywood over the goal mouth for additional defensive protection. As well, our cheerleaders -- an amateur chorus from a local feminist support group -- would take up positions around the opposing team's bench, and begin shrieking our team slogans: "Racist! Sexist! Fascist! Homophobe!"

It's at this point I would expect the referees to raise some sort of objection. Not to our cheerleaders, I wouldn't think, they'd be untouchable. Maybe the refs would object to the plywood, maybe to some other unusual equipment, such as the high-powered waterguns slung over the shoulders of our defencepersons, or the fact that our centre was swinging a scythe. But if they whistled us down for "too many 'men' on the ice," we'd have them cold.
Immediately our team of Osgoode Hall's finest -- the complement of lawyers mentioned above -- would swing into action, with human rights complaints against the linesman who blew the first whistle, and our first Charter challenge ready to go to court. For who says the rules of hockey -- which reflect a dark history of cultural and sexual oppression -- should take priority over Canada's most sensitively re-formative constitutional document?

But supposing the game got any further than that, we'd have process servers sweeping down from the end blues with arrears notices for alleged "deadbeat dads"; cops primed with assault charges after the first body-check; hate-crime citations against anyone who laughs; and various other devices to keep our opponents a little off their game.

We'd also be willing to negotiate some arrangements out of court. For instance: we remove the plywood sheet from our goal mouth, if the other side agrees to remove their goalie.
The long and short of it is, that after several years of taxpayer-funded litigation, proceeding remorselessly towards the Supreme Court of Canada -- and no game that lasted more than five minutes -- we would proudly accept the Stanley Cup. And this as our reward for "breaking down the barriers that hold Canadians apart."

Alternatively, and more hopefully, we would find the one issue on which the complacent reclining couch potatoes of our nation would be willing to rise up.

David Warren's column appears Sunday, Wednesday and Saturday.a

Wednesday, December 30, 2009

Barbara Kay: The end of the gender wars

Another fine column by Barbara Kay below. My comments in the thread are as follows:

One of the real signs of the "official" pendulum swinging back toward the middle will be the dismantling of the Official Federal Government apparatchik propaganda machine for legally sanctioning misandry called the Status of Women Canada.  Real Women of Canada in their latest newsletter support this and have shown through research some of the reasons why.  www.realwomenca.com/.../newslnd0901.html

I support it and it would send a clear signal to all the other levels of government with their professional Feminists firmly entrenched as bureaucrats a page has been turned and its time for balance in gender relationships.

I too have seen discernible movement in the pendulum but it is being held back by our own tax dollars at all levels of government.  I find it interesting that SOW Canada gives grants to organizations of professional feminists who cannot earn a living without tax dollars, and they then turn around and use the money to castigate the very government who gave it.  The entrenched Victim oriented feminists in SOW Canada see this as a way to propagandize, through untruths, the so called plight of women and, in turn, justify their existence.


Jason Kenny saw through this on the immigration side by cutting funding now we need to get the Minister responsible for SOW Canada to do likewise.

Those of us in the trenches advocating to get laws changed will eventually endure and we will be persistent. When one sees the imbalances in degrees granted and vast reduction of men in University, the demographics of the Federal Public  and Ontario Public Services (55% female), the teaching profession - in Ontario a 400% imbalance of females in the 20-30 age cohort, (its rare for a boy to have a male teacher in the first 10 years of school and with the disintegration of the family few male role models thanks to social engineering by Family Court Judges), the health profession, 90% sole physical custody to moms, 75% of divorces initiated by females spurred on by your own tax dollars at work in feminist community groups, dads marginalized as visitors - one sees the need for change.

The last census saw for the first time married's as a minority. That is telling and a clear sign the feminists are winning the war and more men are shying away from a potential  lifetime of financial servitude.

Here is a quote from one of them:

"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)

This is very much the state of affairs today.

I am optimistic change will come albeit slowly but it is happening in the MSM. I was shocked to see Wente's article but it did represent a significant event to see another female journalist assist in the uncovering of a feminist lie and crass marketing of their victimhood.MJM



Tuesday, December 29, 2009

Empowerment through education

Best of Luck with this continuing venture from London to Chatham Dave. Your passion for change has and will continue to assistant men and women who are bewildered by the archaic, expensive, dysfunctional, and gender biased Family Law System.  It's major beneficiaries are  lawyers, whose pockets get lined with cash on the backs of our children's financial legacies and keeps incompetent Family Law Judges employed to perform negative social engineering on our children.MJM


Not All Dads are Deadbeats

BOB BOUGHNER

The Daily News


A free educational workshop sponsored by Not All Dads are Deadbeats (NADAD) will take place Tuesday at the Chatham Central Public Library.

Dave Flook of Chatham, founder and president of the organization, stressed it is not just a men's organization - "it's an equal parenting group.''

Flook, who recently moved to Chatham from London to be closer to his daughter, said there is a huge demand in Chatham-Kent for services offered by his group, which is designed to help those affected by divorce and separation.

"We are a community oriented support group for proud parents who have been systematically removed from their children by the Canadian family court system,'' he said.
Flook said Tuesday's hands-on, interactive workshop will be the first of many educational events scheduled throughout 2010.

He said the workshops are focused on providing the practical skills needed to combat court injustice.

"They also offer real world solutions to the growing problems of gender bias in the courts, radical feminist agendas and government and institutional corruption.

"Tuesday's event will be an interactive workshop and participation in the proceedings will be strongly encouraged,'' he said.

A former professor of graphic design at Fanshawe College, Flook is in the process of establishing a web design studio in Chatham.

Flook said he created NADAD to reach out to others who have had their roles as fathers revoked by the state.

"There is no reward for complacency,'' he said. "Our children need us now to fight for them and to ensure they do not become fatherless.''

The workshop takes place from 6 p.m. to 9 p.m. Tuesday at the Chatham library, 120 Queen St., Chatham.


bboughner@chathamdailynews.ca.


Wednesday, December 2, 2009

A Feminist Rant from McGill University ~ OFF THE BOARD: The fight for men's rights

My response to a Feminist rant in the McGill University Newspaper is below the article.MJM







Carolyn Gregoire | Published: 12/1/09


Discrimination against men has, understandably perhaps, never occupied a prominent position on the feminist agenda. Recently, however, the rise of the men's rights movement has led men's rights groups and feminists alike to call issues specific to male identity into question. A recent article on Slate's women-oriented webzine DoubleX entitled "Men's Rights Groups are Becoming Frighteningly Effective" has spurred contentious debate extending beyond the feminist blogosphere as to whether feminism should encompass issues of men's rights.

The article was triggered by the actions of men's activist group RADAR (Respecting Accuracy in Domestic Abuse Reporting) who gathered in Washington this October to lobby against issues such as false allegations of rape and domestic violence, unrecognized domestic violence against men, and child custody rights for divorced fathers.

Many women, and not only those who identify as feminists, are outraged by the measures these groups have taken. Rather than addressing the negative impact that patriarchy and gender stereotypes have on men and calling for change, RADAR chooses instead to undermine the prevalence of rape and domestic violence against women. Relying on hyperbolic claims and sensationalism - suggesting, for instance, that domestic violence laws represent "the largest regression in civil rights since the Jim Crow era" - RADAR succeeded in blocking the passage of several domestic violence bills, such as the Violence Against Women act. It is also worth noting that many of the movement's leaders are themselves accused batterers.

Though issues of men's rights and injustice towards men deserve attention, the anti-feminist approach employed by RADAR and many other men's rights groups in battling these issues is counterproductive and alarmingly reactionary. RADAR's attempt to take funding away from "discriminatory" women's-only shelters, rather than fighting for resources for male victims of domestic violence and sexual harassment, epitomizes this ineffectual methodology.

While it's true that all human rights are men's rights and that history is essentially a men's rights movement, discrimination against men should be a feminist concern because male and female rights are inextricably intertwined. Though a patriarchal society operates for male benefit, societal standards of masculinity are also harmful to men in real ways which deserve to be acknowledged. Rigid definitions of masculinity which narrowly cast men into aggressive, machismo, bread-winning roles are damaging to men, and further, they are damaging to men in ways that are also damaging to women. Following this line of reasoning, many feminists fight for fathers' rights as a means of countering the socially sanctioned notion that nurturer or caregiver must be a female-occupied role. A central objective of the feminist movement is debunking gender stereotypes, even when they apply only to men.

Male victims of sexual harassment, domestic violence, and rape deserve to be recognized and taken seriously, mothers should not be unjustly favoured over fathers in child custody proceedings, and individuals of both genders do not deserve to be systemically limited and harmed by rigid social definitions of masculinity. Feminist concerns and men's rights are not mutually exclusive, and should meet on the common ground of seeking gender equality - the irony of it all is that we're both fighting the same battle. As feminist Gloria Anzaldua suggests, "Men, even more than women, are fettered to gender roles … We need a new masculinity and the new man needs a movement.

While it's true that all human rights are men's rights and that history is essentially a men's rights movement, discrimination against men should be a feminist concern because male and female rights are inextricably intertwined. Though a patriarchal society operates for male benefit, societal standards of masculinity are also harmful to men in real ways which deserve to be acknowledged. Rigid definitions of masculinity which narrowly cast men into aggressive, machismo, bread-winning roles are damaging to men, and further, they are damaging to men in ways that are also damaging to women. Following this line of reasoning, many feminists fight for fathers' rights as a means of countering the socially sanctioned notion that nurturer or caregiver must be a female-occupied role. A central objective of the feminist movement is debunking gender stereotypes, even when they apply only to men.

Male victims of sexual harassment, domestic violence, and rape deserve to be recognized and taken seriously, mothers should not be unjustly favoured over fathers in child custody proceedings, and individuals of both genders do not deserve to be systemically limited and harmed by rigid social definitions of masculinity. Feminist concerns and men's rights are not mutually exclusive, and should meet on the common ground of seeking gender equality - the irony of it all is that we're both fighting the same battle. As feminist Gloria Anzaldua suggests, "Men, even more than women, are fettered to gender roles … We need a new masculinity and the new man needs a movement."

http://www.mcgilltribune.com/home/index.cfm?event=displayArticle&ustory_id=6ae2c632-12be-4a4c-9c7c-842b184b7297

….feminism should encompass issues of men's rights.

Several flavours of feminism have been identified over the years and the movement seems somewhat splintered and indeed incoherent. The current flavour encompassing Victimization is the loudest and most pervasive. This version is narcissistic, propagandist, mendacious, and not entirely adult in its approach. After all if the premise women are always victims at the hands of the patriarchy strikes me that you are mere children in adult bodies requiring the nanny state to be your new “patriarch”. You have simply requested a new protector of a collective sort which is in keeping with the Marxist roots of feminism. In short your narcissistic notion that any flavour of feminism could encompass men’s rights issues is “dreaming” out loud.

Here are a few samples of today’s flavours of Feminism:

Victim Feminism: – the 3rd wave relying on the psycho babble of the Duluth Wheel that all men (patriarchy) are oppressors and all women victims.

Maternalist: A virulent strain of feminist supremacy specializing in custody by moms only and in some cases as a lunatic fringe of moms who lost custody and cannot get over it. These tend to be the ones who will quickly slime anyone, male or female, who disagree with their premise and will spend inordinate amounts of time, using taxpayer resources, to research their foe and create hate websites vilifying these enemies. If you visit their blogs you will understand better why they lost custody.

Lifeboat Feminist: If on a boat and it starts sinking they will rationalize they are more than equal to or greater than men. The men will give up their lives as they always have but the LBF rationalizes someone has to raise the children and they are more qualified. Equality isn't really their goal it is supremacy. They cannot walk the walk but can spin a good yarn to try and talk the talk about equality. This term has its roots from a brave Irish Independence newspaper columnist named Kevin Myers.

Gender Feminist: This appears to be the author’s category. It is clear there are no gender roles with exceptions of course, one of which is related to custody of children, where women are supreme and men incompetent. They are full of contradictions, one of which was just described, and a most confusing breed of female.

Equalist Feminist: The original flavour which few will disagree with.

The rest are Real Women: The vast majority who need no ideology to know they are equal and go through life unfettered by any ideology and some even decide to be stay-at-home parents .

In other words until you get your act together in the feminist movement platitudinous statements about encompassing men’s rights are blather.

“… RADAR succeeded in blocking the passage of several domestic violence bills, such as the Violence Against Women act.”

Last time I checked this regressive and blatantly discriminatory act still exists. Your lack of research is typical, however, of feminist rants which are much adieu about nothing. It is one of the most regressive acts in the modern history of a western democracy. It is built on feminist mendacity some of which is evident in this article based on nothing but supposition such as: “It is also worth noting that many of the movement's leaders are themselves accused batterers. .” Your credibility sits at Zero but then what else is new when we see feminism doing its “dirty work.”

“…the anti-feminist approach employed by RADAR and many other men's rights groups in battling these issues is counterproductive and alarmingly reactionary."

Here is a quote from one of your predecessors and please absorb its meaning in the context of this silly and naive remark of yours.

"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

What was that you were saying about hyperbole?

“RADAR's attempt to take funding away from "discriminatory" women's-only shelters, rather than fighting for resources for male victims”

So the way forward is to hoard your resources even if you recognize a need for someone else needing help. A very feminist approach but not very “motherly” don’t you think. As a movement you need to get your act together and lobby with the men. More resources would likely flow without taking from the other.

“While it's true that all human rights are men's rights and that history is essentially a men's rights movement, discrimination against men should be a feminist concern because male and female rights are inextricably intertwined.”

Next time try not to get overly intellectual and you might actually be understandable. The last 7 words are the only thing that makes sense.

“…patriarchal society operates for male benefit, societal standards of masculinity are also harmful to men in real ways which deserve to be acknowledged”

Oh please! Is this mythical patriarchy that rules all our lives similar to SPECTRE that James Bond used to fight? What in heaven’s name is “societal standards of masculinity” other than inane and effete attempts at pseudo-intellectual babbling.

“Rigid definitions of masculinity which narrowly cast men into aggressive, machismo, bread-winning roles are damaging to men in ways that are also damaging to women.”

You have seen far too many Hollywood movies or been hanging out in too many bars listening to too many narcissistic pick up lines by hormonally induced and imbibing males. Since when is bread winning machismo? What does that make all those women who are earning a living?

“…We need a new masculinity and the new man needs a movement."

Please get over yourself. Masculinity is one of the finest forms of human kind on the face of the earth. It’s the men who run into burning buildings to save lives and give theirs up in the bargain. How quickly we overlook the firefighters and police officers, pretty much exclusively male, who went into the world trade Towers knowing they might not ever get out alive. If you are a victim trapped in a place imperiling your life you may feel better knowing that out there is a burly man who is rushing to find you and if he does he will lift you up over his shoulder and carry you to safety or die trying. I’m paraphrasing a well known Canadian female journalist who witnessed the aftermath of 9/1/1.

It’s the gender who has invented almost everything useful, explored the earth, risked and lost life and limb fighting oppressors (was that the patriarchy) in major wars and men like me who spent 10 years as a stay-at-home father raising two girls from infancy who can put their nurturing capabilities up against any woman in the world.

We need no lessons in masculinity from feminists nor do we necessarily think highly of men whose only apparent way to show their notion of equality is give up their masculinity to declare they are feminists. Feminism is derived from female and I am no female, therefore, I am no feminist.

Having said that I don’t know any man of sound mind who would disagree with the notion both genders are equal and different.

Sunday, November 1, 2009

In OZ ~ Family Court in the dark over violence, says judge Diana Bryant

The discussion is interesting and confusing just like family court. The feminists and maternalists want it both ways. They raise the issue of abuse, often falsely, in their court affidavits but then advise people like Chisholm they didn't raise it because they didn't think any one would listen. Which is it? Is Bryant or Chisholm starting to see through the smokescreen they put up to maintain ownership and possession of children at the expense of loving dads.MJM






Michael Pelly | November 02, 2009

Article from: The Australian

FAMILY Court judges are not getting enough information to make a proper assessment about the risk of violence in divorce proceedings, judge Diana Bryant says.

However, Chief Justice Bryant says it is a "cop-out" for people to say they do not raise violence issues in the belief nothing will happen - or that it will work against them.

It has been a difficult year for the court, with the death of three-year-old Darcey Freeman in January leading to criticism that it is not attuned to the risk of violent parents.

There has also been criticism of the shared parenting laws, which require the court to presume a child's best interests are served by a continuing relationship with both parents.

The Chief Justice said those who shift blame to the Family Court for their troubles should instead look to the litigants when things go wrong.

"We get the cases where no one is going to be particularly happy," she said. "In children's cases, mostly they have got substance-abuse issues, mental-health issues, family violence - significant family violence or child-abuse issues.

"I don't think that things are caused by decisions. I think people's personalities and motivations drive them in the end."

She said violence cases were the most difficult in family law.

"They are all about risk assessment," she said.

Six inquiries into the shared-parenting laws are under way, with former Family Court judge Richard Chisholm likely to report to the government first.

Chief Justice Bryant said she had had "informal discussions" with Professor Chisholm.

"One of the things he has said to us ... is that many people say 'we don't raise these allegations because we don't think anything will happen'.

"But the judges say they do raise them. They are in every affidavit." She described it as "a circular argument which gets you nowhere". "If you don't raise it, you are never going to find out what the result's going to be and so I don't accept that argument," Chief Justice Bryant said.

"I hear it but I think it's a cop-out. If you don't raise it, then you can't expect an outcome."


http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/business/story/0,28124,26291437-17044,00.html

Monday, October 26, 2009

THE BEST Put Down LINE EVER? Major General Peter Cosgrove is an 'Australian treasure!'

This story is priceless and aroused a strong urge within me to have a verbal duel with a feminist. On a Monday morning no less. Unfortunately it is a hoax but a damn good one. http://www.snopes.com/military/reinwald.aspMJM


General Cosgrove was interviewed on the radio recently.

Read his reply to the lady who interviewed him concerning guns and children. Regardless of how you feel about gun laws you've got to love this!

This is one of the bes,t comeback lines of all time. It is a portion of an ABC radio interview between a female broadcaster and General Cosgrove who was about to sponsor a Boy Scout Troop visiting his military Headquarters.



FEMALE INTERVIEWER:

So, General Cosgrove, what things are you going to teach these young boys when they visit your base?


GENERAL COSGROVE:

We're going to teach them climbing, canoeing, archery and shooting.



FEMALE INTERVIEWER:
Shooting! That's a bit irresponsible, isn't it?


GENERAL COSGROVE:

I don't see why, they'll be properly supervised on the rifle range.



FEMALE INTERVIEWER:

Don't you admit that this is a terribly dangerous activity to be teaching children?


GENERAL COSGROVE:

I don't see how. We will be teaching them proper rifle discipline before they even touch a firearm.



FEMALE INTERVIEWER:

But you're equipping them to become violent killers.


GENERAL COSGROVE:

Well, Ma'am, you're equipped to be a prostitute, but you're not one, are you?


The radio cast went silent for 46 seconds and when it returned, the interview was over.