Thursday, December 20, 2007

Misandry Sells

People say that sex sells, well in our postmodern world there is one other strategy that advertisers use with impunity, and that is Misandry.

There is nothing more amusing than to watch a man be humiliated, hurt or otherwise degraded....right.......but if a women was portrayed in the same manner oh my god, it would be seen as an utter outrage.

The image above is from a t-shirt designed for girls. People magazine ran a story on the T-shirt, opening with a quote from a then 10 year-old girl, "I want to make boys feel bad because it's fun."[1]

Click on this link to see a you tube video by themanonthestreet called Breaking the Lies- aint it funny -

If you see any advertisements in Australia that you find offensive or discriminatory against men please contact the Advertising Standards Bureau of Australia.

Breaking The Lies 1 - The Gentler Sex Offender

The image on the left is a picture of Debbie Lafave who was convicted of having sex with a minor (14yr old boy) but received no prison time. Compare this sentence to that handed out to male teachers who commit the same crime.

Peter Zhorab on his website the NZ Equality Education Foundation notes that "In New Zealand, the Crimes Act 1961 was amended in 2004 to make sexual abuse by females a crime -- previously, it had not been a crime, so it is not surprising that it did not crop up in the media! This (previous) double standard and chivalry towards women is similar to what happened in 19th Century Britain, where Queen Victoria blocked the passing of a law which would have criminalised lesbianism -- because she could not believe it existed!"

Thus it may be said that our society would prefer not to believe that women can be perpetrators of sexual abuse, but just as the sexual abuse of females was obscured by social processes in the past, in the same way today the crimes of females are obscured by our rose coloured glasses.

Click on the link below to watch a you tube video entitled - Breaking the Lies 1 - The Gentler Sex Offender.

Fatherhood 2.0

Fatherhood 2.0 - Time Magazine - 4th October 2007
By Lisa Takeuchi Cullen and Lev Grossman

Does being more of a father make you less
of a man? To a group of committed
assembled one night in a New Jersey diner,
the answer is obvious. Sort

Paul Haley, 38, a father of two, says women look at him when
he walks
down the street with his kids. "I think it's admiration,"
he says. Adam
Wolff, also 38 - with two kids and one on the
way - ponders what it means
to be a man. "Is my man-ness
about being the breadwinner or being a good
father to my kids
or something else?" Michael Gerber, 36, father of a
7-month-old, asks, "Do you mean, Do we feel whipped?"

"I'm probably a little whipped," shrugs Lee Roberts, 45. He's
a part-time
copy editor, married to a full-time journalist, who
has stayed home for
nine years to raise their two children.
"There are definitely some guys who
look at me and think,
'What's up with him?' Do I care? Well, I guess I do a
because I just mentioned it," he says. Haley speaks up to
him: "Kids remember, man. All that matters is that
you're there. Being
there is being a man."

But what does it mean, exactly, to be a man these days?
Once upon a
Darwinian time, a man was the one spearing
the woolly mammoth. And it
wasn't so long ago that a man
was that strong and silent fellow over there
at the bar with the
dry martini or a cold can of beer - a hardworking guy
in a gray
flannel suit or blue-collar work shirt. He sired children, yes,
he drew the line at diapering them. He didn't know what to
expect when
his wife was expecting, he didn't review bottle
warmers on his daddy blog,
and he most certainly didn't
participate in little-girl tea parties.
Today's dads plead
guilty to all of the above - so what does that make them?

As we fuss and fight over the trials and dilemmas of American
mothers, a
quiet revolution is occurring in fatherhood. "Men
today are far more
involved with their families than they
have been at virtually any other
time in the last century,"
says Michael Kimmel, author of Manhood in
A Cultural History. In the late 1970s, sociologists at the
University of Michigan found that the average dad spent
about a third as
much time with his kids as the average
mom did. By 2000, that was up to
three-fourths. The
number of stay-at-home fathers has tripled in the past

10 years. The Census counts less than 200,000, but
those studying the
phenomenon say it's probably 10
times that number. Fathers' style of
parenting has changed
too. Men hug their kids more, help with homework
tell kids they love them more. Or, as sociologist Scott
Coltrane of
the University of California, Riverside, says,
"Fathers are beginning to
look more like mothers."

Many dads are challenging old definitions of manliness.
"Masculinity has
traditionally been associated with work
and work-related success, with
competition, power,
prestige, dominance over women, restrictive
- that's a big one, " says Aaron Rochlen, an associate
professor of psychology at the University of Texas who
studies fatherhood
and masculinity. "But a good parent
needs to be expressive, patient,
emotional, not money
oriented." Though many fathers still cleave to the old

archetype, Rochlen's study finds that those who don't
are happier. Other
research shows that fathers who stop
being men of the old mold have
better-adjusted children,
better marriages and better work lives - better
and mental health, even. "Basically," says Rochlen,
is bad for you."

So are sugar doughnuts and beer bongs, and men hate to let
go of those too.
Women forced the revolution by staging one
of their own: in the 1970s they
began storming into the
workforce, making it harder for men to shirk child
What's more, they showed their sons that it's possible to
both work
and parent. Economic forces were at work as well:
for the entire 20th
century, every successive generation of
American men could expect to do
better financially than
their dads--that is, until Generation X. According
to a study
by the Pew CharitableTrusts, the median income for a man
in his
30s in 2004 was12% lower than it was in 1974, once
adjusted for inflation.
Men were forced to relinquish sole-
breadwinner status for their households
to stay afloat.

But how to forge a new idea of manhood for this brave new
two-income world?
Hollywood hasn't been much help. From
Michael Keaton in the 1983 movie Mr.
Mom to Adam Sandler
in Big Daddy (1999) to Eddie Murphy in Daddy Day Care

(2003), the sight of a man caught in the act of parenting has
been a
reliable laugh getter - always a good indicator of what
the culture
considers uncomfortable material. For every Pursuit
of Happyness, there's a
movie like this summer's Knocked Up,
which plays not so much as a tribute
to fatherhood as an effort
by men to convince themselves that fatherhood is
all right - and
the movie's happy ending is the least plausible thing about
One show at least managed to capture the tension: What were
those seven
seasons of The Sopranos about if not a man
fighting to reconcile the tender
pangs of a caring, new-style
father with the old-school masculine ideals of
violence and
stoicism - not to mention the psychological damage wreaked
him by his own old-school father?

Society hasn't made it easy for newly evolved dads to feel manly either. In
Rochlen's study of stay-at-home dads, those who scored low on measures of
traditional masculinity professed higher degrees of happiness in their
roles - as well as in their marriages, with their children and with their
health. But even they worried about how the rest of the world viewed their
choice - with some reason. "There's definitely a stigma out there," says
Rochlen. "The dads tell stories about mothers on the playground looking at
them like they're child molesters or losers."

Ironically, dads who take on parenting roles once considered emasculating
may simply be responding to nature. Studies have shown that men experience
hormonal shifts during their female partner's pregnancy. A man's
testosterone level drops after settling down to marriage and family,
perhaps in preparation for parenthood, as the male hormone is thought to be
incompatible with nurturing behavior. In one study, for example, men with
lower amounts of testosterone were willing to hold baby dolls for a longer
period of time than those with a higher count. In another, the very act of
holding dolls lowered testosterone.

More evidence of nature's intent to design men as active parents might be
seen in the effects of involved fathering on children. Given the
politically charged debates over same-sex unions and single parenting, it
is perhaps not surprising that the richest area in the nascent field of
fatherhood research is in the results of fathers' absence. David Popenoe of
Rutgers University has pointed to increased rates of juvenile delinquency,
drug abuse and other problems among children raised without a male parent
present. Research on the unique skills men bring to parenting is sparse but
intriguing. Eleanor Maccoby of Stanford University has found that fathers
are less likely than mothers to modify their language when speaking to
their children, thus challenging their kids to expand vocabulary and
cognitive skills. Fathers also tend to enforce rules more strictly and
systematically in reaction to children's wrongdoing, according to
educational psychologist Carol Gilligan. "Having a father isn't magic,"
says Armin Brott, author of seven books about fatherhood, "but it really
does make a difference for the kids."

When men take on nontraditional roles in the home and family, it also makes
a difference to the marriage. Coltrane of UC Riverside and John Gottman at
the University of Washington found in separate studies that when men
contribute to domestic labor (which is part and parcel of parenting), women
interpret it as a sign of caring, experience less stress and are more
likely to find themselves in the mood for sex. This is not to say that more
involved fathering has erased marital tensions or that it hasn't introduced
new ones. Dads admit they get fussed over for things moms do every day.
"Sometimes you're treated like a dog walking on its hind legs - 'Oh, look,
he can do laundry!'" says Jim O'Kane, 47, a father of two in Blackstone,
Mass. And some women resent ceding their role as top parent. When her
daughter fell down at a birthday party, Amy Vachon, 44, of Watertown,
Mass., recalls that the girl ran crying all the way across the room - to
her husband Marc. "I admit it hurt at the time," she says, "mostly because
I wondered what everyone thought. There's such a high standard in society
for the good mother."

It's a slippery slope: a recent Pew survey found that increasingly, parents
rank their relationships with their kids as more important than their
relationship with their spouse. Just as interesting, they rank their job
dead last. That most masculine of traits - the ability to go out into the
world and bring home a buck - is receding in importance for the men of
Generation X. Men's rates of labor-force participation have dropped from
just above 90% in 1970 to just above 80% in 2005. Almost a third of young
fathers (32%) say they dedicate more time to their children, while 28% say
they devote more time to their jobs.

Big employers are beginning to catch on. Deloitte & Touche,
PricewaterhouseCoopers, Xerox and IBM are urging family-friendly benefits
for their male employees and touting them to male recruits. California
recently became the first state to guarantee paid time off for new dads.
But the U.S. still lags far behind other countries: only 12% of U.S.
corporations offer paid leave for fathers of new babies (the U.S. Family
and Medical Leave Act enables workers in large companies to take up to 12
weeks off, but that time is unpaid), while dads in 65 other countries are
guaranteed paid paternity or parental leave; 31 countries offer 14 weeks of
it or more. At companies that offer and encourage paternity leave,
participation is high. KPMG reports that 80% of eligible workers have taken
paternity leave since it was first offered in 2002. Still, more than half
of working men say they would not take paternity leave even if it was
offered, most saying they could not afford it, others fearing it would harm
their careers--the same complaints long made by working women.

Today's fathers aren't the men their own fathers were but only if you
insist that the nature of masculinity doesn't change - that it's a
biological fact and not a mutable cultural construct. The new fathers are
creating a new ideal of masculinity. It's not as Mad Men cool, but it is
healthier. "The emerging and evolving norms of fatherhood and masculinity
challenge men to be a different kind of guy," says Rochlen. "But on the
positive side, it gives them new opportunity to embrace and enact these
dimensions that are good for them and good for their families." It's even
good for their emotional health. Coltrane says fatherhood is proving a
"safe pathway" for men to develop and explore their nurturing side. "It's
not considered wimpy or gay to hug your daughter," he adds. That's
something we can all embrace.

Sunday, December 16, 2007

Lies, Damned Lies, and DV Statistics

RADAR Release: December 16, 2007

Two weeks ago the Boston Herald ran an inflammatory story claiming "by New Year's Eve 57 people will have died this year in Massachusetts because of domestic violence - a toll not seen in 15 years."

The death toll information was compiled by the Massachusetts Coalition Against Sexual Assault and Domestic Violence, a.k.a. Jane Doe Inc. The spokeswoman for Jane Doe Inc. declared the situation a "crisis" and predictably called for more funding. This flawed article was the focus of RADAR's December 12 Alert.

This past week the Boston Globe ran a copy-cat story quoting a Jane Doe Inc. spokeswoman who made the same claim:

But the Jane Doe spokeswoman neglected to mention one critical fact: Jane Doe Inc. started counting domestic violence homicides differently in 2006 -- see

Jane Doe Inc's projection of 57 "domestic-violence-related" deaths by year end is based on the 42 deaths they'd counted under their new rules as of September 21, 2007. Among the deaths Jane Doe Inc. included were 3 people killed in Florida who had once lived in Massachusetts as well as 9 perpetrators who committed suicide.

So the Boston Globe article erroneously reports, "Over the past two years, the number of domestic violence homicides has almost tripled, from 15 in 2005." But obviously you can't compare numbers based on different counting methods. By using their new counting method, Jane Doe Inc. has artificially inflated the count by 40% over what it would have been using the methods in effect in 2005.

There's more to the disinformation.

Based on figures published in the Globe's annual Dec. 31 "In Memoriam" editorials, the number of DV-related deaths in Massachusetts fluctuates dramatically from year to year. These fluctuations are unrelated to changes in funding. Although there were 6 fewer DV-related deaths in Mass. in 1998 when Violence Against Women Act funding jumped by 63%, maintaining the funding at the newly increased level didn't prevent 12 additional deaths the following year.

And when Federal funding dropped by 10% in 2001 due to across the board budget cuts, the number of DV-related deaths in Mass. decreased rather than increased as compared to the previous year. (See for the Congressional Research Service summary of VAWA fund allocations.)

The following graph shows the death counts given in the Globe's "In Memoriam" editorials. In some years the number has dropped as low as 14, while the number in the year before or after is double that. The 2007 count fits that same general pattern.

Even one death is one too many. But there has not been a threefold increase, as Jane Doe Inc., is claiming.

The conclusion is clear: Jane Doe Inc. is playing fast and loose with the numbers to create a crisis atmosphere and pressure legislators to enact more DV laws.

Please contact the Globe and politely inform them that the projected threefold increase in DV-related deaths is based on a flawed apples-to-oranges comparison designed to sway Massachusetts lawmakers:

* Call the City Editor at 617-929-3100 and request the Globe to run a correction.
* Send an email to the letters editor at

Please also send a copy of your email to RADAR at

Date of RADAR Release: December 16, 2007

Want to improve the chance that they'll pay attention to your letter? Click here.

R.A.D.A.R. – Respecting Accuracy in Domestic Abuse Reporting – is a non-profit, non-partisan organization of men and women working to improve the effectiveness of our nation's approach to solving domestic violence.

Friday, December 14, 2007

Abused women who murder get pardons

Some abused women get pardons
Governor also grants clemency
By Chris Kenning The Courier-Journal (Kentucky) 10 December 2007

Gov. Ernie Fletcher granted clemency, pardons or early parole
yesterday to 21 Kentucky women convicted of killing or
trying to kill men
they say abused them.

Fletcher also said additional pardons will be made today.

The women said the legal system failed to take the abuse into
account in
killings they viewed as self-defense. Some argued
they took ill-advised
pleas, faced unjust verdicts or had done
enough time in prison.

"Our legal system is the best in the world, but it is not perfect,"
Fletcher said in a statement. "Upon individual review of these
cases by
myself and by our General Counsel, I have decided
to grant relief to these
women based on their individual

Nine women were granted full pardons. Of those, eight
previously had their
sentences commuted - Sue Melton,
Mary Ann Long, Martina Stillwell, Tracie
English Gomez,
Sherry Pollard, Margie Marcum, Paula Richey and Karen

They had argued that their records made it hard to get jobs
and participate
in school activities.

"I'm ecstatic, and I couldn't be more thankful that somebody
listened, Gomez, now 34, said in a phone interview
yesterdayevening. She
was convicted of manslaughter for
killing her father, William C. English,
when she was 16 after
a string of abuse and neglect allegations.

Also pardoned was Jaqulynn Green, serving 18 years in
prison for the 2000
death of her child that her abusive husband
later said was his fault only.

Restoration of rights denied to felons, such as the right to vote,
granted to Montilla Seewright, Johnetta McNair and
Frances Alvey. They also
had previously had their sentences

In addition, Jilletta Turner, Stacy Lyons, Teresa Fay Vincent,
Johnson and Gabrielle Cecil had their current prison
sentences commuted
because of the role abuse played in their

Vincent, for example, is serving a 25-year sentence for the
1998 shooting
death of her ex-husband, Bryan Hitchcock,
in Louisville.

Vincent, 60, said last week that she moved six times to escape
a man who
she said for 20 years had hit her in the face with a
baseball bat, stabbed
her with a knife, beat her children and
choked her until she passed out.

Less than a week before the shooting, he raped her. But the
courts found no
connection between the abuse and her crime.

"I left many times, but he got me fired from jobs, ambushed
me and beat me
up," she said last week in an interview.
"He made my life so tough, it was
better to take him back and
put up with it."

Fletcher also has referred the cases of four women to the
state Parole
Board for review, saying there wasn't enough
information in their
petitions. They are Bertha Williams,
Barbara Sarabia, Cassandra Holland and
Pearly Sue Mills.

Holland, for example, said last week that her husband beat her,
raped her
and threatened her with a gun. She stayed with him
for decades but in 2003
threw gasoline and a lit match on him
during a conflict, killing him.

"I didn't want him to die, I just wanted him to stop," she said
adding that if she gets out, she plans to work in a

All the petitions were supported by the Department Of Public
Advocacy and
the Kentucky Domestic Violence Association.

While the facts and circumstances of each case were different,
said the justice system had failed them all.

Marguerite Thomas, a public advocacy lawyer, applauded the
move: "In taking
this action the governor left an indelible mark
on Kentucky's history by
giving a voice to some of the most
vulnerable and disenfranchised. Without
the governor's
actions, their cry for justice would go unheard."

Marsha Weinstein, former executive director of the Kentucky
Commission on
Women, also praised Fletcher's act of "justice
and compassion," according
to a news release from the
governor's office.

But Dan Mackin, one of William English's relatives, said that his
wasn't an abuser and that the pardon was a mistake.
Still, he said, he
"expected it."

"We're not pleased at all," he said in a phone interview. "They
should have
let the families get involved and speak to the governor."

Since 1978, more than 140 women in 28 states have received
clemency for
crimes related to abuse, according to the
Philadelphia-based National
Clearinghouse for the Defense of
Battered Women.

The pardons were Fletcher's first since those he offered to
members of his
administration in the wake of an investigation
into hiring practices.

Fletcher, a former Baptist minister, has until the end of today -
his last
full day in office - to decide whether to grant pardons
and clemencies or
push for early paroles. Pardons traditionally
are granted at the end of an
outgoing governor's term.

The Associated Press contributed to this story.

Thursday, December 13, 2007

Three life sentences no parole for father accused of killing

The tragic case of Robert Farquharson highlights the discrimination faced by men in the courts. From what I heard in this case I find it difficult to believe that he is guilty, although it is possible he is and the court's verdict would seem to confirm this. However, he professes his innocence, his ex-wife, family and friends support him and he plans to lodge an appeal.

This website contains details regarding a range of contentions issues in his case

Despite this fact the sentence he received seems excessive, three life sentences with no parole. His depression was not taken into account and the blame is placed directly on him. Mitigating circumstances are not discussed and despite his plea of innocence he is damned by the media.

Compare his treatment with mothers who blatantly admit that they have killed their kids, the difference is staggering. Kathleen Folbigg was convicted of murdering 3 of her children and convicted of manslaughter over the death of a fourth child, but she was only sentenced to 25 years, whereas Robert was given 3 life sentences (75 years)

If Robert committed this crime he deserves to be punished, but the key issue is the way the media has presented him and the underlying discrimination that he has been exposed to. Furthermore, recent information I have seen on the factbeforetheory website has lead me to believe he may very well be innocent.

Research by Dr Phillip Resnick supports the idea that men and women recieve differential treatment from the judicial system when charged with murdering their children. See quote below

"....mothers convicted of murdering their children were hospitalized 68 percent of the time and imprisoned 27 percent of the time, fathers convicted of killing their children were sentenced to prison or executed 72 percent of the time and hospitalized only 14 percent of the time."

Three life sentences for father who killed boys

By Katie Bice November 16, 2007 Herald Sun

VICTORIAN man Robert Farquharson has been sentenced to life in jail with no parole for murdering his three children by driving them into a farm dam.

Farquharson, 38, was given three life sentences after a jury found him guilty of deliberately driving sons Jai, 10, Tyler, 7, and Bailey, 2, into a dam and leaving them to drown.

Justice Philip Cummins said Farquharson had acted without emotion in killing the boys to get revenge on estranged wife Cindy Gambino and make her suffer for the rest of her life.

He said that although Farquharson had led an otherwise good life and suffered moderate depression, he killed his own children and had been contemplating it over a significant time.

"In all circumstances, it's not appropriate to set a minimum term."

Justice Cummins said Farquharson was in total control of the children and they were dependent on him to help them.

The Supreme Court was told that two months before the Father's Day 2005 tragedy, Farquharson had angrily vowed to kill the boys to pay back Ms Gambino.

Mr Farquharson said Ms Gambino would "suffer every Father's Day for the rest of her life" and he would be the last one to have them.

He was bitter that in their separation she had taken the good car, and had also moved on with another man.

Maintenance payments had also left him financially strapped.

The court was told Farquharson had struggled to come to terms with the breakdown, in late 2004, of his four-year marriage to Ms Gambino.

He sought counselling for depression, saying he was finding it difficult to cope with the boys.

The jury was told as he returned the boys to Ms Gambino after an access visit he veered the car off the Princes Highway and into the Winchelsea farm dam before swimming free of the wreckage.

The father of three had pleaded not guilty to the three murders, claiming that his sons had died in a tragic accident, the result of his blacking out at the wheel after a violent coughing fit.

But police who reconstructed the crash told jurors the car's path from the road to the dam involved three steering movements and there were no signs of skid marks or emergency braking.

Doctors said his story was unlikely because cough syncope afflicted fewer than 2 per cent of people.

Farquharson's family members sobbed and shook their heads today.

Outside court, Farquharson's brother-in-law Ian Ross read out a statement on his behalf.

"The court has found me guilty but I did not murder my children," he said in the statement.

"I received a life sentence on the night my boys died so I don't care much about what other people think of me.

"I do care how people remember or think of Jai, Tyler and Bailey because they are three special boys and their lives were very important to me and all their family.

"I will appeal the verdict because I will not have the public believe that Jai, Tyler and Bailey were anything less than the most important part of both my life and the lives of their families.

"I will fight to clear the names of my three boys. They are what keeps me going because there is nothing much else more important to me."

"I cannot change what people think of me now so with all my heart I ask you to respect my children, (ex-wife) Cindy and both our families."

Mothers who kill, but get off lightly................

I saw this story in todays paper and it follows on from my last post. Here we are faced with a mother who kills their child, but once again we are told that because she was depressed this makes her less culpable for the killing.

This is just another example of the way the law provides special treatment to women.

Mother smothers five year old to death
Christine Kellett
| December 14, 2007 - Brisbane Times

A Brisbane mother taped her five year-old daughter's mouth and smothered her to death with a pillow because she "wanted some peace", a court has heard.

Alice Maree Potter, 43, lured pre-schooler Stephanie Brummer into the bedroom of her Eagleby home on September 18, 2005 with the promise of playing a game, before kneeling on the child's face for 20 minutes until she stopped breathing.

The mother of three later told police she had killed her daughter, an alleged victim of sexual abuse, because she was a "spoilt brat" who wouldn't do what she was told.

Potter was yesterday afternoon jailed for a minimum of three years after pleading guilty to one count of manslaughter.

An original murder charge was downgraded on the grounds that Potter had been suffering at the time from a major depressive episode which legally diminished her responsibility.

Brisbane's Supreme Court heard Potter was struggling to care for Stephanie and her two year-old son on her own after leaving her marital home amid allegations Stephanie had been raped.

The child also had significant learning difficulties, could barely speak, and would throw tantrums lasting as long as two hours, Potter's defence counsel submitted.

However, Crown prosecutor Sal Vasta said the child's problems made Potter's crime all the more heinous.

"She turned to the only person on whom she could rely," Mr Vasta said of Stephanie.

"That trust was betrayed by this woman."

Potter, who has already spent more than two years in custody on remand, was expressionless as the facts of the case were read out.

The court heard she had considered killing Stephanie the night before the event, but had intially decided against it.

After returning from an early morning shopping trip, she put her youngest son to sleep and asked Stephanie to follow her into a bedroom to play a game.

Once inside, she wrapped masking tape around the little girl's mouth, laid her on the floor and pressed a pillow into her face with her hands and knees, smothering her to death.

She then rang her husband and asked him to come and collect her son.

"I love you," her husband told her, to which Potter replied: "I don't think you will after you see what I've done."

The court heard the man arrived at the Eagleby commission house to find his step-daughter dead on the floor "lying on her back like a starfish".

"She just won't do what I tell her," Potter explained.

"She just keeps being naughty.

"She's a spoilt brat."

Police were called three hours after Potter committed the killing.

Doctors later diagnosed her with depression and a personality disorder which had affected her ability to reason right from wrong.

Justice Debra Mullins accepted Stephanie had exhibited difficult behaviour, and her complaints of being sexually abused had only added to her mother's stress.

"You were unsure in your mind about the allegations that Stephanie had made ... (and) you were affected by the fact that you were with the two children in a community with no support," Justice Mullins told Potter.

"I think a sentence of eight years recognises the seriousness of the act that you committed and the fact that your defenceless child was killed by your own hands."

Justice Mullins set parole eligibility after three years behind bars, meaning Potter could walk free as early as September 18 next year, after her 815 days in pre-sentence custody is taken into account.

Wednesday, December 12, 2007

An example of bias against men in the courts

The following article appeared in the Brisbane Times on the 13th of December. It is a blatant example of the manner in which men are treated unfairly by the courts.

When reading this story please note that although the female perpetrator (the sister of the victim) initiated the most severe acts of abuse including three counts of rape and taking photos of the sex acts, she was sentenced to only 9 months, while her boyfriend was sentenced to 12 months gaol.

You would assume that the longer sentence would be related to a more severe crime but in this case perhaps it is more a reflection of society's underlying prejudice.

Sex pics show sister raping 9yo
Christine Kellett - December 13 Brisbane Times

A Brisbane private schoolboy who kept on his school computer photograghs of his teenage girlfriend raping her nine-year-old sister has been jailed for four months.

The District Court in Brisbane today heard the youth, now 19, who cannot be named for legal reasons, was engaged in a full-blown sexual relationship with the then 15-year-old schoolgirl in April 2005 when the couple decided to draw into their x-rated activities the girl's younger sister.

As well as masturbating in front of the nine-year-old child, the youth simulated anal sex with her in her older sister's bedroom, the court heard.

In acts described by prosecutors as "depraved", his girlfriend also photographed herself raping her younger sibling before emailing the pictures to the youth to use as sex aides.

The couple was busted when a student at Brisbane Boys College found the photographs on the youth's school email account and notified a school counsellor.

The boy pleaded guilty today to 17 separate child sex charges, including unlawful carnal knowledge of his underage girlfriend and the indecent treatment of her sister.

His girlfriend, now 17, is already serving a nine-month sentence for three counts of rape following her appearance in the Children's Court in September.

''This is a case of gross misjudgement,'' the youth's defence barrister John Griffin QC argued in an unsuccessful bid to keep his client out of jail.

The court was told the couple had met over the internet and began having sex as "boyfriend and girlfriend" in November 2004.

Their parents were aware of the situation, but did not realise the extent of their exploits, which included the use of sex toys.

Crown prosecutor Petrina Clohessy said it was towards the end of their 18-month fling when the couple began to involve the nine-year-old.

In one incident, the youth bent her over a bed and rubbed his genitals on her buttocks while her older sister watched.

But Mr Griffin said there had been no force or violence used against the youngster, and the more serious offences had in fact been committed by her sister.

The youth had not instigated the taking of the photographs or used them for any other purpose after receiving them by email, he said.

Senior Judge Gilbert Trafford-Walker agreed, but insisted jail was the only punishment befitting the youth.

He sentenced him to a total of 12 months' jail for the abuse of the little girl, but did not record convictions for his unlawful carnal knowledge of her sister.

He will be released after serving four months behind bars and will spend two years on probation.

Saturday, December 8, 2007

Do Not Marry, Do Not Have Children

The following story is somewhat bleak in its perspective, however I have included it to highlight the fact that many men are not too keen to marry because of the many challenges that may exist should this union be broken.

However, life is full of risks and if we don't want to get hurt we could just stay home and avoid everything, but this would make for a rather boring life.

I for one have amazing daughter and plan to have another child in the future, I am currently in a relationship with a wonderful women and we plan to get married next year. While I cant agree with his advice, it is a sure sign that plenty of men are hurting but the solution is not to put your head in the sand but to stand up be counted and demand that legislation is enacted to amend these inequities.

The following article is by Stephen Baskerville, Ph.D.

Men's News Daily 14 November 2007

Marriage is a foundation of civilized life. No advanced
civilization has
ever existed without the married, two-
parent family. Those who argue that
our civilization needs
healthy marriages to survive are not exaggerating.

And yet I cannot, in good conscience, urge young
men to marry today. For
many men (and some women),
marriage has become nothing less than a one-way

ticket to jail. Even the New York Times has reported on how
easily “the
divorce court leads to a jail cell,” mostly for men.
In fact, if I have one
urgent piece of practical advice for young
men today it is this: Do not
marry and do not have children.

Spreading this message may also, in the long run, be
the most effective
method of saving marriage as an institution.
For until we understand that
the principal threat to marriage
today is not cultural but political, and
that it comes not from
homosexuals but from heterosexuals, we will never
the decline of marriage. The main destroyer of marriage,
it should
be obvious, is divorce. Michael McManus of Marriage
Savers points out that
“divorce is a far more grievous blow to
marriage than today’s challenge by
gays.” The central problem
is the divorce laws.

It is well known that half of all marriages end in divorce. But
misconceptions lead many to believe it cannot
happen to them. Many
conscientious people think they will
never be divorced because they do not
believe in it. In fact,
it is likely to happen to you whether you wish it
or not.

First, you do not have to agree to the divorce or commit
any legal
transgression. Under “no-fault” divorce laws, your
spouse can divorce you
unilaterally without giving any reasons.
The judge will then grant the
divorce automatically without any

But further, not only does your spouse incur no penalty for
breaking faith;
she can actually profit enormously. Simply by
filing for divorce, your
spouse can take everything you have,
also without giving any reasons.
First, she will almost certainly
get automatic and sole custody of your
children and exclude
you from them, without having to show that you have
anything wrong. Then any unauthorized contact with your
children is a
crime. Yes, for seeing your own children
you will be subject to arrest.

There is no burden of proof on the court to justify why
they are seizing
control of your children and allowing your
spouse to forcibly keep you from
them. The burden of
proof (and the financial burden) is on you to show why
should be allowed to see your children.

The divorce industry thus makes it very attractive for
your spouse to
divorce you and take your children.
(All this earns money for lawyers whose
bar associations
control the careers of judges.) While property divisions
spousal support certainly favor women, the largest windfall
through the children. With custody, she can then
demand “child support”
that may amount to
half, two-thirds, or more of your income. (The amount is

set by committees consisting of feminists, lawyers, and
enforcement agents
– all of whom have a vested interest in
setting the payments as high as
possible.) She may spend
it however she wishes. You pay the taxes on it,
but she gets
the tax deduction.

You could easily be left with monthly income of a few
hundreds dollars and
be forced to move in with relatives or
sleep in your car. Once you have
sold everything you own,
borrowed from relatives, and maximized your credit
they then call you a “deadbeat dad” and take you away in

Wednesday, December 5, 2007

Mothers never harm their children, do they?

I have included this story below, because so often in the media we find that when mothers kill their children, the first response is to label them as mentally ill, whereas a father charged with similar crime is damned for his actions.

The women is "placed in psychiatric care", while a father charged with a similar crime would be in a prison. When women engage in violent acts it is seen as out of place and the media is often quick to justify their actions by pointing out how they were abused, mentally ill, or a vicitim etc.

Society has difficulty accepting that mothers are anything but pure and caring, stories like the one below challenge this perspective and thus in my attempt to bust the "gender myths" I have included it. Because as the great feminist catch cry goes "woman can do anything" including being great mothers, outstanding leaders and child killers.

Both men and women are capable of reprehensible acts, but when gender myths suggest that it is only a man's domain I feel compelled to provide some evidence to undermine this belief.

German police find five dead boys in house

By Erik Kirschbaum in Berlin | December 06, 2007

FIVE boys between the ages of three and nine have been found dead in a house in the northern German village of Darry today.

Their 31-year-old mother has been detained on suspicion of involvement in the "violent" deaths of the children and has been placed in psychiatric care, police said.

"Based on preliminary investigation the motive appears to be a psychiatric illness of the woman," police in the northern city of Kiel said.

Police said they were still investigating and would not make any further comment. Darry, a town of 450 residents, is 40km east of Kiel, near the Baltic Sea.

The mother had turned herself into police, the NDR 1 Welle Nord radio network reported, saying she had drugged the five boys before suffocating them with plastic bags.

Teachers at the local school had notified the youth welfare office about the run-down appearance of two of the boys, who had come to school without coats, Spiegel Online reported.

It said workers from the local youth welfare office planned to visit the family today.

In a separate crime earlier today in another part of Germany, police said they found a third corpse of an infant girl wrapped in a plastic bag on the balcony of a 28-year-old woman arrested last week.

Police in the eastern town of Plauen said the woman said she gave birth to the girls in February 2002, January 2004 and September 2005, and that they had died suddenly.

The bodies of two other girls were found in a suitcase and a freezer.

The woman was arrested on suspicion of manslaughter.

Police said the woman, who has two other children aged one and seven, denied killing the girls.

Police began investigating when the girl born in 2002 did not report for school registration.

They found her corpse in a suitcase stored in a basement, and then they found the second corpse in a freezer before making today's discovery.

The cases follows the starvation death of a 5-year-old girl last month in the eastern town of Schwerin.

Also, in 2006, a woman was jailed for 15 years for killing her eight newborn babies. The remains of the babies were found wrapped in plastic bags and buried in flower pots, buckets and a fish tank on her property.

Tuesday, December 4, 2007

Sperm donor ordered to pay lesbian couple

December 5, 2007

A British firefighter who donated his sperm so a lesbian couple could have two babies is being forced to pay thousands of pounds in child support.

Andy Bathie, 37, initially agreed to help Sharon and Terri Arnold after being assured he would not have to be involved in the upbringing of their young boy and girl or have any financial responsibility towards them.

But the British government's Child Support Agency has begun docking his pay to force him to contribute to the children's upbringing because the lesbian couple have split up.

Mr Bathie has launched unprecedented court action in an attempt to ensure he cannot be recognised as a legal parent to the children.

"These women wanted to be parents and take on all the responsibilities that brings," he told the Evening Standard newspaper.

"I would never have agreed to this unless they had been living as a committed family.

"And now I can't afford to have children with my own wife - it's crippling me financially."

Sunday, December 2, 2007

Ignoring violence against men?

Teens made boy, 15, eat own faeces
By Christine Kellett, Brisbane Times 30 Nov 2007

Two 13-year-old girls who forced an intellectually disabled boy
to eat his own faeces laughed and waved for television
cameras after walking free from a Brisbane court this afternoon.

The girls, who cannot be named under Queensland law
because they are juveniles, along with two boys aged 17
and 18 pleaded guilty today to assault charges over the
humiliating October 2006 attack at Mitchelton, north of
the city.

Their victim, a 15-year-old boy with muscular dystrophy,
was pelted with rocks, kicked and punched and eventually
taken to a house to be force-fed his own excrement in a
prolonged ordeal sparked, prosecutors said, because
the boy had looked the wrong way at one of his assailants'
little sisters.

The court heard the attack, committed while the two girls
brandished a metal bar, had caused significant pain and
humiliation to the boy, so much so that he could not face the
foursome at a youth justice conference to receive an apology.

The girls, who were just 12 at the time, were released today
on 12 months' probation, while their co-accused received
two years, including 120 hours' community service.

No criminal convictions were recorded.

Outside court, their victim's mother said the punishment was
not harsh enough.

The girls, however, smiled, giggled and waved for waiting
television cameras as they left the building.

Judge Milton Griffin expressed his disgust at their actions
throughout the sentencing hearing - and even hinted at jail -
but was forced to take into account the tender ages of the
group and their lack of previous criminal history.

"It was cowardice in the extreme the way that you behaved,"
the judge told them.

"These are extraordinarily serious circumstances."

Defence counsel for the youths said peer-group pressure
accounted for much of their actions, described at one point
as "just childhood play".

"It's pack mentality," Judge Griffin fired back.

"Perhaps the more terrifying that they were younger than others."

Monday, November 19, 2007

Do we ignore violence against men?

The following media release is an excerpt from a larger paper at

This Sunday is White Ribbon Day (WRD) and the start of the 16 Days of Activism to Stop Violence Against Women. However the 2005 Personal Safety Australia survey found that in the past 12 months almost twice as many men as women (808,300) were victims of all types of violence; twice as many men as women (485,400) were victims of physical assault; nearly a third of sexual assault victims were men; 864,300 men were harassed and 110,700 men were stalked.

The same study found that men were almost as likely as women to experience physical violence within the home (half from females, half from males) and were just as likely as women to experience physical violence from perpetrators who were known to them. Yet the WRD campaign focuses solely on the prevention of violence against women by men.

An international coalition of professionals and academics has come out in unequivocal support of anti-violence initiatives, but is concerned that this annual spotlight on violence against women tends to conceal the fact that males are far more likely than females to be assaulted or killed and make up a significant proportion of victims of domestic violence. They are calling on the media to be aware that crime statistics, based on reports to police, are an inaccurate reflection of the extent of domestic violence within the community, as men who are physically assaulted by women are less likely to report it than are women assaulted by men.

However, despite this underreporting, 29% of victims of notified domestic violence and 26% of intimate partner homicide victims are men – all of whom are absent in policy provisions. There is very little recognition of women’s violence, yet more than a quarter of physical assaults on women are committed by other women. There is also little acknowledgment that violence is most prevalent amongst young people, and is causally linked to social disadvantage, drug and alcohol abuse and mental health issues.

University of Western Sydney academic Micheal Woods explains that “White Ribbon Day tells us our Australian culture somehow approves of violence against women. I think many people would disagree with this assertion but would readily admit that our culture accepts violence against males.”

He quotes a 2001 national survey of 5,000 young people aged 12-20, in which the authors noted that “males hitting females was seen, virtually by everyone, to be unacceptable, however, it appeared to be quite acceptable for a girl to hit a boy”. They also found “there was no spontaneous recognition that verbal abuse or a female hitting her boyfriend could also constitute dating violence... however these were among the prevalent forms of violence occurring”.

Researcher Greg Andresen from suggests “international large population-based research shows women initiate domestic violence as often as men, use weapons more than men, that men suffer one-third of injuries, and that self-defence explains only a small portion of domestic violence by either sex.

We’re concerned that male victims have been unfairly ignored in these anti-violence campaigns and this contributes to the intergenerational cycle of domestic violence. When male victims are ignored, their kids suffer long-term damage by the exposure and are themselves more likely to commit violence as adults.”

The coalition of experts is asking Australians to set aside the next 16 days to consider all victims of violence, no matter what their gender, age, ethnicity or sexuality. They are seeking the involvement of the entire community, including government, NGOs, and men’s and women’s groups, in the establishment of a new national broad anti-violence campaign.

Media contacts:

Micheal Woods Mob: 0414 710 696
Greg Andresen Mob: 0403 813 925

This media release is an excerpt from a larger paper at

International coalition of professionals and academicswho are signatories to this media release
1 David Adair, Post-graduate Criminology Student, University of Tasmania, TAS
2 Greg Andresen, Media Liaison,, NSW
3 Luke Bain, Men's Health Coordinator, SA
4 Matilda Bawden, Manager, I CARE Human Service, SA
5 Steve Biddulph, Author, “Manhood” & “Raising Boys”, TAS
6 Peter Campbell, Counsellor (Men's Issues & Health), ACT
7 Philip Chapman, Male House, NZ
8 Harry Crouch, Director, California Men's Centers & President National Coalition of Free Men, USA
9 Keryn Eden, Clinical Nurse Specialist, SA
10 Joel Edson, Occupational Therapist, SA
11 Gordon E. Finley, Ph.D., Professor of Psychology, Florida International University, USA
12 Thomas Golden, Author, “Swallowed by a Snake: The Gift of the Masculine Side of Healing”, USA
13 Phil Gouldson, President, Men’s Health & Wellbeing Association, ACT
14 Jim Herbert, Men's Health Program Manager, SA
15 David Hughes, Clinical Nurse Specialist, Men's Health, NSW
16 Kylie Innocente, CNWL Addictions Directorate, UK
17 Lindsay Jackel, Moderator, Nuance Exchange, VIC
18 Dr John Ashfield, Executive Member, South Australian Men’s Health Alliance, SA
19 Julian Krieg, Chairperson, Men’s Advisory Network, WA
20 George Mason, Fathers-4-Justice-US, Families-4-Justice, USA
21 Greg Millan, Men's Health Consultant, NSW
22 Sue Price, Director, Men’s Rights Agency, QLD
23 Ian Purdie, Presenter, Dads on the Air, 2GLF FM, NSW
24 Micheal Woods, Senior Lecturer, University of Western Sydney, NSW

The following ORGANISATIONS also support this media release:
1 California Men's Centers, USA
2 Dads on the Air, Australia
3 Fathers4Equality Australia
4 Men’s Rights Agency, Australia
5 National Coalition of Free Men (NCFM), USA
6 RADAR – Respecting Accuracy in Domestic Abuse Reporting, USA
7 Shared Parenting Council of Australia
8 Washington Civil Rights Council, USA

The following concerned citizens have contacted us and requested that their names be added to this media release:
1 Tony Burt, Business Owner, VIC
2 Stephen Caleo, SA
3 Ron de Mouilpied, QLD
4 Chris Dempsey, Manager, Coal Technology, Burton Coal / North Goonyella Coal Properties, QLD
5 Phillip Emery, Educational Consultant, NSW
6 Phil Ferrier, Data Communications Technician, TAS
7 Marco Giaroli, Architect, Aquatonic Pty Ltd, QLD
8 Aaron Hope, Collections Consultant, Dun & Bradstreet, VIC
9 Jeremy Horton, Chief Technical Architect, AiE Technology Pty Ltd, NSW
10 Michael Lynch, NZ
11 Jose Madrid, Union Organiser, Finance Sector Union, NSW
12 Mark Muirhead, Partner, Synergy Coaching Group, NSW
13 Jim Murdoch, Teacher, Queensland Education Department, QLD
14 Geoff Ogden, School Teacher, WA
15 Roy Price, NT
16 George Roth, VIC
17 Paul Smith, Programmer, Dept of Primary Industries and Water, TAS
18 Shaun Tiernan, National Software Helpdesk Team Leader, Leading Solutions, VIC
19 Peter Zazlan, QLD

Saturday, October 27, 2007

The Fatherless Civilisation

From the desk of Fjordman on Monday 2007-10-15 15:02

American columnist Diana West recently released her book The Death of the Grown-up, where she traces the decline of Western civilisation to the permanent youth rebellions of the past two generations. The decade from the first half of the 1960s to the first half of the 1970s was clearly a major watershed in Western history, with the start of non-Western mass immigration in the USA, the birth of Eurabia in Western Europe and the rise of Multiculturalism and radical Feminism.

The paradox is that the people who viciously attacked their own civilization had enjoyed uninterrupted economic growth for decades, yet embraced Marxist-inspired ideologies and decided to undermine the very society which had allowed them to live privileged lives. Maybe this isn't as strange as it seems. Karl Marx himself was aided by the wealth of Friedrich Engels, the son of a successful industrialist.

This was also the age of decolonisation in Western Europe and desegregation in the USA, which created an atmosphere where Western civilization was seen as evil. Whatever the cause, we have since been stuck in a pattern of eternal opposition to our own civilisation. Some of these problems may well have older roots, but they became institutionalised to an unprecedented degree during the 1960s.

According to Diana West, the organizing thesis of her book "is that the unprecedented transfer of cultural authority from adults to adolescents over the past half century or so has dire implications for the survival of the Western world." Having redirected our natural development away from adulthood and maturity in order to strike the pop-influenced pose of eternally cool youth ­ ever-open, non-judgmental, self-absorbed, searching for (or just plain lacking) identity ­ we have fostered a society marked by these same traits. In short: Westerners live in a state of perpetual adolescence, but also with a corresponding perpetual identity crisis. West thinks maturity went out of style in the rebellious 1960s, "the biggest temper tantrum in the history of the world," which flouted authority figures of any kind.

She also believes that although the most radical break with the past took place during the 60s and 70s, the roots of Western youth culture are to be found in the 1950s with the birth of rock and roll music, Elvis Presley and actors such as James Dean. Pop group The Beatles embodied this in the early 60s, but changed radically in favor of drugs and the rejection of established wisdom as they approached 1970, a shift which was reflected in

the entire culture.

Personally, one of my favorite movies from the 1980s was Back to the Future. In one of the scenes, actor Michael J. Fox travels in time from 1985 to 1955. Before he leaves 1985, he hears the slogan "Re-elect Mayor... Progress is his middle name." The same slogan is repeated in 1955, only with a different name. Politics is politics in any age. Writers Robert Zemeckis and Bob Gale have stated that they chose the year 1955 as the

setting of the movie because this was the age of the birth of teen culture:

This was when the teenager started to rule, and he has ruled ever since.

As West says, many things changed in the economic boom in the decades following the Second World War: "When you talk about the postwar period, the vast new affluence is a big factor in reorienting the culture to adolescent desire. You see a shift in cultural authority going to the young. Instead of kids who might take a job to be able to help with

household expenses, all of a sudden that pocket money was going into the manufacture of a massive new culture. That conferred such importance to a period of adolescence that had never been there before." After generations of this celebration of youth, the adults have no confidence left: "Kids are planning expensive trips, going out unchaperoned, they are drinking, debauching, absolutely running amok, yet the parents say, 'I can't do

anything about it.' Parents have abdicated responsibilities to give in to adolescent desire."

She believes that "Where womanhood stands today is deeply affected by the death of grown-up. I would say the sexualized female is part of the phenomenon I'm talking about, so I don't think they're immune to the death of the grown-up. Women are still emulating young fashion. Where sex is more available, there are no longer the same incentives building toward married life, which once was a big motivation toward the maturing process."

Is she right? Have we become a civilization of Peter Pans refusing to grow up? Have we been cut off from the past by disparaging everything old as outmoded? I know blogger Conservative Swede, who likes Friedrich Nietzsche, thinks we suffer from "slave morality," but I sometimes wonder whether we suffer from child morality rather than slave morality. However, there are other forces at work here as well.

The welfare state encourages an infantilisation of society where people return to childhood by being provided for by others. This creates not just a culture obsessed with youth but with adolescent irresponsibility. Many people live in a constant state of rebellion against not just their parents but their nation, their culture and their civilization.

Writer Theodore Dalrymple thinks one reason for the epidemic of self-destructiveness in Western societies is the avoidance of boredom: "For people who have no transcendent purpose to their lives and cannot invent one through contributing to a cultural tradition (for example), in other words who have no religious belief and no intellectual interests to

stimulate them, self-destruction and the creation of crises in their life is one way of warding off meaninglessness."

According to him, what we are seeing now is "a society in which people demand to behave more or less as they wish, that is to say whimsically, in accordance with their kaleidoscopically changing desires, at the same time as being protected from the natural consequences of their own behaviour by agencies of the state. The result is a combination of Sodom and Gomorrah and a vast and impersonal bureaucracy of welfare."

The welfare state deprives you of the possibility of deriving self-respect from your work. This can hurt a person's self-respect, but more so for men than for women because masculine identity is closely tied to providing for others. Stripped of this, male self-respect declines and society with it. Dalrymple also worries about the end of fatherhood, and believes that the worst child abusers are governments promoting the very circumstances in which child abuse and neglect are most likely to take place: "He who

promotes single parenthood is indifferent to the fate of children." Fatherhood scarcely exists, except in the merest biological sense:

"I worked in a hospital in which had it not been for the children of Indian immigrants, the illegitimacy rate of children born there would have approached one hundred per cent. It became an almost indelicate question to ask of a young person who his or her father was; to me, it was still an astounding thing to be asked, 'Do you mean my father now, at the moment?' as if it could change at any time and had in fact changed several times


This is because "women are to have children merely because they want them, as is their government-given right, irrespective of their ability to bring them up, or who has to pay for them, or the consequences to the children themselves. Men are to be permanently infantilised, their income being in essence pocket money for them to spend on their enjoyments, having no serious responsibilities at all (beyond paying tax). Henceforth, the state will be father to the child, and the father will be child of the state."

As Swedish writer Per Bylund explains: "Most of us were not raised by our parents at all. We were raised by the authorities in state daycare centers from the time of infancy; then pushed on to public schools, public high schools, and public universities; and later to employment in the public sector and more education via the powerful labor unions and their educational associations. The state is ever-present and is to many the only means of survival ­ and its welfare benefits the only possible way to gain independence."

Though Sweden is arguably an extreme case, author Melanie Phillips notices the same trends in Britain, too: "Our culture is now deep into uncharted territory. Generations of family disintegration in turn are unravelling the fundamentals of civilised human behaviour. Committed fathers are crucial to their children's emotional development. As a result of the incalculable irresponsibility of our elites, however, fathers have been seen for the past three decades as expendable and disposable. Lone parenthood stopped being a source of shame and turned instead into a woman's inalienable right. The state has provided more and more inducements to women ­ through child benefit, council flats and other welfare provision ­ to have children without committed fathers. This has produced generations of women-only households, where emotionally needy girls so often become hopelessly inadequate mothers who abuse and neglect their own children ­ who, in turn,

perpetuate the destructive pattern. This is culturally nothing less than suicidal."

I sometimes wonder whether the modern West, and Western Europe in particular, should be dubbed the Fatherless Civilization. Fathers have been turned into a caricature and there is a striking demonisation of traditional male values. Any person attempting to enforce rules and authority, a traditional male preserve, is seen as a Fascist and ridiculed,

starting with God the Father. We end up with a society of vague fathers who can be replaced at the whim of the mothers at any given moment. Even the mothers have largely abdicated, leaving the upbringing of children to schools, kindergartens and television. In fashion and lifestyle, mothers imitate their daughters, not vice versa.

The elaborate welfare state model in Western Europe is frequently labeled "the nanny state," but perhaps it could also be named "the husband state." Why? Well, in a traditional society, the role of men was to physically protect and financially provide for their women. In our modern society, part of this task has been "outsourced" to the state, which helps explain why women in general give disproportionate support to high taxation and

pro-welfare state parties. According to anthropologist Lionel Tiger, the ancient unit of a mother, a child and a father has morphed from monogamy into "bureaugamy," a mother, a child and a bureaucrat. The state has become a substitute husband. In fact, it doesn't replace just the husband, it replaces the entire nuclear and extended family, raises the children and cares for the elderly.

Øystein Djupedal, Minister of Education and Research from the Socialist Left Party and responsible for Norwegian education from kindergartens via high schools to PhD level, has stated: "I think that it's simply a mistaken view of child-rearing to believe that parents are the best to raise children. 'Children need a village,' said Hillary Clinton. But we don't

have that. The village of our time is the kindergarten." He later retracted this statement, saying that parents have the main responsibility for raising children, but that "kindergartens are a fantastic device for children, and it is good for children to spend time in kindergarten before [they] start school."

The problem is that some of his colleagues use the kindergarten as the blueprint for society as a whole, even for adults. In the fall of 2007, Norway's center-left government issued a warning to 140 companies that still hadn't fulfilled the state-mandated quota of 40 percent women on their boards of directors. Equality minister Karita Bekkemellem stated that companies failing to meet the quota will face involuntary dissolution, despite the fact that many are within traditionally male-oriented branches like the offshore oil industry, shipping and finance. She called the law "historic and radical" and said it will be enforced.

Bekkemellem is thus punishing the naughty children who refuse to do as Mother State tells them to, even if these children happen to be private corporations. The state replaces the father in the sense that it provides for you financially, but it acts more like a mother in removing risks and turning society into a cozy, regulated kindergarten with ice cream and

speech codes.

Blog reader Tim W. thinks women tend to be more selfish than men vis-à-vis the opposite sex: "Men show concern for women and children while women... well, they show concern for themselves and children. I'm not saying that individual women don't show concern for husbands or brothers, but as a group (or voting bloc) they have no particular interest in men's well-being. Women's problems are always a major concern but men's problems aren't. Every political candidate is expected to address women's concerns, but a candidate even acknowledging that men might have concerns worth

addressing would be ostracized." What if men lived an average of five years and eight months longer than women? Well, if that were the case, we'd never hear the end of it "Feminists and women candidates would walk around wearing buttons with 'five years, eight months' written on them toconstantly remind themselves and the world about this horrendous inequity. That this would happen, and surely it would, says something about the differing natures of male and female voters."

Bernard Chapin interviewed Dr. John Lott at Frontpage Magazine. According to Lott, "I think that women are generally more risk averse then men are and they see government as one way of providing insurance against life's vagaries. I also think that divorced women with kids particularly turn towards government for protection. Simply giving women the right to vote explained at least a third of the growth in government for about 45 years."

He thinks this "explains a lot of the government's growth in the US but also the rest of the world over the last century. When states gave women the right to vote, government spending and tax revenue, even after adjusting for inflation and population, went from not growing at all to more than doubling in ten years. As women gradually made up a greater and greater share of the electorate, the size of government kept on increasing.

This continued for 45 years as a lot of older women who hadn't been used to voting when suffrage first passed were gradually replaced by younger women. After you get to the 1960s, the continued growth in government is driven by higher divorce rates. Divorce causes women with children to turn much more to government programs." The liberalization of abortion also led to more single parent families.

Diana West thinks what we saw in the counterculture of the 1960s was a leveling of all sorts of hierarchies, both of learning and of authority. From that emerged the leveling of culture and by extension Multiculturalism. She also links this trend to the nanny state:

"In considering the strong links between an increasingly paternalistic nanny state and the death of the grown-up, I found that Tocqueville (of course) had long ago made the connections. He tried to imagine under what conditions despotism could come to the United States. He came up with a vision of the nation characterized, on the one hand, by an 'innumerable multitude of men, alike and equal, constantly circling around in pursuit of the petty and banal pleasures with which they glut their souls,' and, on the other, by the 'immense protective power' of the state. 'Banal pleasures' and 'immense state power' might have sounded downright science-fictional in the middle of the 19th century; by the start of the 21st century, it begins to sound all too familiar.

Indeed, speaking of the all-powerful state, he wrote: 'It would resemble parental authority if, fatherlike, it tried to prepare its charges for a man's life, but, on the contrary, it only tries to keep them in perpetual childhood.' Perhaps the extent to which we, liberals and conservatives

alike, have acquiesced to our state's parental authority shows how far along we, as a culture, have reached Tocqueville's state of 'perpetual childhood.'"

This problem is even worse in Western Europe, a region with more elaborate welfare states than the USA and which has lived under the American military umbrella for generations, thus further enhancing the tendency for adolescent behavior.

The question, which was indirectly raised by Alexis de Tocqueville in the 1830s in his book Democracy in America, is this: If democracy of universal suffrage means that everybody's opinion is as good as everybody else's, will this sooner or later turn into a society where everybody's choices are also as good as everybody else's, which leads to cultural relativism? Tocqueville wrote at a time when only men had the vote. Will universal suffrage also lead to a situation where women vote themselves into possession of men's finances while reducing their authority and creating powerful state regulation of everything?

I don't know the answer to that. What I do know is that the current situation isn't sustainable. The absence of fatherhood has created a society full of social pathologies, and the lack of male self-confidence has made us easy prey for our enemies. If the West is to survive, we need to reassert a healthy dose of male authority. In order to do so we need to roll back the welfare state. Perhaps we need to roll back some of the excesses of Western Feminism, too.