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 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vtx1X18sQbQ

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. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ECJsKrdfN7o

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 dads
assembled one night in a New Jersey diner,
the answer is obvious. Sort of.

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 little
because I just mentioned it," he says. Haley speaks up to
reassure 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, but
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 America:
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 more,
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 emotionality
- 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 physical
and mental health, even. "Basically," says Rochlen,
"masculinity 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 care.
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 it.
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
on 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.

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: http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/12/14/man_charged_with_killing_wife_and_her_2_daughters

But the Jane Doe spokeswoman neglected to mention one critical fact: Jane Doe Inc. started counting domestic violence homicides differently in 2006 -- see http://www.janedoe.org/involved/Narratives%202007.pdf

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 http://holt.house.gov/pdf/CRSonVAWADec2005.pdf 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 letter@globe.com.

Please also send a copy of your email to RADAR at info@mediaradar.org.

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. http://www.mediaradar.org.

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
reviews 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
circumstances."

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
Stout.

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
finally 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,
was granted to Montilla Seewright, Johnetta McNair and
Frances Alvey. They also had previously had their sentences
commuted.

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

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
recently, adding that if she gets out, she plans to work in a
church.

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,
advocates 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
uncle 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.

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 http://factbeforetheory.wordpress.com

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.

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.

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 reverse
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
widespread 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
questions.

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 done
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 you
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 and
spousal support certainly favor women, the largest windfall
comes 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 cards,
they then call you a “deadbeat dad” and take you away in
handcuffs.

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.

Sperm donor ordered to pay lesbian couple

December 5, 2007
AAP

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."

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."