Wednesday, January 30, 2008

It's my divorce, too

My parents divorced when I was 4 years old and I experienced first hand the challenges this presents to a young child. I lived mostly with my mother who tried hard to be a good mum and was superb in certain areas and deeply flawed in others.

In many single parent families relationships between parents and children may be emotionally intense because of lack of the balancing force of the other parent. My mum treated me as a surrogate partner, sharing with me all the intimate details of her life, which as you might imagine created issues for me later on. That said I can't discount the love and care that she provided to me, and the many things that I have learnt from her that are very positive aspects of my life.


When I was a teenager she worked as a prostitute from our apartment, telling me she was doing massage years later she admitted it was sex work. She had a constant stream of men coming in and out of her life. This gave me a certain insight into life that is invaluable, and it made me who I am.

She had a few issues with my father and as such regularly berated and criticised him to such an extent that it undermined my faith in him. Furthermore, it undermined my own sense of self worth for hidden in my mothers attacks on dad was an underlying misandry that would effect me for years to come. As a young boy I had a great relationship with my mother but as I became a man this deteriorated.

As an adult I was able to develop a relationship with my father and came to know him as a decent and compassionate individual. When I was growing up he rarely criticised my mother and often spoke of her in glowing terms. However, he was no angel he had his flaws and shortcomings. But the constant jokes that were made at my fathers expense where a relfection of my mother's issues and they damaged my relationship with my father when I was young.

So I guess I can see how the divorce process is painful for kids, because the parents are focused on their issues and in the process forget about the needs of the children.

Therefore, I posted the following artilce because I have had a child with a women with whom I have now seperated but must continue to relate to. The challenge all divorced or seperated parents face is learning to create a distinction between their own feelings for each other and needs of the child to a have a relationship with both.

A crucial ingredient in this recipe is for fathers to be supported by society, by the courts, by the language we use (ie instead of "mother's groups" use "parenting groups" having "parental leave" instead of "maternity leave") and by having resources allocated to create organisations and support structures to help fathers be the best they can be. - GR Klein



Sunday Life Magazine 27 January 2008, By Claire Scobie

For the children, divorce can be a minefield of parental absences, new
homes, new rules - and even new family members. Here, kids who have been through the "big bang" talk about how the separation affected their lives.

For any parent, it's a nightmare: once the decision is made to separate,
how do you tell the children? For one young boy in Sydney's eastern suburbs and his brothers, "that chat" came one weekend two years ago. "It was really scary," says the 10-year-old. "Mum and Dad said, 'We'll need some time apart.' My brother, who is eight, said, 'I feel like skateboarding.' He didn't get the blast then; he got the big bang a bit later."

The year 6 student had already known something was amiss because his parents had been disappearing into the garage in the weeks before. So he hid the baby monitor in there to find out what was going on: "I wanted to see - to record - and they were arguing. I don't want that again."

According to 2006 figures from the Australian Bureau of Statistics, about half the 50,000 Australian divorces annually involve children - a figure that doesn't include de facto relationships. Yet their voices are rarely heard.

Until now, much of the legal and psychological attention has focused on how a child reacts to the "big bang" and its aftershocks. However, new research from the US by psychologist Judith Wallerstein, who has studied the long-term effects of divorce for 25 years, suggests that the critical experience for the child comes much later, when new family units are being built. If there was any disparity in how siblings were treated by parents or step-parents in the new set-up, she reports, "one or more children showed serious psychological and learning problems".

In those cases where children are too young to remember, the initial shock seems easier to bear. Ben Andronicus, 16, has no clear memories of his parents together as they split when he was three. He's convinced that it's "worked out better because I've grown up used to it".

Street-wise yet thoughtful, with blond hair and an earring, Ben divides his time between his dad, Philip Andronicus, 56, in Sydney's Darlinghurst and his mum, Nicola Tomlin, and half-sister, Indira, 9, an hour's drive away in Berowra. Until two years ago, he stayed with Philip, a builder, on weekends. Now it's a 50/50 split.

Since July 2006, a quiet revolution has been going on in family law,
following the amendment to the Family Law (Shared Parental Responsibility) Act. The changes recognise a child's right to a meaningful relationship with both parents (except where violence or child abuse are involved) and encourages mediation with the assistance of nationwide Family Relationship Centres.

"Instead of saying we'll ration out appointed time to Dad with access or visitation, we say we'll now start halfway," says psychologist Jill
Burrett, co-author with Michael Green of the book Shared Parenting: Raising Your Children Cooperatively After Separation. But there's a long way to go: 80 per cent of children from separated families still live in sole-mother custody arrangements and as many as one third have little or no contact with their father. "Still, if children sense their parents want a 50/50 timeshare because each parent can't bear the other having more time," says Burrett, "the children feel more like possessions to be fought over than people to be loved."

This sense of being an emotional football is deeply corrosive. Ben says
that he "never had divided loyalties" and loves both his parents equally. He believes that's because, generally, they got on. That is until last year, when they fell out over financial issues. "Then I was in the middle," he says, grinning sheepishly. "So I could get away with a lot - I'd say I was at one place when I wasn't and they wouldn't check because Mum wouldn't talk to Dad."

After 15 years of controlling her emotions, Nicola Tomlin, Ben's
48-year-old mother, let go. "It was horrible. Poisonous," she says. "It was very hard on Ben, who was shocked to see how angry (with Philip) I was." Tomlin took two part-time jobs on top of her day job as an editor and Ben had to take on more responsibility, babysitting his younger sister. His schoolwork suffered. "Year 9 he was all over the place," says Tomlin. "One time he was out till 2am. Then I had to have words with his father."

Subsequently, his parents are talking again and Philip pays for his son's private education. There's a downside, though, for Ben, who "has to deal with us being a team again," laughs Tomlin.

Although the law promotes shared parenting, it's a model that doesn't
always work with infants, "who can inadvertently lose attachment with both parents," says Dr Jenn McIntosh, adjunct associate professor at La Trobe University's school of public health and the clinical director of Family Transitions, a family psychology consultancy. "It's a huge developmental dilemma for infants and toddlers when given shared time between parents. A two-year-old can't cope with four overnights away from their primary carer. It's terribly important for adults to get the pace right. Teens often cope better - or with their feet."

When John Morse, 61, and Lucy Markovich, 40, separated after seven years in 2000, they eased into co-parenting as their daughter, Juliette, grew older.

"I felt very strongly that I didn't want to be a father who got access
every second weekend," says Morse, chairman of Tourism Victoria. Juliette, now 10, generally spends one week each with her parents. "Sometimes she'll spend more time with her mum. She's old enough to have a say where she wants to be under our guidance."

Wearing a flowery dress in the backyard of Morse's downtown Sydney terrace, the sparkly Juliette poses for the camera while her dad looks on dotingly. "I don't have a nine-to-five job. I've got time to give her my undivided attention," says Morse, who also has three older sons from his first marriage. Morse, who collects Aboriginal art, has exposed Juliette to different cultures through their travels around Australia. Meanwhile, she plugs him into the pre-teen world.

But dads can be embarrassing. "He sings and dances in front of my friends," she rolls her eyes. "It's more difficult now I'm getting older. I can't tell Dad stuff - who I like, boys - the way I could before." It's not uncommon for fathers to have a harder time relating to their adolescent daughters as they grow up: the girls prefer to be out shopping with Mum.

John indulges his daughter, complains his ex; Juliette says her mum is
strict. Two homes means two sets of rules. "In traditional families,
mothers are good at the warm, fuzzy things; fathers at fun and discipline," says Jill Burrett. "Both need to become all-rounders when they separate. The mother's got to be tougher than before."

Two homes mean parallel, shiftwork parenting. You're either on or off duty. It's also two of everything. "I like that. I get two sets of clothes," says Juliette. "If they were together, I wouldn't spend as much time - quality time - with them as I do." But being a yo-yo is tiring - especially for early teens whose hormones are haywire. For Ben, having two houses is ideal. "My friends are jealous. You can be irritated by parents, so 50/50 is just right. Just before the part where it gets irritating, you swap."

Shared parental care also doesn't work where there's ongoing conflict, says McIntosh. "These children live between two deeply divided worlds and they become a divided - rather than a shared - child. They have to cross a no-man's land and put up with hostile fire from one parent about the other."

Indeed, exposure to conflict is the clincher, says Dr Susie Sweeper, a
psychology lecturer at Deakin University's school of psychology, who also runs post-separation parenting groups at the Family Mediation Centres in Victoria. "Arguing when the child has gone to bed doesn't mean they're not listening," she warns. "A telephone conversation with a best friend bagging the partner is still exposure."

As children don't have the developmental tools to deal with or even
understand their emotions, trauma-type reactions can develop: anxiety,
aggression, rejection of one parent. The boy whose response to his parents' split was to want to go skateboarding, says, "It took some time to realise Dad wouldn't be back. I didn't feel angry, just frustrated." A year after the separation, his mum reported more tantrums. Two years on from "that chat", he and his two brothers now see their father every weekend and things have settled. "I'm sad because I don't see Dad as much," he says. "I miss him [but] I feel happy in myself. I'm less frustrated."

Sweeper's advice is to make the post-separation relationship as
businesslike as possible: texts, emails, shared contact schedules. "Our
research shows that if there's poor communication between parents after separation, it will generally not improve over time."

When architect Chris Langton, 58, arrives at the house of his ex-wife,
Joanne Langton, in Mullumbimby, northern NSW, he flops on the sofa. "It's absolutely cool for him to come in the house, jump in the pool," says his 16-year-old son, Alex, at my look of surprise.

Chris is a firm believer that most damage after a break-up happens in the first few weeks. "I was conscious about being very cool," he says, helping himself to a biscuit. "When you've crossed the line in the sand and phoned the lawyer, you're gone. It becomes adversarial." This reactive time is the raison d'etre for Family Relationship Centres, according to McIntosh. If couples can get in early and brainstorm, it can prevent the wrong die being cast.

When the Langtons separated 13 years ago, they were in the planning stages of building a house. "Chris was my architect," says New York-born Joanne, 55. "I thought it would be better to stick with him to avoid ill will. My parents split when I was a teen, it was acrimonious, so I've seen the other side of things. With the hindsight of what happened in my family, I knew it would be much better if we all got along."

Chris built the house and Joanne kept the fridge open - complete with
Chris's favourite mayo in stock. When Alex was younger, his father would stay over on Christmas Eves. "On Christmas morning, we'd wake up early and he'd do a gourmet breakfast," says Alex, a gentle lad with cornflower-blue eyes.

Even when Joanne, a yoga teacher, got together with her partner, Jeff
Dawson, nine years ago, things didn't change. "When Chris felt like it,
he'd drop by and drive Alex to school," she says. On weekends Alex would stay with his dad on his bush property.

Such inclusiveness is, sadly, uncommon. Parents often worry, says McIntosh, "about being usurped by the new partner. But the children are very clear on who's who." The boy who'd recorded his parents' conversations likes that his dad, two years on, has "a really nice girlfriend". But he was still upset that they'd been together for six months before he knew about it. "I don't want it to get any more serious,"he says. "I like how it is now."

When the new partner becomes permanent, a different dynamic begins. Wallerstein's latest 10-year study, which investigates step-parent and child relationships with siblings in the post-divorce family, shows "the struggle with the step-parent can have a negative long-term impact. Jealousy is there but it's also whether the step-parent is emotionally available or has a perfunctory role," says McIntosh. "When it does develop, it's wonderful. It can also be a burden."

One mother - who was raising her two children with the father of one -
broke down when she told me: "I had to make a choice - either live in a house where my two children were treated completely differently and sacrifice one or bring them up alone.

I chose to bring them up alone." She hasn't brought anyone into their lives since.

Of those children I interviewed, the majority had issues with their
step-parent. In many ways, it's unsurprising: step-parents and children
come together as strangers. Juliette finds it difficult that her mum has an on-off relationship with her partner, Bryce, the father of her baby
stepsister. "They are together and then they're not. That's hard." Alex
Langton describes his relationship with stepdad Jeff as "better when I was younger. We're different personalities."

The truth is, "a majority of children hold onto a fantasy of their parents' reconciliation, even though they doubt it will occur in reality," says McIntosh. "These yearnings in children are archetypal - a longing for their inner world to be reconciled."

Juliette's chocolate-brown eyes soften: "If it was different, I'd want my
parents to be together." She lowers her gaze. "Sometimes we go out for dinner but never as a family, because we aren't a family. And that's kind of sad."

The Family Relationship Advice Line (1800 050 321) is open to children and adults from 8am to 8pm, Monday to Friday, and 10am to 4pm on Saturday, except public holidays.

Monday, January 28, 2008

One Path to the Presidency


By Gordon E. Finley, Ph.D. is Professor of Psychology at Florida International University in Miami. His faculty web site is: http://psych.fiu.edu/Faculty&StaffPages2/Finley/Finley.htm

Both leading Democratic candidates repeatedly have emphasized “change” as a core theme in their campaigns for the presidential nomination. They talk of changes to improve the lives of women, Blacks, Hispanics, and children -- but I still am waiting to hear what changes they have in mind to help me, other white men, and boys specifically.


In October, 2007 David Paul Kuhn published The Neglected Voter: White Men and the Democratic Dilemma. The most important statistic in this book is that white males constitute the second largest voting bloc in America: “They [white males] make up between 36 and 39 percent of voters, roughly five times more than Hispanic male and female voters combined. White women are about a 5 percent larger voting bloc than white men…” (p. 6).


Listening to the acceptance and concession speeches following the Democratic primary in South Carolina last night, I heard no candidate speaking to us. Not surprisingly, Kuhn argues, white men vote Republican. Democrats seeking to win big on Super Tuesday next week might well want to begin by reading Kuhn’s book today.


To help them along, here are three critical issues for men. The first is job outsourcing and the economy -- focusing on jobs for men as well as jobs for women. The next is divorce and child support. The biggest negative consequence for men of past presidential pandering to the women’s vote is that federal law now funds the divorce and domestic violence industries that separate fathers from their children and transfer wealth from men to women. To regain the male vote of all racial and ethnic groups, Democrats must come to value boys and men, support marriage, discourage divorce by leveling the legal playing field, and encourage father-child relationships.


If this does not constitute change, I don’t know what would.


The third and most important long-term issue is the boy and man crisis in education. As widely documented, in K through 12, boys are losing ground to girls on virtually all indices. At the undergraduate, level men constitute at best 40% of college students, and at the graduate and professional levels they constitute distinct minorities in most fields.


What boys need is a massive change in social attitudes giving them the same kinds of social support and encouragement now given to girls. At the federal level, boys also need the same kinds of interventions designed to remedy and enhance educational attainment currently offered to girls.


So, what’s all this got to do with the path to the presidency in 2008? In my view, just as candidates began attending to the needs, wants, and aspirations of girls and women in the 1960’s, so too today, do candidates need to attend to the needs, wants, and aspirations of boys and men not only if they wish to win the Presidency – but far more importantly – if they wish to improve the quality of life for all citizens in 2009 and beyond.





Heath Ledger 'feared losing access to Matilda in custody battle'



By Kate Schneider The Australian | January 27, 2008

HEATH Ledger’s fear of losing access to his two-year-old daughter sent his drug use spiralling out of control shortly before his death, claims a source from his inner circle.

Ledger believed ex-fiancée Michelle Williams was going to serve legal papers demanding sole custody of their child, Matilda, Rebecca White told The Daily Mail.

White, a personal assistant to stars who knew Ledger including Naomi Campbell and Anna Friel, said his dependence on drugs such as heroin and cocaine intensified after his separation from Williams.

"She (Williams) felt he couldn't be responsible for the baby because he wasn't responsible for himself… He got deeper and deeper into drugs as his fears of losing Matilda increased," White told the newspaper.

Ledger reportedly created a shrine to Matilda in a room in his Manhattan loft as his fears of losing joint custody intensified.

Matilda is set to inherit a multi-million dollar fortune amassed by Ledger over his successful 12-year-career, including properties and financial interests in several businesses.

Today Williams attended a small ceremony for the Hollywood star in New York, where he was farewelled privately.

Ledger's parents Kim and Sally Ledger flew to New York, where they attended the private memorial service in Manhattan with close friends, Williams and Matilda.

A large pine crate containing Ledger's body was taken from the Frank E Campbell funeral home in New York to begin it's long journey home.

Friday, January 25, 2008

Why Fathers Count

Interview with Wade F. Horn http://www.wisconsinfathers.org/fatherscount.htm

Dr. Wade Horn is a clinical child psychologist and President
of the
National Fatherhood Initiative

Fatherlessness is our most urgent social problem, says Wade
Horn of the
National Fatherhood Initiative.

Nearly 23 million American children do not live with their
biological
fathers. And 40 percent of the kids of divorced
parents haven't seen their
fathers in the past year. These
statistics aren't just disturbing, they are
alarming, says Wade
F. Horn, Ph.D., a child psychologist and director of
the National
Fatherhood Initiative, a new organization that promotes
fathers'
rights and responsible fatherhood.

"Over the last three decades we
have engaged in a great
social experiment to determine what will happen if
large
numbers of children are reared without their fathers. And the

conclusion is children suffer greatly," says Horn, former U.S.
Commissioner
for Children, Youth and Families in the Bush
Administration. "I don't
believe it's possible to significantly
improve the well-being of children
without first reconnecting
them to their fathers." We talked with Horn
recently about why
fathers count.


Q. What effect does fatherlessness have on children?

A. If you look at any measure of child well-being, you see that
kids are
placed at great risk when they grow up absent
their fathers. They're more
likely to have psychological
problems, abuse drugs and alcohol, live in
poverty and fail
in school. Seventy percent of kids in state reform
institutions
grew up without their fathers.


Q. Some might take that as a criticism of the ability of single
mothers to
raise their kids correctly.

A. This is not a black mark on single mothers. There is an
increasing
number of children growing up in single-father
households, and it seems the
outcomes for those kids aren't
very rosy either. What we are saying is that

children really need both a mother and a father.


Q. But we know a lot of people who were raised by only their
mothers after
their fathers died, and they turned out just fine.

A. That's about the only father-absent situation where a child
isn't at
risk. And it's because the father's memory is typically
kept alive in very
positive ways as opposed to a divorce
situation where the father is
generally not revered - you know,
where the mother says, "Oh, your father's
a bum; we don't
need him."


Q. Why do we need fathers? Why do they count?

A. Fathers parent differently than mothers do. For example, we
know mothers
tend to be more verbal with their children
and fathers much more physical.
Particularly with boys,
fathers engage in rough- and-tumble play. What we're

discovering is that this serves as practice for boys to develop
control
over their aggression. So, it's a combination
of the father's tendency to
challenge achievement combined
with the mother's typical nurturing that
creates happy kids.
Now, fathers play an extra role when it comes to
daughters.
They give girls the experience of having a relationship with a

man who shows that the definition of love is "I care more about
you than
myself." That's important, because when girls start
looking for mates, if
they have the expectation that a man should
be like Dad, they will be more
likely to hold out for that positive
model.


Q. So how do you fix the problem of so many children
growing up in
fatherless homes?

A. First, we have to recognize the importance of fathers.
Right now we say
they are money - breadwinners or child-
support checks. Well, that's
nonsense. We have to understand
that fathers provide something unique and
irreplaceable. Second,
we have to change our minds about marriage. We've

communicated that marriage is an impermanent institution.
But if we
reconnect marriage with a sense of permanence,
then when you hit the rough
spots, you'll be more willing to
work through them, and that has a direct
impact on children.

Q. Admirable goals, but you're always going to have divorce.
What can a man
who's divorced or facing a divorce do now
to make sure he plays that
essential role in his kid's lives?

A. Settle the question, "How am I going to stay involved with
my children?"
Make that the first issue the court must focus on.
If you find yourself
post divorce and are having trouble with visitation,
go back to the courts
and ask them to enforce it. If you don't have
visitation rights or if you
have meager ones, go to court and ask
them to renegotiate them. But go
armed with the argument that
what you want is to ensure that your children
have the opportunity
to benefit from your involvement in their lives.



Monday, January 21, 2008

RADAR Civil Rights Project: Act Now to Stop Sex Discrimination!



Have you or someone you know been caught in the clutches of domestic violence and needed help?

Everyday hundreds of men in America experience this situation. If they dare to approach a program funded by the Violence Against Women Act for help, far too often they are RIDICULED AND SENT AWAY.

So in spite of the Congressional mandate that VAWA not discriminate against male victims, less than 10% of persons served by VAWA-funded programs are male - see http://www.mediaradar.org/ovw_foia_data.php. NOW IS THE TIME FOR ACTION TO STOP THIS TRAVESTY!

Today we are unveiling the RADAR Civil Rights Project. The project is devoted to the simple notion that men who have suffered from partner violence are just as deserving of help as females.

This Alert is our call to action.

Have you ever experienced sex-based discrimination by a DV service provider? Have you called for police help, and told to go away because they said you were probably the abuser? Has a friend of yours ever been given a straight-arm by a VAWA-funded program?

This is the closed-minded attitude we are dealing with:

"Whenever I speak of male abuse, I am met with disbelief and, even worse, laughter…I notice in talking with other shelter staff throughout the state that this attitude prevails in the other shelters, too." – Jan Dimmitt, Kelso, WA

So go to the RADAR website at http://www.mediaradar.org/civilrights_discrimination.php. You will be asked to fill out two forms asking the Department of Justice to investigate your case. We will ask you to also mail a copy of your complaint to RADAR. We will compile the complaints and take further action as needed.

Let's stop complaining how bad things are. For the sake of our families and our children, take action now.


Date of RADAR Release: January 21, 2008

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.

Sunday, January 20, 2008

Girl tortures ex boyfriend

I have posted the following story because it has similarities to the Kumari Fullbright case, and is a good example that undermines the myth that only men are violent in relationships. In order to challenge the radical feminist ideas regarding DV we must provide clear examples that show women as perpetrators. This is not an attack on women but rather an attempt to show that men dont hold a monopoly on domestic violence as much radical feminist propoganda would have us believe - GR Klein


Sydney Morning Herald January 21, 2008


A soldier thought he was in for a night of sexual adventure when he let a Perth teenager handcuff him but was instead assaulted by the girl who believed he had wronged her, a court was told.

Nicola Clunies-Ross went on trial in the West Australian District Court today accused of luring her Darwin-based soldier lover to her East Perth home on October 28, 2006, when they were both 19, and tricking him into being restrained.

She has pleaded not guilty to assault occasioning bodily harm, aggravated sexual penetration without consent and deprivation of liberty.

Prosecutor Amanda Burrows told the jury today Clunies-Ross believed her lover had wronged her and was lying about an ex-girlfriend.

So Clunies-Ross lured him to her flat, told him she had "a surprise for him", ordered him to strip and handcuffed him to a wooden chair.

"He consented to being constrained at that point in time. He thought he was in for a night of sexual adventure," Ms Burrows said.

But instead a champagne-sipping Clunies-Ross smiled at the man and told him "I am going to destroy you", Ms Burrows said.

Then her longer-term boyfriend, also a 19-year-old Darwin-based soldier, arrived with a big vibrator which she allegedly used on her victim in a one hour ordeal.

The court was told the long-term boyfriend took photos and short videos of the attack and threatened to publish them on an Army computer hard drive, accessible to all soldiers, if he did not do what he was told.

Ms Burrows said the man fled in a taxi after being released. He reported the assault to police in Darwin after seeking advice from a senior officer.

The trial, set down for four days, continues.

Clunies-Ross' family was granted the Cocos Islands, in the Indian Ocean, about 2,700km northwest of Perth, by Queen Victoria in 1886 after Captain John Clunies-Ross, a Scottish trader, landed on the islands in 1825.

The Australian government bought the islands from the family in 1978.

Is Hillary Clinton a closet sexist?



Renew America, 15 January 2008,
By Carey Roberts


Last week Hillary Clinton overcame a
double-digit deficit in the New
Hampshire
primary to surprise opponent Barack Obama. How did she
manage to pull off the near-miraculous upset?


Simple.

First, in a heart-warming display of female bonding, she
indulged in a
tearful moment at a Portsmouth, NH café.
Then she traveled to Salem where
two planted hecklers
chanted "Iron My Shirt," proving to the ladies the
patriarchy
is still plotting a return to the good-ol' days of barefoot
women.


So how do I know they were plants?

We know Hillary's operatives worked this stunt twice
before in Iowa. And
think about it — does anyone
believe that security would allow a couple of
scruffy-
looking guys to haul a 3-foot sign into the room?


Still, you have to admit the ruse was masterfully
staged— the overweight
baffoons who admitted to
being Republicans, Hillary directing the lights be
turned
up so photographers could get a good angle, and the
oh-so-slow
response of the security detail.

Hillary's come-back was as polished as a slab of
New Hampshire marble: "Oh,
the remnants of sexism
are alive and well." (Cue laughter and clapping.)


Columnist Mary K. Ham wrote the incident was
"almost too perfect." New York
Times writer Maureen
Dowd opined that Clinton was forced to "fend off
calamity
by playing the female victim." And Michelle Malkin called
it plain
"B.S."

But since Hillary has raised the 'S' word, maybe it's time
to inquire of
HRC's sexism. Isn't turn-about considered
fair play?


As far as I know, Hillary Clinton has never come out and
said, "Girls Rule,
Boys Drool." But a lot of things lead me to
believe she has a problem with men.


Over the years she has floated claims that range from half-baked
cants to
fantastic lies, all suggesting that men are oafish brutes.
For example,
Hillary's campaign website features this chestnut:
Women unfairly "earn
only 77 cents for every dollar men earn."

Hillary, you pay persons based on the number of hours
they work and the
skills they bring, not because of
their genitalia.


There are the Chicken-Little allusions to the dreaded patriarchy.
Informed
that Iowa had never elected a female governor,
senator, or congressman,
Hillary warned darkly, "There has
got to be something at work here."


Hillary, there is more to life than working 18-hour days and
pretending to
enjoy rubber chicken dinners at campaign
fund-raisers.


There are the endless men-not-welcome slogans and
events: Mothers and
Daughters Making History, Empowered
Women for Hillary, Moms for Hillary,
Nurses for Hillary,
Abortionists for Hillary (just kidding), Women of Color

luncheons, You Go Girl! buttons, house parties —
the list goes on.


It's the reliance on tired feminist clichés. Basking in her
New Hampshire
win, Clinton told her supporters that she
had finally found her "voice."
Yes, imagine a grown woman,
a national senator, a presidential aspirant,
admitting she's
been too timid to speak out all these years.


And then there's that irritating refrain, "it's time to break the
biggest
glass ceiling in the land."

Hillary, there is no glass ceiling — it's your inability to run an
ethical
campaign and to not diss white men who represent
the second largest
electoral block in the nation.

She works the victim angle to a T. During her recent
debate Mrs. Clinton
was asked why voters didn't see her
as likeable. This was her
I-am-woman-hear-my-roar answer:
"Well, that hurts my feelings, but I'll try
to go on."

As former Clinton advisor Dick Morris observed,
"In her victimhood, Hillary
has achieved the popularity that
proved elusive in her previous incarnations."


There's her ironclad rule to never mention issues
of concern to men, like
the woeful underfunding of prostate
cancer research, discrimination by
divorce courts, and
false allegations of domestic violence.


And if she believes in helping children, why doesn't
Hillary do something
to rein in those nanny-government
programs that shove fathers out of their
kids' lives?

It's the nasty put-downs. Remember that quip she
made in Iowa about "evil
and bad men"? And Hillary
once raved about a book she read called "Demonic

Males." Just imagine the political fall-out if Obama ever
read a book
called, "Big Bad Whitey"!

Once Mrs. Clinton recounted the time she received a
sympathy note during
her darkest days in the White House
that read, "Whenever you have trouble
coping, just think of Snow
White. She had to live with seven men."


Funny.

Worst of all, she displays no compunction in playing
the estrogen
supremacist card. Here's the pick of the
litter, from a 2005 lecture:
"Research shows the presence
of women raises the standards of ethical

behavior and lowers corruption."

Sexism with a smile, Hillary-style.

---

Carey Roberts is an analyst and commentator on political correctness. His
best-known work was an exposé on Marxism and radical feminism.

Mr. Roberts' work has been cited on the Rush Limbaugh show. Besides serving
as a regular contributor to RenewAmerica.us, he has published in The
Washington Times, LewRockwell.com, ifeminists.net, Men's News Daily,
eco.freedom.org, The Federal Observer, Opinion Editorials, and The Right
Report.

Previously, he served on active duty in the Army, was a professor of
psychology, and was a citizen-lobbyist in the US Congress. In his spare
time he admires Norman Rockwell paintings, collects antiques, and is an
avid soccer fan. He now works as an independent researcher and consultant.








Friday, January 18, 2008

Defender of abused women finds a new cause: male victims

Independent, 17 January 2008 - By Emily Dugan

Erin Pizzey, the campaigner who pioneered
treatment for abused women by setting up
Britain's first refuge centre for victims of
domestic violence in the 1970s, is now

turning her attention to another group of often
overlooked victims: men.

Launching an online campaign and research project
aimed at bringing the issue out in the open, Ms Pizzey
is hoping to raise awareness of abuse perpetrated by
women against men – a subject she describes as "one
of the last taboos". She has put a questionnaire on the
website femininezone.com that allows women to answer
questions anonymously about how they treat men.

As many as one in six men are thought to suffer physical
and mental abuse at the hands of women, yet the topic
is widely seen as insignificant or implausible.

"I feel that this kind of violence is one of the last taboos
– men are reluctant to talk about it, and so are the women
who are doing it," said Ms Pizzey, whose father was
abused by her mother. "Much is known and studied
about male violence, but very little is written about women,
and any attempt to discuss female violence is met with
rabid attacks and howls of 'blaming the victim'."

During the 1970s, Ms Pizzey created safe havens
for hundreds of abused women, but she found it increasingly
frustrating that people could only see females as victims.
As she tried to create similar sanctuaries for men, she
discovered that even those who had been generous
towards her women's centres would not consider
giving funding.

"I imagined people who had given money to my
women's projects would also give it over for the men,
but not one gave money," she said. "It's shocking
that across the world there are no facilities giving sanctuary
for men, and no sympathy. I think it's a deeply held taboo
that if a man is assaulted by a woman he is weak, but if
a woman is assaulted by a man she is a victim.
It's social conditioning."

Samantha Wilson, a therapist working in London and
Manchester who specialises in domestic abuse, says
she often sees men who were injured by women. "I've
]been working with cases of violence for 20 years, and
many of them have been women abusing men," she said.
"This could be happening to people you know and you simply
wouldn't realise."

According to Ms Pizzey, the issue is greeted with scepticism
by police and social services who, she says, often "refuse to
believe" it. She hopes that by discussing violent women in the
open she may be able to bring about change.

Next month, she is travelling to Sacramento, California,
to attend the first conference on domestic abuse to deal
with men and women as perpetrators.

Boyfriend became punch-bag

Anna, 35, appeared to have everything, but beneath the
respectable facade, she was living a secret life of violence.
Abused as a child, she found herself repeating the abuse.
After just a few months with her boyfriend, Paul, arguments
started by her became regular, and after a while she became
violent. Sometimes it was a kick or a punch, but on other
occasions she would throw heavy objects at him, until finally
she threatened him with a knife. Anna knew she needed help
and sought out a hypnotist. After several sessions she began to
control her anger, and now she and Paul plan to marry.


Check Erin Pizzey's Blog which has some great articles.

http://www.sossandra.org/author/erin

Monday, January 14, 2008

Sex Discrimination - affects men too?


When you mention sex discrimination most people automatically assume you are talking about issues affecting women without ever considering that men also suffer from the impact of discrimination.

The Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission has appointed a new Sex Discrimination Commissioner and Commissioner responsible for Age Discrimination, Elizabeth Broderick. (More information is available at
www.humanrights.gov.au.

At present they are conducting community consultations to develop a plan to address sex discrimination in Australia. It is important that the new commissioner acknowledges the many ways that men are discriminated against and actively develops resources and strategies to address the issues.

Here is a summary of some of the key ways men are disadvantaged in Australia.

Males have much higher illness, injury, accident and death rates and die 5 years earlier than females, yet research funding for male health is less than one-third of that for female health

* Males suicide at almost four times the rate of females. More males kill themselves each year than the entire Australian road toll

* More than twice as many males as females experience work-related injuries and illnesses, and over ninety percent of work-related deaths are males

* Young men are three times as likely as young women to be victims of violence, however, there are no public health campaigns to address this very serious issue

* Men are also victims of intimate partner abuse, however, there are no support services for these men, nor treatment services for abusive women

* Boys in Australia are much more likely to drop out of school than girls. In NSW, the difference between boys' and girls' average Tertiary Entrance Rank is almost 20%. Males currently make up just 37% of university graduates

* In Australia today, only women have reproductive rights. Upon becoming pregnant, a woman can choose to have the baby, or have an abortion, or put the baby up for adoption. A man has no choice whether to become a father or even to be notified that he has become a father

* Men are more likely to be convicted and receive longer sentences for the same crimes, compared to their female counterparts (94% of the prison population is male)

* Following family court proceedings, children are far more likely to be given little or no time with their father than they are with their mother

* The current inequitable parental leave schemes, favouring mothers, reinforce fathers in the traditional 'breadwinner' role rather than supporting them as being 'hands-on' dads (which all the research shows gives better outcomes for children and their parents)

* Australian women are responsible for spending 90 cents in every household dollar

More information about how to contribute to the Listening Tour will be posted at www.humanrights.gov.au in coming weeks, along with details of other events as the HREOC team make their way around the country.

Can't make it to the consultation? An interactive website is currently being constructed which will allow online contributions.

Sunday, January 13, 2008

Feminism's next challenge: to take men out of the workplace and put them in the playgroup



I have included the following story becuase it raises some interesting issues, however it also brings up some fallacious points that I have responded to in bold. GR Klein


By Deborah Orr
d.orr@ independent.co.uk


It might be considered a little odd that Harriet Harman, the Minister for Women, was chosen to relaunch a government-sponsored charity that exists to lobby for men. Yet when the campaigning group Fathers' Direct opted to restyle itself more grandly as The Fatherhood Institute, it was Harman, not, say, Ed Balls, the minister for children, schools and families, who cut the ribbon round the new stationery.

The Fatherhood Institute, after all, believes that in many areas only
lip-service is paid to the parenting needs of men. It points out that fathers are institutionally discriminated against in a thousand tiny ways, every day, from being obliged to walk into rooms signed "mother and baby changing" or, even more intimidatingly, styled "mother and baby group". It asserts, fairly gently, it has to be admitted, that when it comes to taking part in family life, men are discriminated against all the time, to the detriment of their children.

This may seem like a funny set of ideas for a woman so ardently feminist
that she's nicknamed Harriet Harperson to subscribe to. Some of this rhetoric, after all, could be heard just as comfortably falling from the lips of the militants at Fathers 4 Justice, who despise what they see as a sinister bias towards women in matters of parenting – questioning the conventional idea that a small child might be better off staying mainly with its mother after a break-up (as most women prefer it), and seeing any feminist assertion as a declaration of misandry.

But that would be to misunderstand the aims of the Fatherhood Institute,
which can be described as tending more towards gender blindness than gender war. The Fatherhood Institute wishes to drag British dads into the 21st century, by orchestrating a change in the way men see themselves. It offers a positive and supportive response to the gains of feminism, rather than a conservative and punitive one. It is not afraid to admit, as women sometimes are, that the advances gained by females in the workplace over the past 35 years may have brought much-needed liberation, but have put a worrying squeeze on the amount of time a child spends in the bosom of its family.

It is not afraid to admit this because it does not offer a solution whereby women are placed back in their breeding boxes, then nailed into them. It is keen to highlight research that consistently reports that half of working men would prefer to work more flexibly and become more involved with their children, and presses hard for maternity and paternity rights to be equal.

The extent to which such a fortuitous mind-shift would chime with the aims
of feminism is huge. Even for the most successful and talented women, career-breaks or even flexible working for a limited period damage future employment prospects. It's a large part of why the gender pay gap, despite entrenched legislation against workplace inequality, still runs at 17 per cent between men and women working full-time. (GR Klein - please note - This point is highly contentious and deserves further scrutiny. In my experience all the women I have ever worked with doing the same job as me got the same pay. So I dont know where these statistics come from)

If the responsibility for bringing up small children was taken up by men as seriously as it was by women, all this would change. (GR Klein - but women dont want to let go of their power base... and so its not just about men seizing the parenting role but it is about women reliquishing it. Just look at the family courts system it actively blocks men from fulfiling their role) Women would be discriminated against less in the workplace simply because they would be no more likely than men to put their families before their employment prospects. Both genders would be considered likely, for a period of their lives, to take their foot off the work pedal, and pick their kids up from nursery for a trip to the park.

The catch, of course, is that men are already afraid of damaging their
employment prospects by sticking their necks out for their families in the way that women still do. Half of men may say they would like to work flexibly, but women are 63 per cent more likely actually to do so. And that's not just in Britain: even in those European countries where men's paternity rights are far more advanced than ours, take-up is small (Why because society does not respect men who make this choice). Iceland is way out in front of everyone else, with 16 per cent of eligible men taking up their right to work flexibly. Next is Finland, with just 3 per cent.

Some of this low take-up can be explained by recourse to the dreaded biological model, which decrees that women simply want to look after their young children much more than men do (And lets no forget the socialisation process which begins at a very young age to encourage girls towards nurturing behaviour and boys towards action) But what the biological model never explains is where post-natal depression figures in the nurturing imperative, or why women with small children report feelings of loneliness or isolation. It really does make sense, most couples would agree, for mothers and fathers to share the care of children, for the sake of everyone's mental health. But that doesn't make it happen.

So are young men just lying when they say that they wish to care for their
babies more, and are old men just lying when they say that their great regret in life is not having been able to spend time with their children when they were small? Maybe lying is a little strong. No one actually lies, after all, when they tell the researcher that they really want to learn a musical instrument. They just don't ever do it.

Partly, it's just that since the pay gap does exist (GR Klein comment - Not in my world it doesnt, how about you, know any women who are paid less than men doing the same job...........) it makes more sense
for the woman to work less, because the man earns more. Mostly, when men take time off to look after a baby, it's because they are the lower earner. Since the pay gap is smaller among young people – and in some sectors even reversed – maybe that will gradually change. But I'm not that optimistic.

A report by Jean Edelstein, for the think-tank the Institute for Public Policy Research, suggested late last year that "feminism has gone soft". She contended that work-life balance and gender-related pay gaps had been mistakenly focused on by feminists at the expense of "hard" feminist issues such as sexual violence and the subjugation of women.

This had happened, she said, because such issues "are violent and
frightening ... seem systematic and insurmountable, and, above all, are not usually a part of the daily lives of middle-class women..." I don't think she's wrong. It is frightening to think about the increasing number of women who are raped in Britain, and the decreasing number of rapes that are prosecuted. It is depressing to consider that through the years of feminism, there has been little let-up in the amount of domestic violence that women bear, but a swing away from the provision of safe places for women to go.

(GR Klein - please note - Curious how often when people discuss DV the automatic assumption is that all victims are women and all perpetrators are men. This is utterly incorrect with new reseach suggesting that it is more like 50/50, but this has traditionally been distored because males simply do not report the abuse. The RADAR organisation has some great resources to dispell this myth)

But I think things are worse than Edelstein herself understands. It seems
to me that all the issues she characterises as "soft" are actually feminist aims that tend to advance the economy, increasing the skills pool, expanding the workforce, bringing more disposable income into the marketplace, forcing a seismic leap in the price of family homes, providing cheap labour (mothers in part-time work being the least well-paid of all). Perhaps it was market forces that changed women's lives as much as feminist campaigns. And perhaps it's those same forces that make it harder to change the lives of men.

Saturday, January 12, 2008

Rapists target male drinkers


Caroline Marcus, SMH - January 13, 2008

HUNDREDS of straight men are being raped in the city and eastern suburbs every year, many after having their drinks spiked.

Health experts have warned that men can be just as much of a target for sexual predators as women, although most men were not aware of the threat that lurked every time they went to the pub.

The Eastern and Central Sexual Assault Service at Royal Prince Alfred Hospital recorded 44 male victims of sexual assault last year, although manager Lisa Simpson said the figure was just "the tip of the iceberg".

There have been 293 since 2001.

Up to 95 per cent of male victims did not report the crime to police.

"There is a huge denial about same-sex sexual assault," Ms Simpson said.

"Men are vulnerable to sexual assault just as women can be vulnerable to sexual assault. Rape is about people who want to dominate other human beings in a sexually aggressive way."

Drug-assisted sexual assaults were relatively common among presentations to the clinic, she said.

"A lot of men seem to have met their offenders at pubs or clubs or venues such as that, had a few drinks and then become aware afterwards that they had been sexually assaulted and their drinks had been spiked with drugs or alcohol," she said.


Men made up 16 per cent of the 273 sexual assault cases at the clinic last year - consistent with national proportions, the Institute of Criminology said.

In 2002, there were 4800 male victims of sexual assault older than 15 across the country, the Australian Bureau of Statistics said.

However, men were also far less likely than women to seek help or report an assault.

The NSW Rape Crisis Centre has also reported an increase in men contacting it.

Unwitting incest a 'tragedy'

The following story is an example of what can
happen when children grow up without knowing
who their fathers are. Food for thought for
those lesbians and single women considering
IVF to pump out children to fulfill their needs
in the process denying the child of the right to
know and have a father.


The Age (Melbourne) 12 January 2008



Reuters - Twins who were separated at birth and raised by
different
families met later and married but were forced to
break up when they
discovered their true identities, a
British legislator said on Friday.


"It's a tragedy for the couple who are involved, a terrible
tragedy.
Everyone's hearts will go out to people caught
up quite unwittingly in a
case of incest of this kind," David
Alton, a member of Britain's upper
House of Lords, told
BBC radio.


Alton first raised the case during debate on a proposed
new law on in vitro
fertilisation (IVF). He says it highlights
the need for children to know
who their parents are.

He fears that under the new law, the biological identity of
one parent of a
child born as a result of IVF could be removed
from the birth certificate,
creating the potential for similar tragic
mistakes to occur.


Alton told parliament last month he had heard about the twins
from a High
Court judge who had dealt with the case.

"It involved the normal birth of twins who were separated at
birth and
adopted by separate parents," said Alton, who has
no party affiliation.
"They were never told that they were twins."

"They met later in life and felt an inevitable attraction" and they
got
married, he said.

"When they did come to know their true identities it led to their
having to
separate and also to a lot of heartbreak," Alton said
on Friday. News
reports said their marriage was annulled.

No further information was available about the twins or where
they were from.


"This isn't a regular occurrence but it could become one
with large numbers
of people now being born by IVF and
not knowing their true identities,"
Alton said.

The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill, now working
its way through
the British parliament, recognises same-sex
couples as legal parents of
children conceived through the
use of donated sperm, eggs or embryos.


"The government ... have not accepted the argument that
you should have the
right to know who your biological father
is on the birth certificate,"
Alton said.

"It would be a terrible act of deception, with the state
colluding in that
deception, to remove the biological identity
of your father from the birth
certificate," he added.

Pam Hodgkins, head of a group that helps adults affected
by adoption, said
the story of the twins was very tragic.

"It is a lesson that we need to learn and apply to the situation of
donor-conceived children," she told Sky News.

"Whilst ... nowadays it would be most unusual for siblings to
be separated
... the risk of secrecy affecting the lives of people
born as a result of
egg and sperm donation is exactly the same
as the risks that have affected
adopted people in the past," she said.

Wednesday, January 9, 2008

Which presidential candidate is speaking up for men and boys?

Hillary Clinton regularly speaks about the needs of women and how she will champion the needs of those who suffer at the hands of a discriminatory system. It sounds inspiring a hero who will stand up for the weak (women) and fight the evil patriarchy (men). Except if you are a man I am concerned that Hillary will continue to escalate the war on men currently being played out in the media.

There has been no mention of the terrible injustice that tens of thousands of American fathers are exposed to through the discriminatory family court system. There has been no mention of the terrible state of male health, the fact that men comprise 80% of all suicide victims, and the massive overrepresentation of men in the criminal justice system (93%).

Men are socialised to protect women and children, women are socialised to protect women and children. And this tendency is evident in the current presidential campaign, as no-one from either side of politics has stood up for men while both sides have waxed lyrical about the needs of women and how they will fight for them.

Check out the stories below.


http://www.philly.com/inquirer/world_us/12764132.html

Daughter, mother at Clinton stop

CONCORD, N.H. - Democratic presidential candidate Hillary
Rodham Clinton used family and friends as she appealed to
female voters at the start of a two-day campaign swing.

Clinton, in a tight race with Barack Obama in New Hampshire,
the first state to vote in a primary election after the Iowa
caucuses, was joined by her mother, Dorothy Rodham,
her daughter, Chelsea, and State Senate President Sylvia
Larsen.

Rodham and Chelsea Clinton didn't address the crowd, but
Larsen did.

"I know about glass ceilings," said Larsen, only the third woman
to lead the state legislative branch. Larsen said Clinton
represented the United States on international trips, worked
for children and families and was a major player in her
husband's administration.

"As first lady, she was both a strategist and an idealist," Larsen
said.

- AP


http://www.philly.com/inquirer/opinion/20080103_Letters_to_the_Editor.html

Speak out for boys

Re: "Daughter, mother at
Clinton stop," Dec. 22:

What is strikingly startling is the complete absence of any
candidate from either party who is making closing arguments
to boys and men equivalent to Hillary Clinton's outreach to
girls and women.

Given that women already are gender superior in areas of
education, reproductive rights, family - particularly divorce,
paternity fraud, custody, child-support, alimony and single
parenthood - and soon will be superior in work and pay, there
is no dearth of issues for men.

What there is a dearth of is "presidential timber" candidates
willing to defy P.C. ideology and demand equal treatment for
boys and men in all areas of life.

Gordon E. Finley

Professor of psychology
Florida International University
Miami


Tuesday, January 8, 2008

Lesbians and single mothers using IVF to eliminate fatherhood

It is wonderful that technology has advanced to such a point whereby we can throw away millions of years of evolutionary processes, to embrace a new system of parenting in which fathers are non existent. A Brave New World beckons us, but I wonder how women will feel when they too are removed from the process and our children have no parents other than the test tube they grew up in.

A recent book by Louise Sloan, Knock yourself up - No Man, No problem, is a great example of the selfish approach to parenting that is the norm today. You see Louise is focused on her needs, her need to be a mother, her need to feel loved but because she is a lesbian she cant have children by any other way than IVF or can she?

Well she could actually, as most of us old school people are familiar with there is time honoured process one engages in when one wants a kid, its called sex and you need a male and a female to produce the goods.

IVF was initialling developed to help infertile couples conceive, these were people with no other option. It is a very expensive process and as such is only available to the wealthy. Furthermore, with all the lesbians and single mothers lining up to get IVF there is now competition for this service between those who need it, because they have no other choice (ie infertile couples) and those who have decided to use it because they refuse to have sex with a man (ie lesbians or single women).

Being a lesbian is a preference for certain sexual stimulation and last time I checked an orgasm was not essential for a woman to conceive. Thus I think that any keen leso could if she wanted find a bloke to fuck to get pregnant and in the process reduce the pressure on IVF services.

So rich lesbians and rich single women now flaunt their free choice to be mothers on demand. However, there is one crucial factor that has been omitted, and this is the child’s needs.

A child is the product of the DNA from a male and female and as such each parent is essential to the creation of this child. Following on from this within each individual regardless of gender there exists both masculine and feminine qualities and our parents help us to develop these qualities.

However, when a young girl is learning about menstruation and when a young boy is learning about wet dreams if is best is the person helping them to deal with this has been through it themselves. Furthermore, young boys need to learn from their mothers and young girls need to learn from their fathers, to create well rounded individuals.

Children have the right know their parents and any society that creates a system (IVF) that obscures this is doing a great disservice to future generations. We only have to look at the effect of adoption and the fact that many adopted people choose to seek out their natural parents and we can only assume that IVF will create a similar legacy.

Finally books such as this add to the cultural view that when it comes to parenting fathers are an optional extra that can easily be dispensed with. Yet more and more research is showing how important fathers are to the development of healthy young men and women. Rather then continuing to denigrate fatherhood we need to give the role the importance that it deserves

Monday, January 7, 2008

Male bashing - its only a joke.......................


Warren Farrell suggests that, "In the past quarter century, we exposed biases against other races and called it racism, and we exposed biases against women and called it sexism. Biases against men we call humor."

The above quote is an example of the way "male bashing" has become an accepted part of our culture. Female performers like Pink, can be seen in many of her videos bashing up men or conspiring to bash men. Just pause for a moment and imagine the same scene except, now it is Justin Timberlake who is bashing up a whole lot of women in his videos. How would this be received?

Or take Amy Winehouse’s recent admission that she regularly bashes up her husband. Yet this admission of spousal abuse that would see a man jailed and publicly humiliated barely gets a mention in the media.

Recently in Australia they made a television commercial where a girl is on a beach feeding sausages into a meet grinder and from the way the commercial is filmed it is implied that the sausages represent the a section of the male anatomy that is of similar shape. Once again can you please click you shoes together and come a journey to a far away place with me where everything is reversed. So imagine the same commercial but with a man simulating the mutilation of a women's genitals, pretty grim stuff hey.

Feminists demand equality and fair enough let everyone be treated with respect and have equal access to health, education and their children. Oh what I hear the feminists declare, you see when they say they want equality what they should have said is we want preferential treatment.

How can people and our society be so blind to the horrendous injustices being perpetrated against men throughout western industrialised nations. Well I think a major reason is that men are conditioned to live in denial, to deny pain, to deny emotion, to deny weakness. For one so conditioned it becomes almost impossible to seek help when it is really needed. Hence why men comprise 80% of all suicides.

However, I think the great battle to be fought is the disgusting injustice that is perpetrated by family courts in the UK, USA, Australia, NZ and many other countries. It is here that many men are first confronted with the pervasive discrimination that permeates our society.

Untold numbers of men are denied the right to be parents, relentlessly pursued for money and jailed if they cannot come up with it. Male victims of domestic violence are invisible because the prevailing zeitgeist spread by the feminist propaganda machine would have us believe that it is only men are perpetrate violence and women who are its victims.

Yet this stands in sharp contrast to the feminist catch cry, that women can do anything. I must say I whole heartedly agree, women can be leaders, doctors, parents, engineers, teachers, nurses, murderers, child abusers, domestic violence perpetrators, villains, cheats…….etc.

Human capacity for goodness is not a function of gender, I know that there are plenty of fuckwits on both sides of the gender divide.