Misandry Away

A dad's role will never equal a mum's - By the Self confessed Pedophile Germaine Greer

noreply@blogger.com (GR Klein) — Sat, 07 Jun 2008 22:41:00 +0000

Germaine Greer the self confessed pedophile, who has never had children and never will has just published an article that regales us with her vacuous opinions on parenthood. Which I find amusing coming from someone who admits that she is sexually turned on by young boys and has never been pregnant or adopted any kids.

It is kind of like going to Nabokov's Humbert, (from Lolita) to get some advice on child rearing.

Furthermore, I find Greer’s perspective to be logically flawed. For on the one hand we have one of the leaders of the feminist movement describing how certain female roles are only the domain of women and men must be excluded from such roles. Furthermore, women should be actively encouraged and supported to take on male roles . On the other hand she says that fathers are not as important as mothers, and that males are not able to fulfill such roles and should be excluded from them.

Greers. stance sounds very similar the old argument that was trotted out by patriarchy that said women cannot do the same things that a man can and as such were restricted from accessing the world of work. Basically she is saying that while women can do anything men can only do men's stuff.

Today men are discriminated against by being denied access to their families.

If feminism states that men and women are equal then surely we are both capable of the same roles. If women can be leaders then men can be parents, if women can be soldiers then men can be nurses etc. However, Greer boldly claims that only woman can nurture their children, this is logically inconsistent.

So I have reprinted this egregious attack on fathers by the pedophile Greer with my comments to her pathetic opinions in bold - GR KLEIN.

The Times (

Britain

), 4 June 2008, By Germaine (Pedophile) Greer

The notion that mothers could be required by law to register the names of the fathers on the birth certificates of their children has been around for years. The latest version originated with John Hutton in July 2006, when he was Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. Enthusiasm for the idea waned when wiser heads pointed out that being forced to identify a reluctant or violent father could place vulnerable women and children in danger. (What about violent mothers who kill or abuse their kids - GR KLEIN)

When Mr Hutton brought forward his Child Maintenance Bill a year later, the issue was not raised, apparently because someone had realised that registration of births was nothing to do with Department for Work and Pensions. The Institute for Public Policy and Research then took up the baton, timing its contribution for Father's Day 2007.

Kate Stanley, the head of social policy at the left-of-centre IPPR,
announced that "everyone should know who to send a card to on Father's Day," an assertion hardly more cogent than grammatical.

She went rampaging on through sense and syntax, laying all waste before her. "Most people will be thanking their fathers... but many will be wondering who their father is and why they have not helped support their family. Requiring fathers to be registered on a birth certificate sends an important signal about the duties of parenthood. It communicates the message that fathers have an equal role to mothers and that they must take their responsibilities seriously."

Common sense tells us that a father's role is not equal to a mother's (What a load of rubbish, and I wonder how Germaine reached this conclusion, was it based on her extensive experience as a parent, I think not she has no kids or was it - GR Klein). A man can become a father and not know he's done it.(Does not knowing that you have kids equal not caring, I dont think so - GRK)

A woman can only become a mother after she has carried her child to term; regardless of what happens to her baby, whether it dies, or is given away, or grows up in her care, or commits a hideous crime, she will always be attached to it. She will suffer more for her child than she has ever suffered for herself. If her child is taken from her, she will experience pain at the site of the separation for the rest of her life (What the hell would Greer know about motherhood, she has no kids and never will have - GR KLEIN)

This is a real difference between men and women; neither fashion nor politics can argue it away. Fathers may want me to believe that their experience of parenthood is just as involved and passionate as mothers'. As far as I'm concerned this is like the pretence that men suffer menopause. Claiming to replicate female experience is another way of belittling it, just another insidious variation of misogyny (Oh would this be similar to the manner in which women claim to 'replicate male experience' and perhaps all it does is belittle it and is another version of misandry - GR KLEIN)

The perennial suggestion has come around again in the Welfare Reform Bill, to be debated later this year. Mothers will no longer be able to keep the name of the father off the birth certificate just "because a relationship has broken up acrimoniously".

This is a curiously prissy way to refer to the prevalence of domestic violence and the role of such violence as an important cause of miscarriage, stillbirth and maternal death in this country. Considering that in any one year there are 13 million separate incidences of violence against a woman by a partner or former partner, it's surprising that only 50,000 men are left off birth certificates. In a third of cases the violence emerges only after the woman has become pregnant. The risk factors for domestic violence are three; being a woman, being young and being
pregnant (no actually Germain they are not most partner violence is about 50/50 between men and women click here for more - GR KLEIN) . Physical violence is only part of the story; women who fall pregnant are even more likely to be belittled, reviled, deserted, rejected and denied than they are to be bashed.

It should be obvious that in a humane society no woman or child should be forced into an enduring relationship with a reluctant and resentful father (or mother... curious this is left out - GR KLIEN) . We see fewer reluctant mothers than we used to because of the availability of contraception and abortion (thats right women can kill their babies on demand - GR K) , but reluctant fathers have always been with us. In the ten years or so that DNA paternity testing has been available it has been used almost exclusively by men who have had a relationship with a woman and seek to disprove paternity of her children ( or confirm paternity, I ask you would a women want to pay child support for a kid that is not theirs? - GRK)

The State has proved so spectacularly incapable of getting recognised fathers to fulfil the obligations they have already acknowledged (Yeah because fathers are given very little support by the state, by the community and by people like the pedophile Greer - GRK ) , that one can only wonder why they are so anxious to track down still more from whom they will fail to get a penny. A father who wants to take responsibility for a child whose mother wants no more to do with him will have the Government on his side (absolute BS, where have you been Germaine, had your head up some young boys ass perhaps, I think she has forgotten about the mass of oranisations that actively support mothers and the absolute lack of such services for men, this is really too much - GRK) . Heaven help the child if the mother wants nothing
to do with him because she doesn't trust him around young childrenn ( This might be like the fact that I would not want you around my kids Germaine considering that you admit you are a pedophile - GR Klein)

A woman must be relied upon to decide whether or not she wants or will allow the sire of her child to share their lives, and her decision should be respected (A child is the product of DNA from both parents and the child has a right to a relationship with both and whats more most research indicates that having two parents is essential to developing a stable adult identity for both boys and girls _ GRK) . In the world according to the Welfare Reform Bill, the woman who had a fling with a married workmate in a moment of madness at the office party, say, found herself pregnant and decided to have the baby, would have no choice but to finger him, thereby wrecking his marriage and
bringing disaster upon his children. Her only other option would be
abortion, which may be entirely unacceptable to her.

The funny part is that a married woman who has a baby by someone other than her husband will be asked no questions. Her husband's name will be entered on the birth certificate as a matter of course. Neither the registrar nor the Government really cares who a child's real father is. What they really, really want is someone to foot the bill for raising it.

You would think that a Labour Government would know that the only way to make sure that no child grows up in poverty is, not to replace one inefficient and outrageously expensive bureaucracy with another that has even greater powers to harass and humiliate, but to provide for all children out of tax revenue.

That way all men and women provide for all children, including their own and ones they didn't know they had. Nothing else has worked or will work. If Gordon Brown had the courage of his convictions, he would reform the taxation system and ditch this ridiculously unrealistic Reform Bill.

Mum doesn't live with us any more

noreply@blogger.com (GR Klein) — Sat, 07 Jun 2008 13:15:00 +0000

The following story is an interesting reversal of the typical post seperation custody outcome - ie most of the time the kids go with the mother. As such fathers often miss out on the same level of contact with their children post seperation or divorce.

However in the following story the situation is reversed and the mother loses custody of her kids. Please note how the author of this story still implies that the mother is the victim, and she expresses a desire to understand and help this poor women. Whereas a father in a similar situation would typically be denigrated in the article and no effort would be made to understand his motivations - GR KLEIN

The Times (Britain), 3 June 2008

More than 150,000 UK mothers live apart from their children, as courts increasingly give custody to fathers, Catherine Bruton reports on the rise of ‘mothers apart'

Margaret Clarke went out to work one day and returned to find that her children had gone. “My husband ended our eight-year marriage by walking out with my two young sons, then aged 4 and 2. I came home to an empty house. It was a nightmare.”(Yep I can certainly relate to that feeling as I am sure can many fathers who have seperated from their partners - GR KLEIN)

Margaret applied to the county court, which ruled that the children should be returned to their mother - but her estranged husband refused to do so.

In the six-day court hearing that followed, Margaret found to her dismay that “when it comes to custody battles, possession is nine tenths of the law. If you've got the kids from the outset you are in a much better position to maintain the status quo. My ex-husband was able to establish a ‘new normal' with the children, thus initiating the elimination of me as their mother from their lives.”(This is what happens to so many fathers every single day, they are eliminated from their children's lives - GR KLEIN)

When the judgment finally came, Margaret, a 42-year-old business manager from South London who had been working full-time as the family's main breadwinner, felt that she was penalised for being a working woman. The court granted residence to the children's father, confining Margaret's contact to once a week and alternate weekends.

Margaret's story is not uncommon. The number of

mothers who have little or no contact with their children is rising each year. The latest quarterly Child Support Agency figures (September 2007) show that women are registered as the “non-resident parent” in 66,900 maintenance cases. These figures do not include mothers who have been denied “parental status” and so have no access at all to their children. Penny Cross of Match (Mothers Apart from Their Children) estimates that there are more than 150,000 mothers living apart from their children in the

, and the numbers are rising every year.

A new book seeks to dispel some of the myths and misconceptions about such mothers. A Mother Apart: How to let go of guilt and find happiness living apart from your child (Crown House Publishing, £12.99) is written by Sarah Hart, a counsellor and “mother apart” who argues that we live in a world of gender double standards( Oh gender double standards they are so horid I agree but it is obviously men that have the most to complain about here, being as they comprise the overwhelming majority of all parents who are absent from their children _ GR KLEIN), where non-resident mothers are unfairly
stigmatised. “People assume that they have either abandoned their children or been deemed unfit mothers by the courts. They are perceived as bad mums, odd, possibly even heartless, selfish or cruel,” she says. “In reality, the circumstances surrounding a mother choosing to living apart from a child are often complex and emotionally charged. Decisions are often made very quickly in times of high stress, few resources and seemingly few choices.”

Cultural expectations of male and female parenting roles have changed in recent years, but the stereotype of the mother who would fight to the death rather than live without her children continues to hold sway over the public imagination. “Many ‘mothers apart' feel that they have no socially recognised right to grieve the loss of their children,” explains Hart. “They may keep quiet about the existence of children with whom they have no
contact, struggling in silence with feelings of worthlessness, guilt, high anxiety and depression.”

Each year between 150,000 and 200,000 (married and unmarried) parental couples in

England

and

Wales

separate. Most parents agree arrangements for residence and contact without the involvement of the courts. As in Marie's case (see left), financial constraints are the most common reason for mums to relinquish custody, but illness, depression and personal ambition may also be factors.

For an increasing number of women, though, the decision is taken out of their hands by the courts. About 30,000 residence orders are made each year in English and Welsh courts. According to Miranda Fisher, a family law solicitor with Charles Russell: “If there has, in the past, been a presumption in favour of the mother as primary carer, now that more mothers are working full time and fathers taking on more childcare responsibilities, there is a growing trend in the family courts towards making shared residence orders. There are also more cases where fathers obtain sole residence orders, although they are still very much in the minority.”(Thankyou for pointing this out, but it is typical of our society that we tend to view a problem as more worthy of notice if it affects a woman , although the majority of people affected by it may be men - for example it is horrible to think of a women being a vicitm of assault but young males make up the overwhelming majority of people in this category, it is horrible to think of women in jail but 94% of prisoners are male, it is terrible to think of a women killing herself but 80% of all suicides are male, and it is very sad to think of a mother living without her children but the fact is the overwhelming majority of people in this situation are fathers _ GR KLEIN )

Fisher says that courts are reluctant to cause children upheaval by
disrupting existing residence arrangements. “For example, if a mother moves out of the family home - perhaps planning to organise alternative accommodation for herself and the children - it might take between six and 12 months to get to a court hearing that will make a final determination about residence. By that time the father may have made arrangements for the children that work well, and the court must then decide what the effect on the children would be of changing these arrangements. What the mother may
have intended to be only a temporary arrangement could result in her permanently losing residence.”

And for many mothers who fail to gain residence, the story doesn't end there. “The real difficulty for the absent parent often lies not in
obtaining an order for contact with children, but in making contact work in the long term,” says Fisher. “This is most apparent where the court is faced with a hostile parent with residence of the children who refuses to accept that any contact is in their interests.”

In the past, courts could hand out fines or prison sentences only to
obstructive parents - measures usually not considered to be in the best interests of the child. “When the Children and Adoption Act (CAA) 2006 comes into force, parents who breach contact orders, or conditions attached to contact, will risk having to do community service alongside those convicted of criminal offences,” explains Fisher. “However, the success of the new powers will depend largely on the extent to which judges are prepared to use these measures.”

But if the children themselves refuse to comply, there is little that the courts can do. “I have a piece of paper confirming that I have shared residence of my children, but it's worthless,” says Margaret. “My eldest son was convinced by his father that I was evil and dangerous, and two years after the split he started refusing to stay with me.”

Afraid that her relationship with her youngest son was also at risk
Margaret applied to the courts. “The judge refused to believe that my children were being brainwashed against me. Now I have two children who are my life but will not acknowledge me. My ex believes he has ‘won' and that our children, aged just 11 and 8, are old enough to have decided that they don't want me as a mother.”

Separated parents of both genders who are prohibited from seeing their children suffer deeply as a result. “All I have left is to pray that one day, when they are old enough, they will somehow find their way back to me,” says Margaret. “I will always be waiting for them.”

Barbara Stillman, 54, has left the door open to her estranged daughter for more than a decade. “I've had no contact with my eldest daughter, now 24, since she was 14 but I have never let go of her in my heart,” she says.

When Barbara's husband walked out of the marriage, her two girls opted to go with him while their brothers stayed with Barbara. “You can't force contact with your children but you never stop being a mum,” she says. “I always went along to parents' evenings. On one occasion my eldest daughter started screaming at me ‘You're not my mother. You have no right to be here!'”

Last week Barbara's daughter sent her a text message - the first contact in years. “I'm overjoyed!” says Barbara. “It may seem like only a small thing but for me it's the best gift I could hope for.”

Barbara believes that while you should never give up hope, mothers apart cannot dwell in the past. “It may seem impossibly hard but you have to find a life of your own, try to move on. If you spend your time mourning the childhoods you can't recapture and running over all the painful memories, you will end up emotionally crippled,” she says.

Sarah Hart, a counsellor, agrees: “If there is to be a chance for a
meaningful adult relationship, it's important for mothers apart to work through those feelings of pain, guilt, shame or anger.”

I'm still their mum

Two years ago Marie Cartwright, 39, from York, walked out of an abusive marriage, leaving behind her two girls: Elizabeth, 6, and Charlotte, 2. “I desperately wanted to take the girls with me but all I could afford was a single room in a shared house,” she says. “The only other option was a homeless shelter. If the girls stayed in the family home with their father they would be surrounded by friends, grandparents, uncles, aunts and all that was familiar. It was a heartbreaking decision for any mother to have to make but in the end I did what I thought was best for them.

“Sometimes I torture myself wondering if I did the right thing. My greatest fear is that the girls will grow up believing I left because I didn't love them enough.” Some members of Marie's family refuse to forgive her. Her own mother hasn't spoken to her since the split.

Marie maintains regular contact with her daughters. “Of course I'd love to see the girls more than I do, but there's no point in beating myself up all the time for not being there for them 24/7. I just have to try to be the best mum I can in the time I have with them. I stopped being a wife but I never stopped being a mum.”

Mothers Apart from Their Children: www.matchmothers.org

Sarah Hart, counsellor and author: www.sarahhart.co.uk

National Family Mediation (NFM): www.nfm.org.uk

Families Need Fathers (FNF) www.fnf.org.uk

Dads take on 'executive' role at home

noreply@blogger.com (GR Klein) — Sat, 07 Jun 2008 13:09:00 +0000

Anne Marie Owens, National Post (Canada) , 5 June 2008

More than 9,000 academics are in Vancouver this week to present research on everything from gender roles to the sociology of first names. In a week-long series on the annual Congress of the Humanities and Social Sciences, the National Post showcases some of the most interesting research.

The men who make school lunches and take control of immunization schedules - and the women who let them - may be the vanguard of the most equal of parenting arrangements today.

With more men taking parental leave, a gradual increase in the sharing of household duties and fathers taking an increasingly active role in the lives of their children, the final frontier of shared parenting lies in the bureaucratic business of family life - scheduling doctors' appointments, overseeing teacher meetings and school communications, organizing play
dates and birthday parties, keeping track of homework and taking on lunch duties.

It is what those who examine the sociology of the family call "executive responsibility," and it is still predominantly the domain of women. But that, according to new research unveiled at Canada's largest academic gathering this week, is beginning to change.

In a paper called, "Who's Really in Charge?" sociologist Gillian Ranson explores the division of this particular form of labour in non-traditional families across Canada. Her findings are culled from extensive interviews with 32 couples across the country with breadwinner-mothers and caregiver fathers or dual-working/ dual-parenting partners.

It is an admittedly small sample, says Prof. Ranson, who teaches at the University of Calgary, "but by digging deep, you get a picture of life that helps demolish some of the stereotypes and raises the possibilities for how we might work together."

Included in her sample are a couple where the mother has completely surrendered this executive responsibility and is essentially on the sidelines, couples where fathers have taken on increasing roles but where mothers retain this key
family manager role, and the majority of those interviewed, where the couples are actively negotiating who does what.

In many cases, what that means is mothers letting go of control of an aspect of family life that is at once drudgery and minutiae, and yet also intensely critical to family functioning.

"It is, ideologically, one of the key parts of mothering," Prof. Ranson said. "These kinds of things help keep a handle on the emotional tenor of the family. They are very important."

Prof. Ranson discovered that those mothers who do cede some of this control to their spouses, however, begin to regard each other more thoroughly as partners in a shared venture. As one of the women she interviewed said, "I can talk to Matt about Emma the way I would talk to one of my girlfriends about our daughters. We can use the same language. We are absolutely on the same page."

An entirely different picture of modern mothering and fathering roles is conveyed by studying the dominant images in Mother's Day and Father's Day cards sold in Canada.

Two B. C. sociologists scrutinized more than 2,500 cards on display at stores in the province's Lower Mainland to see how gender and family work was portrayed in what the researchers describe as a valuable source for giving "a good indication of what people in our society currently recognize and value as important aspects of mothers' and fathers' roles."

What they found, and what they document in their presentation this week called "Angels, Heroes and Slobs: How Do Representations of Gender and Family Work in Mother's Day and Father's Day Cards Help Explain the Stalled Revolution?" are images still very much bound to tradition: mothers as
synonymous with home, busy with a daily juggling act of work, and fathers as protectors, providers and all-around hero figures.

They also uncovered a murky undercurrent in the Father's Day cards that reveal father as couch potato and, in a spin that runs counter to Prof. Ranson's cutting-edge families, a recurring theme of father as subordinate to mother.

"The egalitarian ideals of shared parenting - and sharing other forms of family work - are not being given as much attention in popular culture today," conclude the researchers, Alison Thomas of Douglas College and Elizabeth Dennis, of University College of the Fraser Valley.

"This has implications for the pace of change: If men's involvement in the home is so frequently minimized and/or ridiculed, while women's is praised, how much encouragement is there for people to take seriously the possibility of sharing family work more fairly?"

Dangerous sex as the state enters bedroom

noreply@blogger.com (GR Klein) — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 05:23:00 +0000

The Australian, 30 April 2008, By Janet Albrechtsen

If you are a man, sex got a whole lot more dangerous. Consider this scenario. A woman meets a man in a bar or at a party. She likes the man. He likes the woman. She may not normally be a sex on the first night kind of girl. But they have a number of drinks. Fuelled by alcohol, they put aside their inhibitions. The woman goes home with the man. She says yes to sex. In the morning, the man makes it clear it was a one-night stand. The woman
is deeply offended and regrets her drunken decision. She claims rape. Under new rape laws introduced in NSW this year, that man is likely to be convicted as a rapist. He is likely to go to prison.

Rape reform in NSW means that post-coital regrets can now be refashioned into rape claims that send innocent men to prison. That's why Gold Coast Titans footballer Anthony Laffranchi is a fortunate man. He walked free from a rape charge last week after the prosecution failed to establish lack of consent. He and his then Wests Tigers NRL teammates met a woman at the Sapphire Club in Kings Cross in September 2006 and continued to party at a
teammate's apartment. The footballer said he had consensual sex. The woman, who was "significantly affected" by alcohol, claimed she was raped. Had Laffranchi met the woman after January this year, he would probably be a convicted rapist facing a long stint in prison.

Let us be clear. Rape is wrong. It is a crime that calls for imprisonment. It can destroy a victim's life. But let us be clear about something else. Wrongful claims of rape are made. And they can destroy a man's life. No one knows whether a rape occurred that night when Laffranchi had sex with the woman. But under the old laws of rape, the defendant's actual state of mind was critical. If the accused had an honest belief that sex was consensual,
the rape charge failed. And when the evidence became a simple contest between "he said, she said", a reasonable doubt would lead to an acquittal. Criminal law says that is as it should be; we are talking about a serious crime and imprisonment.

Not anymore. Now the rules have changed. Now, in a contest between he said it was consensual and she said it was rape, a jury may be forced to convict the man of rape without any further corroborating evidence.

The new laws say that if a woman is "substantially affected" by alcohol, she may lack the capacity to consent to sex even if she says "yes" to sex.
More disturbing, even if a man honestly believes consent was given, his state of mind is now irrelevant. Now, the man is effectively deemed to have knowledge of lack of consent if there are no reasonable grounds for believing consent was given. And it gets worse. When asked to determine whether the man had no reasonable grounds for believing the woman gave consent, the jury must ignore the fact that the man was drunk.

In other words, the fact that the woman who says "yes" to sex is drunk is highly relevant: it may vitiate her consent. But the man's intoxication must be ignored when working out whether he had "reasonable grounds" for believing consent was given. It is a curious law that says alcohol only affects the cognitive abilities of women.

These new rape laws degrade women. They treat them as helpless victims, stripping them of the power to make decisions about sex after consuming alcohol. Down a few too many Bacardi Breezers, and the law says you are no longer responsible for your actions. Is this really the message we want to send to young women?

And for men, it's even more serious. As the President of the NSW Bar Association, Anna Katzmann SC, has pointed out, these new laws mean that the intoxicated man will be treated just like "the true rapist, the aggressor who inflicts himself on his victim, knowing they do not consent". There is no gradation of penalties.

Why is this happening? Lawyers point to the perfect storm. The intoxicated man is trapped between a strident but misguided feminist agenda and the law and order lobby driven by perceptions that rape conviction rates are too low.

In reality, the low conviction rates reflect nothing more than the
reasonable doubt that arises when, absent other evidence about an alleged crime in private, a woman claims rape and a man claims sex was consensual.

Stephen Odgers, a senior Sydney silk who chairs the Criminal Law Committee of the Bar Association, told The Australian that, while we all want a civilised world where people treat each other with mutual respect in all walks of life, including sexual interactions, the new rape laws are a "very blunt and brutal instrument" to educate and civilise us about sexual relations. He fears that the new rape laws, in effect, can be used to criminalise those who merely treat others with disrespect after a night of sex. "And people will end up going to jail for long periods as a result." That is why his committee, made up of almost equal numbers of prosecutors
and defence lawyers opposed the reforms.

So how does a man navigate the consent nightmare? Bring a witness into the bedroom? Perhaps bring along a lawyer to guide him through every stage of consensual sex from foreplay to orgasm to ensure that the final, breathless and drunken "yes, yes, yes" is genuine consent? Similar rape reforms in South Australia led independent MP Ann Bressington to suggest earlier this
month that perhaps "parliament could devise a sex contract which men could carry around in their pocket, next to their condoms". Bressington is concerned that otherwise sensible rape reform has gone too far, leaving "very little room for a decent defence of a man who has been falsely accused".

False accusations are helped along, says Heather MacDonald in the winter edition of City Journal, by feminist victimology and rape industrialists intent on redefining drunken sex where a bloke wants to get inside a girl's knickers in terms of the classic case of domination rape by power-hungry men.

If you are a man, you are entitled to be frightened by the new order. While society is still committed to a 1960s model of sexual liberation, encouraging men and women to explore their sexual desires, the state is also entering the bedroom trying to educate us about appropriate sexual conduct. Unfortunately, we may discover that civility cannot be legislated by criminal sanction without innocent men going to prison.

Five Myths about No-Fault Divorce

noreply@blogger.com (GR Klein) — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 01:31:00 +0000

Inside Catholic, 3 June 2008, By Stephen Baskerville

Almost four decades after the "no-fault" divorce revolution began in California, misconceptions abound. Even the many books about divorce, including myriad self-help manuals, are full of inaccurate and misleading information. No public debate preceded the introduction of no-fault divorce laws in the 1970s, and no debate has taken place since.

Yet divorce-on-demand is exacting a devastating toll on our children, our social order, our economy, and even our constitutional rights. A recent study <http://www.americanvalues.org/html/coff_mediaadvisory.htm> estimates the financial cost of divorce to taxpayers at $112 billion annually. Recent demands to legitimize same-sex marriage almost certainly follow from the divorce revolution, since gay activists readily acknowledge that they only desire to marry under the loosened terms that have resulted from the new divorce laws. Divorce also contributes to a dangerous increase in the power
of the state over private life <http://www.stephenbaskerville.net/>.

Here are some of the most common clichés and misconceptions about modern divorce, along with the facts.

Myth 1: No-fault divorce permitted divorce by mutual consent, thus making divorce less acrimonious.

Fact: No-fault divorce is unilateral divorce. It permits divorce by one spouse acting alone for any reason or no reason. No "grounds" are required, and the involuntarily divorced spouse need commit no legal infraction, either criminal or civil. It is therefore forced divorce, meaning you can be divorced over your objections. (Some 80 percent of divorces today are unilateral.)

Even more serious, you can be forcibly separated from your children, your home, and your property, also through literally "no fault" of your own. Failure to cooperate with the divorce opens the innocent spouse to criminal penalties. No-fault divorce made divorce far more destructive by allowing the state to undertake court proceedings against innocent people, confiscate everything they have, and incarcerate them without trial.

Myth 2: We cannot force people to remain married and should not try.

Fact: It is not a matter of forcing anyone to remain married. The issue is taking responsibility for one's actions in abrogating an agreement. With no-fault divorce, the spouse who divorces without grounds or otherwise breaks the marriage agreement (for example, by adultery or desertion) thereby incurs no onus of responsibility. Indeed, that spouse gains advantages.

Courts therefore do not dispense justice against a legal wrong. Instead, every divorce is granted automatically, and the courts simply divvy up the goods - including the children - according to any criteria they choose, including separating the innocent spouse from his or her children without having to give any reason. Because the divorce creates work and earnings for judges, lawyers, and other court personnel, there is a strong incentive for these officials to reward the guilty spouse in order to encourage more
divorces and more business for the courts. As Charles Dickens pointed out, "The one great principle of the ... law is to make business for itself."

Myth 3: No-fault divorce has led men to abandon their wives and children.

Fact: This does happen (wives more often than children), but it is greatly exaggerated. The vast majority of no-fault divorces - especially those involving children - are filed by wives. In fact, as Judy Parejko, author of Stolen Vows
<http://www.amazon.com/Stolen-Vows-Illusion-No-Fault-American/dp/1591960223/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1212463971&sr=8-1>,
has shown, the no-fault revolution was engineered largely by feminist lawyers, with the cooperation of the bar associations, as part of the sexual revolution. Overwhelmingly, it has served to separate large numbers of children from their fathers. Sometimes the genders are reversed, so that fathers take children from mothers. But either way, the main effect of no-fault is to make children weapons and pawns to gain power through the
courts, not the "abandonment" of them by either parent.

Myth 4: When couples cannot agree or cooperate about matters like how the children should be raised, a judge must decide according to "the best interest of the child."

Fact: It is not the business of government officials to supervise the
raising of other people's children. The entire point of a marriage and family is for mothers and fathers to cooperate and compromise for the sake of children and provide an example to those children of precisely these principles, without which no family can operate. Allowing one parent to surrender both parents' decision-making rights over the children to government officials because of "disagreement" - without any infraction by the other (who may "disagree" only about losing his or her children) - negates the very principle of private family life and invites collusion between the divorcing parent and state officials.

Judges and civil servants are not disinterested. When we give government officials the power to make decisions about the best interest of other people's children, it may well become the best interest of the officials. Allowing them to control the private lives of citizens' who have committed no legal infraction simply by invoking "disagreement" gives them an incentive to reward the parent that is being the most disagreeable. That is precisely the reason for the runaway divorce epidemic.

Myth 5: Divorce must be made easy because of domestic violence.

Fact: Actual physical violence is legitimate grounds for divorce and always has been. So it does not justify dispensing with all standards of justice, which is what no-fault entails. On the contrary, openly false accusations of domestic violence and child abuse have become an industry in themselves, mostly to secure child custody. By dispensing with standards of justice for
divorce, we have allowed them to be abandoned for criminal justice too. Thus "domestic violence" and "child abuse" are not adjudicated as criminal assault, and the accused seldom receives a trial or chance to clear his name. Instead he simply loses his children until he can prove his innocence, an impossible standard.

Most domestic violence and child abuse take place during and after family dissolution; very little occurs in intact families. So domestic violence is a red herring. Federal funds for domestic violence and child abuse now serve effectively as a subsidy on divorce in every state in

America

, encouraging spouses to bring false accusations and law-enforcement officials to reward them. This shatters another myth: that family law is the province of states.

No-fault divorce has exacerbated the divorce epidemic on almost every count. We urgently need an extensive public debate on divorce and the connected issues of child custody, domestic violence, child abuse, and child support - precisely the debate that the divorce industry has suppressed for four decades.

---

Stephen Baskerville is associate professor of government at Patrick Henry College and author of Taken Into Custody: The War Against Fathers, Marriage, and the Family (Cumberland House, 2007).
<http://www.amazon.com/Taken-into-Custody-Fatherhood-Marriage/dp/1581825943/sr=8-2/qid=1169683598/ref=sr_1_2/102-0715661-8120912?ie=UTF8&s=books>

Huge increase in drunken women turning to violence - police crime stats

noreply@blogger.com (GR Klein) — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 00:50:00 +0000

The following article lends weight to my previous post where I called on governments to create an anti-violence campaign focused on female perpetrators, perhaps something like "Blokes dont dig chicks who brawl" - GR Klein

By Nick Taylor, May 31, 2008, Perth Now

DRINK-FUELLED violence by young women is soaring, according to figures released by WA Police.

Latest crime statistics show more drunken and loutish behaviour by so-called ladettes -- girls who mimic the binge-drinking and brawling antics of male louts.

The number of women arrested for assault and anti-social behaviour in 2007 was 30 per cent up on 2005 figures.

There has also been a significant rise in the number of women arrested for alcohol-related offences.

Alcohol-fuelled assaults leapt dramatically once females reached the legal age of 18 and began tapering off once they hit their 30s. Other crimes like disorderly conduct, property damage and threatening behaviour follow a similar pattern.

Police are not surprised by the findings.

``It is a changing world for our officers who are facing increasing aggression from young women,'' Acting Assistant Commissioner Dwayne Bell said.

``These are alarming trends. There is an increase in violent incidents, but what is more disturbing is the greater increase in aggressive anti-social behaviour.

``What is just as alarming is the hidden picture, the anecdotal evidence from my officers of other incidents where the aggressive behaviour of the woman has inflamed a situation.''

Mr Bell said statistics reflected changes in drinking patterns.

``Binge drinking is increasingly prevalent in young females and alcohol-related offences are showing the greatest increases.

``There is a greater propensity to young females binge drinking and being involved in aggressive anti-social behaviour -- and it is our officers who have to face this,'' he said.

Mr Bell said police would back any measures to reduce binge drinking, including abolishing ``happy hours''.

``People have to address these issues and take personal responsibility for their actions,'' he said

Acting executive director of the WA Drug and Alcohol Office Eric Dillon said: ``Recent police data about the number of alcohol-related offences involving women, particularly those involving violence and aggression, is quite disturbing.

``That is why it is so important for parents and the community to work with young people to rethink the way we drink alcohol.

``We don't want young people or anyone else becoming tomorrow's crime statistic. Drinking alcohol has become a firmly entrenched part of our everyday life.

``The problems associated with binge drinking affect us all and the community will need to work together with government to ensure that alcohol is consumed responsibly.

``The Drug and Alcohol Office has launched a hard-hitting campaign asking the whole community to rethink the way that we drink, to reduce the health impacts, violence and injury that drinking too much alcohol can cause.

``Advertising is just one way to connect with young people and change their behaviour.''
Figures from the 2007 National Drug Strategy Household Survey revealed teenage girls were outboozing male counterparts.

Girls aged 14-19 were almost twice as likely as their male counterparts to consume alcohol at a level that was a high risk of long-term harm.

Men held responsible for Women's crimes

noreply@blogger.com (GR Klein) — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 00:03:00 +0000

The following articles present cases where women have committed crimes yet their husbands are held responsible.

While the final article points out that while women are given lighter sentences due to mental illness, male offenders receive no such consideration, and many men with schizophrenia and other severe mental health issues have been executed in Texas.

The picture above on the right, shows some old fashioned treatments for mental illness that were rather barbaric however, it would seem that we have not come very far because in Texas they treat mental illness with the electric chair (as depicted in the other photo on the left)

This also relates to a previous post about a mother who drowned her daughter in a bath but was declared not guilty because of insanity or the Mary Winkler case.

- GR Klein

25 May 2008, News Track, Dad charged after mom kills child

Mansfield, Texas, (UPI) - A Texas man warned not to leave his wife alone
with their infant son has been charged with abandonment after his wife
killed the baby, court papers say.

Michael Maxon, 54, of Mansfield knowingly left his son with his wife,
Valeria Maxon, 33, despite being warned by healthcare workers not to do so,
The Dallas Morning News reported Sunday. He is free on bond pending trial
and could be sentenced to 20 years in prison if convicted.

"To my knowledge, no action has been taken against the fathers until now,"
noted George Dix, a University of Texas law professor in Austin.

Valeria Maxon drowned her baby June 30, 2006. She was placed in a state
mental hospital after a judge found her not guilty by reason of insanity.

Court papers say she was despondent over her son's delayed development and
blamed her breast milk for his disorders.

Michael Maxon allegedly recorded tapes for his wife to hear in which he
repeatedly chanted such things as "Our son is riding on the short bus,"
"Life is so deliciously miserable" and "I am a mother. It's all my fault."

-------------------------------------------

Star-Telegram, 2 May 2008, Mansfield mom ruled insane in boy's death
By Melody McDonald

Fort Worth - Valeria Maxon believed that she was a witch and that her
1-year-old son, Alex, was the Antichrist. She was certain that her only
child was possessed by the devil, was dying and would start the apocalypse
and bring about the end of the world.

Soon, according to psychologists who later examined Maxon, she became
convinced that water was the only thing that could keep the evil spirits
away and save the world.

So on June 30, 2006, while her husband was out running errands, Maxon put
her son in the hot tub in the back yard of their Mansfield home and let him
drown.

And even now - nearly two years later -- Maxon thinks she did the right thing

"She thought it was horrible but that it prevented the end of the world,"
psychologist Randy Price testified Thursday during Maxon's capital murder
trial.

Later, state District Judge Wayne Salvant found Maxon, 33, not guilty by
reason of insanity and ordered that she be sent to a maximum-security state
mental hospital in Vernon for treatment rather than to prison for punishment.

"This has been a tragic situation," Salvant said. "I'm hoping Mrs. Maxon
can get the help that is needed."

To be found not guilty by reason of insanity, defendants must prove that
they suffer from a severe mental illness or defect and did not know their
conduct was wrong at the time of their crime. In Maxon's case, no one --
including the prosecutors -- disputed that Maxon was legally insane when
she drowned Alex.

"It is not my duty as a prosecutor to seek a conviction, but to see that
justice is done," prosecutor Alana Minton said later. "I do believe that
justice has been served today."

Maxon's defense attorney, Joetta Keene, said that she is really a "gentle
soul whose mental illness took over."

"That mental illness caused her to kill the love of her life," Keene said.
"We are happy that the state and the judge saw that it was the mental
illness that caused Alex's death and realized that Alex's mom loved him."

During the trial, which was decided by a judge, not a jury, a Texas Ranger,
two psychologists and Maxon's sister testified about Maxon's deteriorating
mental state, the drowning and a weird tape-recording that was found in the
Maxons' Mansfield home.

According to testimony, Valeria Maxon was living in Moldova in eastern
Europe when she met her husband, Michael Maxon, through a dating service.
She moved to the United States, and, on June 12, 2005, their son, Alex, was
born.

In March 2006, they learned that Alex was developmentally delayed, and soon
after, Valeria Maxon's mental health began deteriorating.

"She became more and more anxious about Alex," Price testified. "She wasn't
able to sleep and was extremely concerned about him and she began to
develop delusional thoughts."

Psychologists testified that Maxon became convinced that her son was dying
and that it was her fault because he needed her breast milk. She was
certain Alex was possessed and would cause the end of the earth. She
believed that God sent her a message, telling her water would prevent the
end of the world and Alex's suffering.

Maxon was hospitalized at least five times, from May 16 through June 30,
2006, in psychiatric hospitals in Dallas, Florida and California. On June
6, 2006, she attempted suicide by overdosing on Ambien. Doctors diagnosed
severe depression with psychotic features and told Michael Maxon not to
leave her alone with Alex.

But on June 30, 2006, Michael Maxon left to run errands, and when he
returned home, Alex was lying dead and naked on the couple's bed. Officials
said Maxon called his wife's family in Europe, put away groceries and the
dry cleaning, called a business partner and then dialed 911.

On Tuesday, Michael Maxon, 54, was charged with abandoning/endangering a
child. Investigators accused him of leaving Alex alone with Valeria,
knowing she was unstable.

At Thursday's trial, psychologists testified that they believe that Michael
Maxon exacerbated his wife's mental condition. Police found a tape in the
house in which Michael Maxon repeatedly chants negative statements. He told
police he played it for his wife as "therapy" when she was extremely depressed.

"It's all so deliciously tragic," Maxon says over and over in a singsong
voice. "It's all my fault. I really screwed up. I'm the mother; no one
understands me. If I'm miserable, the whole world has to be miserable.
Nobody understands. Our son is riding the short bus. It's all my fault."

What does the judge's order mean?

Valeria Maxon will remain in the state mental hospital for an indefinite
period. She will stay until a treatment team determines, and a judge
agrees, that she is stable enough to be released. Sometimes, the stays are
relatively short.

Other cases

Since 2001, at least four other Texas mothers have killed their children
and were found not guilty by reason of insanity.

In June 2001, Andrea Yates of suburban Houston drowned her five children,
ages 6 months to 7 years, in a bathtub, saying she was saving them from the
devil. During her 2002 trial, a jury found her guilty of capital murder and
sentenced her to life in prison, but the conviction was overturned. Yates,
who had a long history of mental illness, was retried and found not guilty
by reason of insanity. She was committed to a state mental hospital.

Deanna Laney of Tyler was charged with capital murder in May 2003 for
bludgeoning two of her sons to death with rocks and severely injuring a
third. She said God told her to kill her sons. Laney was found not guilty
by reason of insanity and was committed to a state mental hospital.

Dena Schlosser of Plano fatally injured her daughter by cutting off her
arms with a 10-inch butcher knife in November 2004. Schlosser, who suffered
from postpartum depression and exhibited hyper-religious behavior, believed
she was sacrificing her baby to God. She was found not guilty by reason of
insanity and sent to a state mental hospital.

Lisa Ann Diaz of Plano drowned her two daughters, ages 5 and 2, in 2003.
She told doctors and psychologists that they had lupus and ringworm. She
was found not guilty by reason of insanity and was released from a state
mental hospital in 2006.

---

Related Content

Mom ruled insane in boy's death
http://www.star-telegram.com/news/photos/gallery/618729.html

Crime Time blog
http://startelegram.typepad.com/crime_time/

Other cases

Since 2001, at least four other Texas mothers have killed their children
and were found not guilty by reason of insanity.

In June 2001, Andrea Yates of suburban Houston drowned her five children,
ages 6 months to 7 years, in a bathtub, saying she was saving them from the
devil. During her 2002 trial, a jury found her guilty of capital murder and
sentenced her to life in prison, but the conviction was later overturned.
Yates, who had a long history of mental illness, was retried and found not
guilty by reason of insanity. She was committed to a state mental hospital.

Deanna Laney of Tyler was charged with capital murder in May 2003 for
bludgeoning two of her sons to death with rocks and severely injuring a
third. She claimed God told her to kill her sons. Laney was found not
guilty by reason of insanity and was committed to a state mental hospital.

Dena Schlosser of Plano fatally injured her daughter by cutting off her
arms with a 10-inch butcher knife in November 2004. Schlosser, who suffered
from post-partum depression and hyper-religious behavior, believed she was
sacrificing her baby to God. She was found not guilty by reason of insanity
and sent to the state mental hospital.

Lisa Ann Diaz of Plano drowned her two daughters, ages 5 and 2, in 2003.
She told doctors and psychologists that they had lupus and ringworm. She
was found not guilty by reason of insanity and was released from a state
mental hospital in 2006.

Source: Star-Telegram archives
Related Tags (BETA)
mouse over a tag to see related stories
Mrs. Maxon Andrea Yates God sent Michael Maxon District Judge Wayne Salvant
June 2001 Valeria Maxon Randy Price Mansfield Moldova Ambien Antichrist
Joetta Keene

----------------------------------------------------------

TXCN - Texas Cable News, 25 May 2008

Charges against Mansfield man whose wife killed their child are seen as a
bold move
By Debra Dennis, The Dallas Morning News

Mansfield - Michael Maxon knew his wife was losing her fight for sanity.

Mental-health experts warned him that Valeria Maxon was despondent and
psychotic and, if left alone, could endanger the life of their 1-year-old
son, Alexander.

Mr. Maxon recorded tapes, homemade therapy for his wife when she became
depressed. On them, a police affidavit said, Mr. Maxon repeatedly chanted:
"Our son is riding on the short bus." "Life is so deliciously miserable."
"I am a mother. It's all my fault."

In a case tragically similar to that of Houston's Andrea Yates, who drowned
her five children in a bathtub in 2001, a solitary Mrs. Maxon drowned her
baby on June 30, 2006, at the couple's Mansfield residence. Authorities
familiar with Mrs. Maxon's history of mental disorders weren't surprised.

The bigger shock came late last month when police charged her 54-year-old
husband with child abandonment, a second-degree felony, in connection with
the child's death.

Legal experts say the charge against Mr. Maxon is as unprecedented as it is
bold. Investigators in these types of child homicides are now casting a
wider net in assigning blame – not leaving responsibility for the death
solely with the mothers – said George Dix, a University of Texas law
professor in Austin.

"To my knowledge, no action has been taken against the fathers until now,"
Mr. Dix said of Mr. Maxon's arrest. "The circumstances were ones in which
no reasonable, similarly situated adult would leave a child of this age and
ability and a reasonable person would believe that the circumstances would
place the child in imminent danger."

Watchful eye needed

Mrs. Maxon, 33, a native of Moldova, is confined to the state mental
hospital at Vernon after a judge this month found her not guilty by reason
of insanity in Alexander's death.

According to court testimony, Mrs. Maxon was despondent over her son's
delayed developmental issue and blamed her breast milk for his disorders.

An arrest-warrant affidavit released by the Mansfield Police Department
shows that weeks before Alexander's death, a California treatment center
advised Mr. Maxon not to leave his wife alone with their child. The former
magazine executive said that either he or his wife's sister would keep Mrs.
Maxon under constant watch.

But Mr. Maxon told police that on the day his son died, he left his wife
and son alone at their house for about 90 minutes while he went grocery
shopping. When he returned, Mrs. Maxon said that the boy had drowned in the
hot tub.

"I did it. I killed it," Mrs. Maxon told her husband.

Mr. Maxon's attorney, Jack Strickland of Fort Worth, said the charge
against his client is overreaching. Mr. Maxon, he said, took his wife and
child to medical facilities in Florida, California and Texas in an attempt
to get her the help she needed.

"Once the police realized that they weren't going to be able to
successfully prosecute Valeria Maxon, they looked for someone they could
focus their attention on, and that was Michael Maxon," he said. "There was
some suggestion that he encouraged her to harm the child. That's an unfair
suggestion."

Not really, says Mrs. Yates' attorney, George Parnham of Houston. Though he
said he has no direct knowledge of the Maxon case, he called the arrest of
the husband "a step in the right direction."

"I just think the parents need to be held jointly," Mr. Parnham said.
"Without getting into the merits of this case, I applaud the fact that at
least the state is looking at both parents. The fathers, they've got to be
educated that moms need some assistance."

Rusty Yates has divorced his wife and has remarried. On his blog earlier
this year, Mr. Yates said that he was a good husband and father and that
his family lived like many others.

"What is not written is that I worked hard to provide for my family," he
wrote in a blog post dated Jan. 21. "I worked hard around the house, I
helped care for our children, and I diligently sought medical treatment for
Andrea. In 2000, I suggested to her that she could work half-time and I
could work half-time; her response was, 'I am a mother now.' "

Mr. Yates was widely criticized for fathering a fifth child with his wife
knowing she had twice attempted suicide and suffered severe postpartum
depression. However, Harris County officials determined he was not
criminally responsible for his children's deaths.

"I think we're more sensitized to the obligations of husbands after the
Yates case," Mr. Dix said. "There is a great deal of difference in [Maxon]
in that he was warned specifically not to leave his wife alone. I can't
think of another case like this."

Placing blame

Dena Schlosser of Plano was also sent to Vernon after she was found not
guilty by reason of insanity for cutting off her baby daughter's arms,
killing her. Mrs. Schlosser suffers from schizoaffective disorder, which
makes it difficult to determine reality from delusion. She killed
10-month-old Maggie Schlosser in November 2004.

Her attorney, David Haynes, contends that Mrs. Schlosser's husband, John,
fed her predilection for religious-based solutions to her complex
psychiatric problems.

Mr. Schlosser, who Mr. Haynes said now lives in Parker County, was not
charged. He did not return repeated calls for comment.

"Any time a child is dead, there's a feeling that someone should be
responsible for it," Mr. Haynes said. "We've got a series of these in
Texas, and it's suggested that if the mother did the deed, there is
something in the family dynamic to hold the father responsible."

Mr. Strickland said that sort of thinking is unfairly penalizing his
client, who is free on $20,000 bail but faces up to 20 years in prison if
convicted.

He added that Mr. Maxon has suffered dual losses – the death of his son and
the loss of his wife to an institution. And fault, the Fort Worth lawyer
said, lies elsewhere.

"I'm a bit concerned that the medical facilities managed to keep her for a
day or two and decided that her illnesses were not serious enough for a
longer stay," Mr. Strickland said. "They were quick to wash themselves of
the Maxon family problems. When this thing turned horribly bad, these
people started trying to divest themselves and pointed a finger at
[Michael] Maxon.

"There's more than enough blame to go around here, and the most to blame is
Valeria, who walked out of a courtroom."

----------------------------------------------------------

http://preventionnotpunishment.blogspot.com/2008/05/another-mother-found-not-guilty-by.html

Prevention Not Punishment - Educating the public on the intersection of the death penalty and severe mental illness. 2 May 2008

Another Mother Found Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity

According to the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, Valeria Maxon, who has been
diagnosed with "bipolar disorder, most recent episode depressed with
psychotic features," was found Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity (NGRI) in
the drowning death of her son Alex ("Mansfield mom ruled insane in boy's
death," May 2, 2008 ).
As with the vast majority of successful insanity defenses, the prosecution
and defense agreed on the appropriateness of this verdict, which was
delivered by Judge Wayne Salvant. Insanity must be proved by a
preponderance of the evidence.

The Star-Telegram article is pasted below in its entirety. Note the
description at the end of four other tragic cases of Texas mothers who have
been found NGRI since 2001 as a result of their severe mental illness.

"Valeria Maxon believed that she was a witch and that her 1-year-old son,
Alex, was the Antichrist. She was certain that her only child was possessed
by the devil, was dying and would start the apocalypse and bring about the
end of the world.

Soon, according to psychologists who later examined Maxon, she became
convinced that water was the only thing that could keep the evil spirits
away and save the world.

So on June 30, 2006, while her husband was out running errands, Maxon put
her son in the hot tub in the back yard of their Mansfield home and let him
drown.

And even now -- nearly two years later -- Maxon thinks she did the right thing.

'She thought it was horrible but that it prevented the end of the world,'
psychologist Randy Price testified Thursday during Maxon's capital murder
trial.

Later, state District Judge Wayne Salvant found Maxon, 33, not guilty by
reason of insanity and ordered that she be sent to a maximum-security state
mental hospital in Vernon for treatment rather than to prison for punishment.

'This has been a tragic situation,' Salvant said. 'I'm hoping Mrs. Maxon
can get the help that is needed.'

To be found not guilty by reason of insanity, defendants must prove that
they suffer from a severe mental illness or defect and did not know their
conduct was wrong at the time of their crime. In Maxon's case, no one -
including the prosecutors - disputed that Maxon was legally insane when she
drowned Alex.

'It is not my duty as a prosecutor to seek a conviction, but to see that
justice is done," prosecutor Alana Minton said later. "I do believe that
justice has been served today.'

Maxon's defense attorney, Joetta Keene, said that she is really a 'gentle
soul whose mental illness took over.'

'That mental illness caused her to kill the love of her life,' Keene said.
'We are happy that the state and the judge saw that it was the mental
illness that caused Alex's death and realized that Alex's mom loved him.'

During the trial, which was decided by a judge, not a jury, a Texas Ranger,
two psychologists and Maxon's sister testified about Maxon's deteriorating
mental state, the drowning and a weird tape-recording that was found in the
Maxons' Mansfield home.

According to testimony, Valeria Maxon was living in Moldova in eastern
Europe when she met her husband, Michael Maxon, through a dating service.
She moved to the United States, and, on June 12, 2005, their son, Alex, was
born.

In March 2006, they learned that Alex was developmentally delayed, and soon
after, Valeria Maxon's mental health began deteriorating.

'She became more and more anxious about Alex,' Price testified. 'She wasn't
able to sleep and was extremely concerned about him and she began to
develop delusional thoughts.'

Psychologists testified that Maxon became convinced that her son was dying
and that it was her fault because he needed her breast milk. She was
certain Alex was possessed and would cause the end of the earth. She
believed that God sent her a message, telling her water would prevent the
end of the world and Alex's suffering.

Maxon was hospitalized at least five times, from May 16 through June 30,
2006, in psychiatric hospitals in Dallas, Florida and California. On June
6, 2006, she attempted suicide by overdosing on Ambien. Doctors diagnosed
severe depression with psychotic features and told Michael Maxon not to
leave her alone with Alex.

But on June 30, 2006, Michael Maxon left to run errands, and when he
returned home, Alex was lying dead and naked on the couple's bed. Officials
said Maxon called his wife's family in Europe, put away groceries and the
dry cleaning, called a business partner and then dialed 911.

On Tuesday, Michael Maxon, 54, was charged with abandoning/endangering a
child. Investigators accused him of leaving Alex alone with Valeria,
knowing she was unstable.

At Thursday's trial, psychologists testified that they believe that Michael
Maxon exacerbated his wife's mental condition. Police found a tape in the
house in which Michael Maxon repeatedly chants negative statements. He told
police he played it for his wife as 'therapy' when she was extremely depressed.

'It's all so deliciously tragic,' Maxon says over and over in a singsong
voice. 'It's all my fault. I really screwed up. I'm the mother; no one
understands me. If I'm miserable, the whole world has to be miserable.
Nobody understands. Our son is riding the short bus. It's all my fault.'

WHAT DOES THE JUDGE'S ORDER MEAN?

Valeria Maxon will remain in the state mental hospital for an indefinite
period. She will stay until a treatment team determines, and a judge
agrees, that she is stable enough to be released. Sometimes, the stays are
relatively short.

Other cases

Since 2001, at least four other Texas mothers have killed their children
and were found not guilty by reason of insanity.

In June 2001, Andrea Yates of suburban Houston drowned her five children,
ages 6 months to 7 years, in a bathtub, saying she was saving them from the
devil. During her 2002 trial, a jury found her guilty of capital murder and
sentenced her to life in prison, but the conviction was overturned. Yates,
who had a long history of mental illness, was retried and found not guilty
by reason of insanity. She was committed to a state mental hospital.

Deanna Laney of Tyler was charged with capital murder in May 2003 for
bludgeoning two of her sons to death with rocks and severely injuring a
third. She said God told her to kill her sons. Laney was found not guilty
by reason of insanity and was committed to a state mental hospital.

Dena Schlosser of Plano fatally injured her daughter by cutting off her
arms with a 10-inch butcher knife in November 2004. Schlosser, who suffered
from postpartum depression and exhibited hyper-religious behavior, believed
she was sacrificing her baby to God. She was found not guilty by reason of
insanity and sent to a state mental hospital.

Lisa Ann Diaz of Plano drowned her two daughters, ages 5 and 2, in 2003.
She told doctors and psychologists that they had lupus and ringworm. She
was found not guilty by reason of insanity and was released from a state
mental hospital in 2006."

Posted by Kristin Houle at 1:43 PM
Labels: Mental Illness, NGRI, Texas

---

Facts about Mental Illness and the Death Penalty

- The State of Texas ranks 47th nationally in terms of per capita spending
on mental healthcare, according to the National Alliance on Mental Illness.
It ranks 1st in executions (more than 400 since 1982).

- Around 30 percent of those incarcerated in Texas prison or jails have
been clients of the state’s public mental health system. (TX Department of
Criminal Justice)

- The U.S. Supreme Court has prohibited the death penalty for people with
mental retardation, but it has not excluded offenders with severe mental
illness from this punishment. Texas law also does not adequately protect
those with diminished capacity from a death sentence.

- At least 20 individuals with documented diagnoses of paranoid
schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and other persistent and severe mental
illnesses have been executed by the State of Texas. Many had sought
treatment before the commission of their crimes, but were denied long-term
care.

- Approximately 15 to 20 percent of Texas death row inmates receive ongoing
mental health services. (Houston Chronicle, March 18, 2007)

Download the Mental Illness and the Death Penalty Fact Sheet for more
information!
http://www.tcadp.org/uploads/documents/mental%20illness/MIDP%20Fact%20Sheet%2003-08.pdf

Androphobia: The only respectable bigotry

noreply@blogger.com (GR Klein) — Tue, 27 May 2008 03:00:00 +0000

I found this article after a random google search and thought I would include it as it summarises many great things that men have contributed to our society.

In todays world men are so widely disparaged that you would think that we have only ever been a negative influence on the planet, with our slack jawed, knuckles dragging on the ground attitude while we chew on a bone, randomly attack vulnerable innocents and generally take every chance we can to be antisocial, lazy, repulsive and generally moronic.

But I protest for while there are certainly some men like this most men are nothing like it and we need to pause for a second to recall the legions of men who have made great contributions to human society despite what is now considered a disability....their masculinity. - GR Klein

By Robert Anton Wilson

Did you know that over 98 per cent of the men in the United States today have never been convicted of any violent crime or served time in prison? That, even though the U.S. imprisons a higher percentage of its citizens than any other nation, over 98 per cent of our men have never been convicted of rape, child molestation, assault, battery, breaking and entering, or any kind of violence? And almost half of the men who do land in prison are convicted of non-violent crimes (usually drug possession)?

These basic statistical facts about male nonviolence have been hidden from us by an ideology/mythology which I call androphobia -- fear and hatred of the male. Androphobia has also hidden such facts as these:

Important Feminists of the past include such males as Clarence Darrow, John Stuart Mill, Henrik Isben, Robert Dale Owen, James Joyce, and Bertrand Russell.

Psychologists who measure IQ have never found any statistical difference between the intelligence of men and women. High, middle, and low IQs are found in both sexes! There is no scientific proof of male inferiority!

The mythology of male brutishness and stupidity has been spread by the androphobes without a single shred of statistical evidence.

Do you believe men are innately brutal? When no other human being was willing to nurse the lepers on Molokai Island, it was a male, Father Joseph Damien, who went there to care for those unfortunates.

Or consider these further suppressed facts about maleness:

Although they were men, Michaelangelo, Sir Christopher Wren, and Frank Lloyd Wright are almost universally considered great architects.

The first Feminist pamphlet published in this country was written by a man -- Tom Paine (who also wrote the first anti-slavery pamphlet.)

The most original music of this century, Jazz, was created almost entirely by Black males.

Free public libraries, which made more knowledge available to more people than any invention before the computer-net, were founded on gifts made by Andrew Carnegie, who was not just male but a rich white male!

Leonardo da Vinci made hundreds of great contributions to both science and art despite the triple handicaps of being Gay, left-handed and male.

Men including Martin Luther King Jr., Mahatma Gandhi, and Sean McBride have played important roles in the struggle for world peace.

Although Shakespeare, Dante, and Homer were males, they wrote poetry generally considered as good as anything by Hilda Doolittle.

Beethoven, Mozart, and Bach were men and yet they wrote music at least as good as that of Hildegarde of Bingen.

Males such as Newton, Einstein, and Archimedes made contributions to science as important as those of Marie Curie.

The cure for yellow fever, saving the lives of millions, was found by a man, Major Walter Reed.

Despite the androphobic mythology/ideology, at no time in history except the present was maleness considered a shame, a disgrace, or a sign of inferiority.

All the "major" religions (those having millions of followers) were founded by males born in Asia (Confucius, Lau-Tse, Buddha, Moses, Jesus, Mohammed.)

Men were responsible for such basic discoveries as the sailing ship, the compass, the steam engine, the electric light, the AC generator, the computer, and many others. And males created over 90% of mathematics.

All of this sounds strange, bizarre, almost unbelievable, I know. We have all had so much brainwashing by the androphobic meme that we scarcely can believe males have ever done anything but shoot one another, rape women, and blow people up. Androphobia is the one respectable bigotry -- the only form of group-libel that is "politically correct" and goes unchallenged almost everywhere. Male achievements, thus, have been systematically excluded from "the universe of discourse" -- i.e. what "nice" people talk about.

Let us clarify the ideology of androphobia. I think androphobia can be defined as the transfer to all males of the negative stereotypes that the Ku Klux Klan and other neanderthal types assign only to black males -- mental inferiority, of course; emotional childishness, or "inability to think rationally;" brutality -- i.e. sub-human status, criminality, sexual violence, etc. (You see? All the old racist clichés except "a great sense of rhythm.") I thus regard androphobia as merely a transmutation from racism to sexism, an "advance" that is not an advance at all.

Let me make this very clear. I do not oppose Feminism; on the contrary, I reject all forms of group stereotyping and dehumanization. Androphobia (or male-bashing) has no intrinsic or necessary link with Feminism, and many Feminists utterly reject androphobia. To use an analogy, Marx said that "anti-Semitism is the socialism of fools." Similarly, I regard androphobia as the Feminism of imbeciles.

I oppose androphobia as psychological gendercide. I believe it underlies the wide spread male depression (which psychotherapists recognize as "epidemic") and also explains much of the soaring suicide rate among boys and young males.

The suicide rate among boys aged 16 to 19 is four times that of females, and the suicide rate of men between 20 and 24 soars to six times that of females (according to the U.S. Department of Health Statistics.) This self-destructiveness has increased steadily, among males, for 30 years -- since the rise of the androphobic ideology. Few want to grow up male in a society where maleness is defined as a sign of incurable inferiority or criminality.

Androphobia has created the kind of tension that psychologists call a "double-bind." A classic double-bind, as Gregory Bateson defined it in his pioneering work on the subject, involves (a) an impossible situation one cannot escape, and, (b) just as crucial, a social rule that forbids verbal comment on the impossibility of the situation. Gays, blacks, Hispanics, and all other minorities retain the freedom to comment on their situation -- even to comment angrily or to protest in the streets.

However, one cannot comment on androphobia these days. It is not only "politically incorrect" but virtually unthinkable. To talk about the subject at all remains under a very big taboo -- while millions of boys and men stagger from depression to suicide annually.

For instance, in 1979, psychologist Roy Schenk attempted to give a workshop on men's oppression at the annual conference of the Association for Humanistic Psychology. He announced in advance that the seminar would investigate what it does to the psyche of boys and men to grow up "being perceived as morally inferior to women." The AHP would not allow the workshop. This year, I tried again, offering a similar workshop at a New Age conference that had had me as workshop leader several times in the past. They also would not allow this subject to be discussed at all.

Consider the "logic" of androphobia, and how it deliberately contradicts known facts. Remember: 98% of the men in this country have never been in prison or committed a violent crime, but the androphobe insists that all men are "violent." Some of the most tender, beautiful music in the world was written by men such as Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven, but the androphobe insists all men are "insensitive." To repeat: all the major religions based on justice and love were founded by men (Asiatic men, in fact) -- but the androphobe insists all men are "greedy" and "competitive." This kind of "logic," based on totally ignoring all inconvenient facts, is common to all forms of racism, xenophobia and bigotry.

In fact, if you listen to the rantings of any leading androphobe (such as Andrea Dworkin, Carol Hemingway, or Robin Morgan) and mentally change the word "male" to "Jew" every time it appears, the result would be totally indistinguishable from the rantings of Hitler, because the "logic" of bigotry is the same in all cases. It is the "logic" of ascribing one essence to a miscellaneous group, which is only possible when all real-world daily facts are replaced by generalized abstractions. but this flight into abstraction is "politically correct" and virtually nobody dares to challenge it.

Thus, the "evil" of maleness in our society today, like the "evil" of witchcraft in medieval days, is beyond debate or discussion. The "no comment" taboo applies, leading directly to the double-bind that triggers mental breakdowns. Males, thus, have become the only minority that can be slandered and demeaned with any and all group stereotypes, in "respectable" media, and with no rebuttal allowed. All other minorities can "fight back" against group libel, but men who try to fight back against stereotypes and group libel are regarded as crazy, or "in denial," or beyond the bounds of reasonable discourse.

Fortunately, this is beginning to change -- a little. We look forward to a day when sanity and common sense triumph over bias, and all men and women, all people of all races, are judged one at a time and not condemned by group stereotypes. Meanwhile, anti-Semites (and most other bigots) can only circulate their lunatic rantings through badly printed journals with tiny circulations, while the androphobes still have free access to all major media and can endlessly spout the most idiotic forms of sexism while claiming to oppose sexism.

McCarthyism Vs Feminism

noreply@blogger.com (GR Klein) — Mon, 26 May 2008 23:09:00 +0000

By GR Klein

From the 1940's to the 1950's people like Senator Joe McCarthy lead an anti-communist movement that resulted in numerous people losing their jobs, being imprisoned and publicly humiliated.

They used questionable evidence to exaggerate the potential threat to social stability that supposed "reds" or communists might pose to America.

It lead to a culture of fear where the most innocuous action could be interpreted to suggest that the individual concerned was engaged in a conspiracy to subvert the dominant paradigm and destroy American society.

This lead to rabid witch hunts , such as the Hollywood Blacklists where prominent actors and writers like Charlie Chaplin and Orson Welles who were suspected of communist sympathies were denied work.

There are clear parrallels with some aspects of the feminist movement and McCarthyism.

They include the fact that anyone critical of the movement (ie feminism or McCarthyism) is automatically cast as an opponent and a threat and anything they say is ignored as the ravings of a lunatic. Thus anyone who questions domestic violence statistics is anti female, anyone who says women can be violent and abuse kids are heretics.

Unquestioning belief in the correctness of their position - opponents are 'thought criminals'

Numerous people unjustly imprisoned (fathers jailed for being unable to make child support payments – government workers jailed for being reds)

Political correctness is a real version of big brother’s mythical “Newspeak” , which says that you cannot challenge the status quo and cannot use certain language for it will mark you as an enemy of the state.

Creates an exaggerated threat - “all men are rapists” or “commies will destroy America and the domino theory” , “all commies are evil” or “all domestic violence is perpetrated by men”

Creates an “other” to be hated without question – “the reds” or ‘the deadbeat dads”

Both use propaganda to control the population – bombarding us with unsavory images of the evil “reds” or the dangerous “men”

Finally people came to their senses and realized that McCarthyism was just a hysterical overreaction and many convictions against supposed “reds” were overturned.

Lets hope that just as McCarthyism came to an end so too will the excesses of feminism which cast all men as villains and ignores the many great achievements that men have made for our society.

But it must also be said that a key difference between feminism and McCarthyism is that feminism actually produced positive changes in society, while McCarthyism failed to enhance our world.

Yes its true feminism has done some wonderful things that have lead to the emancipation of women and produced profound change, however this movement has its excesses and a tendency to misandry is one of them.

"I am a man (Jew) . Hath not a man (Jew) eyes? Hath not a man (Jew) hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions? Fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases, healed by the same means, warmed, and cooled by the same winter and summer, as a woman (Christian) is? If you prick us, do we not bleed? If you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die?"

Wiliam Shakespeare (adapted from the Merchant of Venice)

Michigan dad fights for joint custody law

noreply@blogger.com (GR Klein) — Mon, 26 May 2008 23:00:00 +0000

You may have seen my post from March about Robert Pedersen who is organising the Equal Parenting Bike Trek , well here is an article about his story and why he is passionate about fighting for fathers rights - GR Klein

The Detroit News, 19 May 2008, By Kim Kozlowski

Robert Pedersen was devastated three years ago when a divorce judge said he could see his two children only a few days a month. Pedersen's divorce agreement now includes long weekends, a Wednesday overnight visit and half of summers, holidays and spring breaks with his children.

It's almost enough time to make him feel that he can provide an equal amount of parenting to his kids. Michigan law recommends that custody decisions be based on which parent has been the primary caregiver unless it can be shown that another arrangement is more appropriate, but Pedersen and other noncustodial parents are fighting to modify the law so joint physical custody becomes the norm.

They view equal parenting access as a civil rights issue, but opponents say equal time isn't always best for children. "With the pain of a divorce, a lot of stupid decisions are made initially as far as the kids go," said Pedersen, who plans to ride his bike from Lansing to Washington, D.C., this summer to raise awareness of the issue.

"There are different contributions that Mom and Dad make to a child, and kids need both of them." Noncustodial fathers think gender bias plays a role in these decisions and reduces them to visitors who pay child support. Children need both parents equally, they say. But many custodial parents, family law attorneys and domestic violence activists oppose making joint custody mandatory.

They say every family is different, and 50-50 custody doesn't work in every situation. It becomes especially difficult when parents live in different school districts or one of them doesn't want joint custody. Another factor is that mandating joint custody can sometimes disrupt a child's stability. "When a child's whole world is changing, we want to keep as much stable in their lives as we can," said Karen Sendelbach, chair of the Family Law Section of the State Bar of Michigan.

Other opponents say noncustodial parents sometimes want joint custody simply to even the score with their ex-partner or to reduce their child support obligation. A noncustodial parent's support payments can drop by as much as 40 percent if the child stays overnight 128 times or more each year. "The 50-50 custody split is more about people not wanting to feel the other parent has won," said Kent Weichmann, chair of the Legislative Committee of the Family Law Section. "It has nothing to do with the relationship with the child. It's more about who's winning. It also has to do with paying less child support."

More dads join movement

But supporters say this issue is not ever going to go away, especially as more fathers join the movement, including movie stars Alec Baldwin and Denzel Washington.

"It's a civil rights movement that is coming into its own," said David L. Levy, CEO of the Children's Rights Council, based outside Washington, D.C. "It goes to the core of the right of a human being: the right to be a parent to your child, and of the children to be part of your life." Next to child support, child custody is perhaps the most heated issue between parents when they split up and try to restructure their lives with their children.

Michigan hasn't kept reports on custody arrangements for several years, but the latest information, in 2003, shows that the Friend of the Court recommended physical custody of the children for mothers in 68 percent of the 14,470 cases that year, while fathers were recommended 12 percent of the time. Joint custody was recommended in 2,717 cases -- about 18 percent. While noncustodial mothers are also part of the joint custody movement, it is spearheaded primarily by fathers and appears to be gaining momentum nationally.

More than 25 states have laws regarding joint custody that are much stronger than Michigan's, Levy said. Since the 1990s, Michigan fathers have been trying to get the laws changed to force the courts to immediately presume equal joint custody. A hearing was recently held on the fourth bill introduced in the Michigan Legislature, but it was not voted out of the House Judiciary Committee. It includes an exception for unfit parents. In between the four pieces of legislation, the fathers launched a failed petition drive to put the ballot before voters and also were unsuccessful in a class action lawsuit in federal court.

Moms' groups eclipsed

Michigan dads say their effort is growing - four new state organizations support the issue, and their ranks have grown from 5,000 to 20,000 people, said Lake Orion resident Jim Semerad, one of the leaders in Michigan's movement.

The growth appears to be eclipsing grass-roots groups headed by custodial mothers. The Association for the Enforcement of Child Support, a national group, was founded in Toledo in 1984 by activist Geraldine Jensen.

She had a base in Ann Arbor for two years, before her 2004 retirement, which galvanized a number of Metro Detroit activists. The organization is now headquartered in Cleveland, has become more virtual and is less visible in Michigan.

ACES executive director Debbie Klein is not concerned about Michigan fathers' activism. They have always had more time and money to lobby lawmakers, while mothers tend to devote their time to raising the children, she said. Joint custody simply cannot work for everyone, Klein said, because some couples are never going to be able to get along. And it's the conflict between the parents in broken families that is most devastating to children, not the actual divorce.

"It puts the children in a horrible situation," Klein said. "That's what custody should always be about; it should always be about what's best for the children."

It's the right thing to do'

Many fathers say it's best for children to be with both parents and that they will keep fighting until the law changes in Michigan.

"It's the right thing to do," Semerad said. It's also why Pedersen, 36, is training every morning for his 758-mile bike trek in August with five other fathers to spread the word about what they think should be the law of the land.

"Kids do best with shared parenting, as long as it doesn't disrupt the school schedule and the parents are fit and willing," Pedersen said.

Misandry is the message

noreply@blogger.com (GR Klein) — Mon, 26 May 2008 22:51:00 +0000

As usual Barbara Kay hits the nail on the head with her incisive analysis of the current gender debacle - GR Klein

Mercator.Net, 15 May 2008, By Barbara Kay

A Canadian columnist lifts the lid on the last respectable form of cultural bias.

The family on the sofa is divided, but not equally. On one side a sullen, rather menacing father stares defiantly at the camera; on the other, a waifish, stressed-looking mother is shielding anxious children. The message of the advertisement is one we have heard or seen innumerable times in the media: domestic violence is only perpetrated by men, who are by nature disposed to controlling behaviours, while women and children (an inseparable unit) are always innocent victims.

I call it misandry, discrimination against men, but although the Ontario Human Rights Code bars “discrimination via signs or symbols,” I doubt that any charges of discrimination will be laid against the Canadian Women’s Foundation <http://www.cdnwomen.org/EN/index.html>, which has been carpet-bombing the media with this ad. Its appearance in newspapers, bank statements and on the sides of buses is aimed at promoting awareness of domestic violence:

The image represents a half-truth and therefore a lie. The truth, established by all credible, peer-reviewed research, including our official number cruncher StatsCan, is that unprovoked intimate-partner violence is about equally split between men and women. Imagine another picture based on a half-truth: a woman on one side of the sofa, a man protecting children or even his aged mother on the other - because women abuse the elderly and their children more frequently than men do. You never will see such an ad. Media bias against men is as notable for what you don't see and hear as for what you do.

(And speaking of what you don't see or hear, when was the last time you saw a public service ad around the alarmingly elevated statistics for male suicides (up 81 per cent), especially those involved in acrimonious custody disputes? We’re inundated with breast cancer ads; when do we see ads about prostate cancer? And if 94 per cent of work-related deaths happened to women rather than to men, I think more of us would be familiar with that shocking statistic.)

Except for radio talk shows, where real people with no ideological axe to grind control the agenda, misandry is ubiquitous in the media - and by media I mean all kinds: advertisements, sitcoms, films, political ads, TV talk shows, social service agency websites and billboards, and of course the punditocracy.

But it flies beneath most people’s radar, which is another way of saying that misandry is such an acceptable form of cultural bias – the last respectable form of cultural bias – that people are unaware of it when they hear it, read it, or see it.

White, heterosexual men

We live in an age in which the media are scrupulously rigorous in self-censoring when it comes to the terrible social crime of offending women, gays, people of colour and natives. Only one identifiable group - white heterosexual men (if they’re Christian, so much the better) - is considered fair game for overt collective prejudice.

Identifying active misandry is easy. One has only to imagine the same words, image or falsehood or failure to report attached to any other identifiable group, and the imbalance becomes clear.

Here for example, is mainstream writer Nora Ephron, ironically a revered romantic comedy writer (she scripted When Harry met Sally, and Sleepless in Seattle), in a recent post on the Huffington Post blog regarding the American political primaries:

“This is an election about whether the people of Pennsylvania hate blacks more than they hate women. And when I say people, I don't mean people, I mean white men ... the outcome of the general election will depend on whether enough of them vote for McCain. A lot of them will: white men cannot be relied on, as all of us know who have spent a lifetime dating them...” It goes on in this vein.

Her claim is absurd. Blacks and blue-collar white women vote as bloc-ishly as white men, so why the anger at white men? It’s unseemly, and yet it went completely unremarked. Apply the same words to black men or women and watch the sparks fly. Of course no mainstream writer would ever say these things of blacks or women. They know better.

As a print journalist, my particular interest is my own peer group, many of whom echo Ephron’s gratuitous contempt for men. While most male writers take up journalism because they are news or political junkies, a good many women journalists have entered the field specifically as women with a feminist axe to grind.

That’s not quite the same as spreading a conservative or liberal or libertarian message, where you attack a line of thinking, not actual people. Urging feminism on readers and viewers is tantamount to spreading misandry, for feminism as it is ideologically conceived and played out in society today evokes zero-sum thinking and the conspiracy-theory temptation. When women succeed, it is because they are superior; when they fail, it is because they have been thwarted by men.

Male writers who try to defend men from anti-male bias or who criticize feminist ideology find it a very impolitic career move if they are not already well established. I personally know two excellent male writers, probably Canada’s most under-utilized researchers, who can't get a media foothold because they critique feminism.

Male desaparecidos

Once you decide to take conscious notice of the problem, media bias in a myriad of forms leaps out at you. Positive images of women are ubiquitous; positive images of manly men are uncommon. Generally speaking, men are portrayed as objects of scorn, objects of wrath or desaparecidos - that is to say, they are often not treated at all.

The cumulative message is that if men try hard to meet criteria established by women as lovers, husbands and fathers, they can hope to achieve status as contributors to women’s and children’s happiness, though on the whole they are unnecessary to it.

But all too often they are portrayed as active agents of women’s and children’s unhappiness. Women who rid themselves of these bad eggs are portrayed as heroic. Promiscuous women in TV sitcoms like Sex and the City present as warm, loyal and liberated. The promiscuous men in these stories are depicted as shallow, untrustworthy and opportunistic.

When men are characterized as heroic fathers in films, it is usually because the woman has fled the scene or died, a paradigm that debuted with the 1979 film, Kramer vs Kramer. Men are only allowed to present as good parents when they are desperately trying to fill the shoes of a mother. It is a role they must learn. In movies with couples, it is rare for the father’s parenting skills to outshine the mother’s, whose commitment and skills are presented as inherent.

The past few years have seen a spate of “baby” movies: Juno, Waitress, Knocked Up, Baby Mama, Then She Found Me. All have in common career women challenged by fertility issues or inconvenient pregnancies they choose not to terminate. In every case the elective mother may have foibles, but she is on the whole mature, smart and responsible.

The men are undesirable parent material, lumps of animated clay to be tossed away, or spun and shaped by a woman potter into a domestically useful artefact. These potential or accidental fathers range from the merely wimpy, to infantile, to explicitly abusive. None of the films express reservations about a child’s future with no father.

Anger and violence

The most disturbing aspects of media misandry revolve around the issues of anger and violence. Domestic violence is - apart from custody - the hottest of the hot button issues for demonisers and myth busters alike.

The message that male anger is a problem, while female anger isn't, ends in overt publicity campaigns like the divided-family ad I mentioned at the outset. But it begins in a common stereotype, pervasive in the media, of female anger as cute, inconsequential and victimless.

For example, a current TV ad promoting a stop-smoking aid features a flight attendant in the throes of nicotine withdrawal. A series of vignettes shows her screaming at male passengers for no reason, snarling and sobbing over the public address system and in general acting hysterically and irrationally.

The choice of setting - an airplane - is no accident. On airplanes and in airports in general, "civilians" are at the mercy of officials and airline personnel, who wield absolute power over passengers. There is no recourse for unfair treatment. The male passengers subjected to her tirades shrink away in bewildered acquiescence. Their “wussy” reaction is played for humour, but in fact their fear of her is rational. There is nothing funny about being arbitrarily thrown off an airplane.

But far from critiquing this woman's egregious misuse of her power, the ad makes light of it. In the end, once the nicotine remedy begins to work, she is sheepishly laughing at herself.

One cannot possibly imagine an ad in which a male flight attendant harangues and menaces a female passenger. Indeed, that would be considered a form of sexual assault under today's feminist- inspired governmental guidelines.

The message here is that when women humiliate and threaten men as a side effect of personal "issues", men can just suck it up, since their right to respectful treatment is always subject to women's discretion and situational needs.

Casually misandric ads like this can be found at one end of the spectrum. The other end is more socially and culturally consequential.

With the media’s facilitation, an entire industry has been built on the Montreal Massacre, a tragedy - unlike male gendercides, which frequently occur in war - that has no historical precedent or sequel. The weeks before every December 6th anniversary produce a media orgy around domestic violence against women, with Marc Lepine, who was a solitary sociopath, touted as a mere exaggeration of typical male drives.

Conversely the media treatment of Remembrance Day, the one day a year feminists tacitly lay off men, no longer celebrates the specifically manly trait of physical courage. If you'll notice, Remembrance Day now is played out in gender-neutral programming, with combat/non-combat lines blurred to equalize the contributions of men and women.

Gays excused

While the plight of abused heterosexual men is ignored in the media, whatever afflicts gay men is instantly picked up on. When StatsCan released figures last month indicating intimate-partner violence was disproportionately high amongst gay and lesbian couples, the Globe and Mail immediately commissioned a feature article - “A Skeleton that’s Still in the Closet”.

The violence scenarios described in the selected gay-couple examples are exactly the same as those in straight couples, reinforcing objective research which finds that partner violence is gender-neutral, a function of individual pathology. Yet, unlike hetero male violence, for which no explanation other than an inherent urge to control women is ever offered, this article falls over itself finding reasons to excuse violent behaviour by gays.

In their treatment of men, a lazy perpetuation of falsehoods, an incurious acceptance of bogus studies and statistics, and an eager willingness to recycle superannuated stereotypes constitute the present media template.

I began with mention of the Ontario Human Rights Code. I will end with it as the central motif of a seemingly trivial but memorable example of misandry that was brought to my attention by an extremely vigilant reader.

Ninety-nine per cent of funded social services in Canada, even those advertising “family services”, provide counseling and other forms of help only to women victims of domestic violence. Here is how the Crouch Neighbourhood Resource Centre in London, Ontario provided itself with the moral high ground for refusing funded psychiatric help to men in crisis:

From their website last Fall: We at Crouch want to ensure that all our programming [is] accessible to all. The Ontario Human Rights Code states in section i: Every person has a right to equal treatment with respect to services, goods and facilities without discrimination because of race, age, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sexual orientation, age, record of offences, marital status, same-sex partnership, family status or disability.

Sounds official, eh? But in the actual Ontario Human Rights Code, between the words creed and sexual orientation is the word sex. Its omission was no accident. To accommodate an ideological bias, this website deliberately falsified the Ontario Human Rights Code.

The excision of those three letters was, for me, in its Orwellian implications, the most chilling of all examples of media misandry.

---

Barbara Kay writes for the National Post, a leading Canadian daily.

Egalitarianism has landed

noreply@blogger.com (GR Klein) — Mon, 26 May 2008 03:07:00 +0000

A key aspect of the feminist movement is the idea that men and women are really the same, and that any differences are socially constructed. Therefore, if we are essentially the same everything is interchangeable. However, my experience in life has lead me to question this view.

Even feminists dump this perspective when they demand that women need other women to teach them, mentor them, and lead them and that there are certain things only a woman can teach another woman. However, when men mention the special needs of boys, female leaders say what matters is good parenting not the gender of the parent.

We see this in the manner in which women assert that they can do "anything" and thus women have entered most of the traditional male areas in our society, but at the same time while they assert that all people are equal (ie men and women) they have also insisted that some are more equal than others .

Thus women enter into male domains, and in a recreation of patriarchy women are now creating female only places where men are excluded. They demand entry into our space but refuse us access to theirs and one of the great bastions of female power is the family and child care.

This is why the many myths that paint men as violent and sexually aggressive are so damanging because they seek to further entrench this view - GR Klein

The Jerusalem Post, 20 May 2008, By Avi Shafran

My computer cautions me against fooling with certain
manufacturer-determined system settings. Doing so, it warns,
could create serious problems.

Riskier still is messing around with Judaism's system-settings,
determined by the ultimate Manufacturer.

That lesson might be the one being learned the hard way by
contemporary Jewish religious movements which, unconstrained
by the Jewish religious tradition, chose years ago to remove the
slash that Jewish tradition places diagonally through the equal
sign flanked by "men" and "women."

Both genders, of course, are equally important to God. Women
should be paid equal amounts for equal work on a par with men,
and they should be respected no less than males. But pretending
that men and women are identical and interchangeable in their life-
roles - the much-cherished "egalitarian" approach - not only offends
Jewish tradition, it may bode demographic disaster.

A soon-to-be-released report entitled The Growing Gender Imbalance in
American Jewish Life, by Brandeis University sociologist Sylvia Barack
Fishman, will present statistical evidence to confirm what has been widely
suspected in recent years: males in non-Orthodox communities are opting out
of religious activities. Professor Fishman fears that as non-Orthodox
Jewish men become increasingly estranged from religious and communal life
they are more likely to intermarry and become "ambivalent at best, if not
downright hostile to Jewish tradition."

Could the exodus of non-Orthodox men from communal religious participation
have some relationship to "progressive" Jewish groups' efforts to erase the
idea of gender roles in Judaism?

I don't mean that non-Orthodox men feel insulted, having been displaced by
their female counterparts in practices and positions that were once their
lot. No, I mean something more subtle: that messing up the system settings,
well, messes up the system.

Roles are part and parcel of Judaism. Just as, among Jewish men, Cohanim
and Leviim have prescribed roles, so are there roles that are
gender-specific. Some Jewish women were led to believe that a title or
public "privilege" would somehow ennoble them, that a tallit or kippa would
render them more important or worthy. Others, however, more in touch with
Torah, regarded the "equality" campaign with curiosity and just resumed the
vital business of their Jewish lives.

The Talmud (Ketuvot 67b) tells of a great scholar, Mar Ukva, who, each day
after study, would surreptitiously leave some coins near the door of a poor
person in his neighborhood. One day, Mar Ukva stayed late in the study hall
and his wife came to accompany him home. Together they walked, making Mar
Ukva's usual detour to leave the coins in the regular place. As he began to
place the coins, the poor man approached the door. The couple, realizing
they would be spotted and wanting their charity to be (as is best)
anonymous, took flight; the poor man, wanting to identify his benefactors,
gave chase.

The couple ducked into an excellent, if unusual hiding place: a large
outdoor oven. Unfortunately, it had recently been used and was still hot.
Mar Ukva felt his feet begin to burn. His wife, noticing his discomfort,
told him "Put your feet on top of mine," which he did. She did not seem to
feel the heat. And thus they successfully evaded their pursuer.

After the incident, Mar Ukva was depressed over the fact that he had not
merited a miracle as had his wife. She, though, understood. "Don't you
see?" she explained. "I'm in the house so much more than you, so I have
many more opportunities than you to be charitable toward the poor who come
to our doorstep. And the food and drink I give them can be enjoyed
immediately, unlike the money you give. And so, with regard to charity, my
merit is greater than yours."

Mrs. Ukva thus conveyed a quintessential Jewish attitude: What counts over
our years on this earth is not the prominence we acquire but the merit we
achieve; not our particular roles, but what we do with them. It was
precisely her "limited" role as a Jewish woman - a homemaker and
child-rearer - that had allowed Mar Ukva's wife to merit a miracle denied
her scholarly husband.

The concept is really not so strange. Is the undercover agent less
important than the foot soldier? The bass player than the drummer? The
researcher than the surgeon? Whether roles are loud or quiet, prominent or
behind-the-scenes, has no bearing at all on their ultimate value.

Jewish women can choose to embrace contemporary society's game-playing in
the guise of egalitarianism and squander their specialness. Or they can
answer life's "role-call" with a resounding, Abrahamic, "Here I am!"

By portraying Judaism's assignation of special roles for men and for women
as offensive, and selling Jewish women the idea that their traditional
Jewish roles are raw deals, the non-Orthodox movements skewed Judaism's
system-settings. They may even have undermined their own futures. What's
certain, though, is that they deprived their followers of a vital Jewish truth.

The writer is director of public affairs for Agudath Israel of America.

Homelessness in Australia

noreply@blogger.com (GR Klein) — Thu, 22 May 2008 22:14:00 +0000

By GR Klein

Following visits to homeless shelters late last year Prime Minister Rudd said that, "Homelessness is a national obscenity (in Australia). We can do better, we must do better. Put simply, our homelessness policies aren't sufficient to deal with the scale of the problem."

It is interesting to note that men make up about 60% of all homeless people in Australia and this is another example of the manner in which men are disadvantaged in society.

This reflects the fact that men are overrepresented at the top of society (leaders, CEO's) and at the bottom of society (prisoners 94% ) while women largely occupy the middle ground.

Fathers matter too

noreply@blogger.com (GR Klein) — Thu, 22 May 2008 21:50:00 +0000

Its nice to read an article with a positive view of fatherhood. It relates to the current Productivity Commission inquiry into paid parental leave and also relates to another post about lobbying the federal sex discrimination commissioner- GR Klein

Article from May 23, 2008

THE stereotype of the father being a bystander in his baby's life could be changed forever if paid paternity leave were introduced.

Researchers told the Productivity Commission inquiry into paid parental leave that workplace practices need to change so fathers feel good about taking time off for their child.

"This is a key issue that hasn't been tacked onto the discussions (about maternity leave)," said fatherhood expert Richard Fletcher, from the University of Newcastle.

Mr Fletcher said, while research shows that more than 90 per cent of people surveyed believe men and women should have equal roles, men still find it difficult to get time off.

"Fathers don't know much about how to do it. They don't see it is important for them to interact with their baby," Mr Fletcher said.

"We hear stories of dads with babies in intensive care whose bosses won't let them take more than three days off."

He said calling the time off "paternal leave" and paying men to take time off would loosen up the stereotype and enable fathers to become more involved in their infant's life.

"It wouldn't cure it . . . but it would help," he said.

National Secretary of the Construction Forestry Mining and Energy Union John Sutton spoke at the Commission in Melbourne and said his male-dominated industry welcomed the idea of paternity leave.

Many employers still scoffed at men needing to take leave, he said.

The CFMEU was calling for government-funded maternity and paternity leave, with up to 26 weeks for women and four weeks for men.

Gary Butler, 30, of Padstow, took six weeks' long-service leave for the birth of his first child Zoe, now 11 months old, and he visits her every lunchtime in her city-based childcare centre.

"I saved up my long-service leave and, given the chance, I wouldn't have gone back until I had to.

"A few of my friends are like me, but I do see that is unusual," he said.

His wife Gia Rebello said having Gary home for six weeks made the world of difference and Gary said it meant he was able to bond with his daughter on a different level.

"There were times when Gia was getting exhausted and I was able to take Zoe for a walk."

Britain moves to eliminate fatherhood

noreply@blogger.com (GR Klein) — Thu, 22 May 2008 05:34:00 +0000

In a post a couple of days ago I talked about how in Australia a certain state government has passed legislation to remove the word "father" from all birth certificates.

Well you can imagine my reaction when I read the article below, that discusses how the British have decided that fatherhood isnt really that important and all kids need is good parenting. Sounds nice but hides a deep seated misandry that is being pushed into legislation in Britain.

Once again it seems that western society's are on the attack against fathers. While at the same time women are demanding that they have access to female doctors, female teachers and female politicians because according to women only other females can fully empathise and support the needs of women.

However, this logic is quickly jettisoned when it comes to men with the same people arguing that young boys dont need male role models just good parents..........utter rubbish.

Women think they understand men but they dont really, because like many things in life you need to experience it to truly understand it and as such the best people to guide young boys into manhood are men and the best people to teach young girls how to relate to males are men. While for young girls it is vital to have women to help them develop a holistic understanding of themselves.

In recent years there have been many examples where children who have been adopted have sought out their real parents to understand who they are and we can only imagine that in years to come many kids produced by IVF and surrogacy will do the same.

In Australia up to 100,000 babies are killed each year under the name abortion, why not support these women through their pregnancies and then make the kids available to people who are not able to have children naturally - GR Klein

Paola Totaro in London | May 22, 2008, Brisbane Times

BRITAIN has forged landmark new rights for homosexual parents after the House of Commons unexpectedly threw out proposals that would have required fertility clinics to consider a child's "need for a father" before providing treatment.

The father's role will now be replaced by the "need for supportive parenting" and both partners recognised as parents on birth certificates when lesbian couples conceive with donated sperm, or gay men use surrogacy. At present, as in Australia, only the natural mother or father is automatically considered to be a parent when homosexual couples have fertility treatment.

The changes will be made to the controversial Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill, which governs stem cell research as well as fertility treatments and abortion.

The proposed pro-family amendments, including a Conservative proposal to lower the abortion limit from 24 weeks to 22 weeks, were defeated by entirely unexpected - and large - voting margins on Tuesday night and surprised the Labour Government, which had been prepared for a big defeat on the issue.

On Monday, Britain became the first Western nation to allow the mixing of human and animal cells in stem cell research, as well as the creation of so-called "saviour siblings" who can be screened for lifesaving tissue donations.

Tuesday night's conscience vote on both issues was by majorities of 75 and 68, and they have been hailed as the most important widening of homosexual rights to families since gays were allowed to adopt children.

Fertility clinics will now be banned from refusing lesbian or single women treatment if they cannot provide a male paternal model. This reason has often been used by clinics that choose to refuse treatment to lesbian or single women.

MPs who supported the fatherhood amendments warned traditional families would be undermined, while others feared that the significance of a father would be undermined in comparison to that of a mother.

However, the Health Minister, Dawn Primarolo, described the changes as "fair, equitable" and drafted to recognise the complexities of modern British life. "What counts is the quality of parenting," she said. (Could we also say to this women that what counts in government is good management and gender is irrelvant and as such we dont need equal represntation of both men and women in parliament or "what counts in hospitals is good medicine the gender of the doctor is irrelevant and as such males should be very well suited to providing care for women"..... GR Klein )

Where are the leaders?

noreply@blogger.com (GR Klein) — Wed, 21 May 2008 02:24:00 +0000

By GR Klein

Today in most modern western nations women have won many battles due to the feminist onslaught. This has enabled women to vote, work in a broad range of industries and generally enjoy many of the privaleges that were once only the domain of men.

There is a constant stream of messages delivered by the media, female leaders and male leaders all vying for the enviable position of being the one who protects women.

Feminism has largley freed women from many of the limitations of gender stereotyping and girls have dispensed with most traditional female conditioning except for one, that is their desire to be protected and given special treatment.

For example, when ever there is a disaster anywhere in the world there is always talk of the terrible casualties and the number of "innocent women and children" killed, we can only assume the deaths of males are not as important. In much the same way that various national media outlets treat international disasters, by focusing only on casualties from their own nations.

Women want equality with men but they also want to retain their special protected position in society that ensures that there is a mass of women's services, organisations, advocacy groups, welfare groups and educational facilities focused on the needs of women.

And I think its great that women's organisations have achieved great things for women and as such means that my own daughter has more freedom and choice in her life which is absolutely wonderful.

But men need the same thing.

Looking around this world today the challenges that face men are obvious to any reasonable person, yet where are the world leaders, the politicians and famous figures standing up to lend their support to men, they are conspicuously absent.

Particularly when we think about the number of times stories appear in newspapers or on TV news where a key aspect of the story is about helping women. Actors, sports stars and media barons are happy to support the very socially acceptable practice of patronising women but their absence in the media seems to suggest that they recoil at the thought of helping blokes.

And when we think about basic human socialisation a key aspect of this is learning very early on that we must protect women, men have no such support.

'Father' to go from birth certificates

noreply@blogger.com (GR Klein) — Wed, 21 May 2008 01:28:00 +0000

Here we go again, just as the government is in the process of introducing paid maternity leave that will directly discriminate against fathers, the state Government of NSW (Australia) is planning to remove the word father from all birth certificates.

This is absolutely outrageous and represents an egregious attack on men and fathers and is another example of the manner in which fatherhood is being systematically undermined.

The reason they are removing it is to avoid offending lesbians couples who have kids by IVF, which I think is an outrageous waste of resources considering that about 100,000 babies are killed every year by their mothers who have abortions. If lesbians want kids let them adopt the children of women who are planning to have abortions.

But other than that lesbians respresent a minority but in order to appease this minority, all fathers will be eliminated, sounds very fair...................BS its f###ing crap, wake up people its time to demand that this sort of BS ends - GR Klein

SMH, Heather Gilmore, 18th May 2008

A CONTROVERSIAL new bill that will remove the word "father" from birth certificates to recognise lesbian couples who have children through IVF will be put before NSW Parliament.

Fifty laws across NSW covering the Local Government Act, Industrial Relations Act and the constitution will be amended to include new parental presumption protection for female same-sex couples.

The bill equates the position of a lesbian partner of a woman who has a child after becoming pregnant by a fertilisation procedure, other than sexual intercourse, with the position of a married woman's husband. Lesbian parents will see expressions such as "birth mother" replace "mother" and "both parents" to replace "the father and the mother" on birth certificates.

Lesbian parents will also be given protection for their children under workers' compensation, inheritance law and parent-teacher nights at school. Schools will also be forced to recognise both partners in a lesbian couple as "parents".

However, a number of NSW Coalition MPs have deep moral concerns about the bill. On Tuesday the Coalition voted to give members a conscience vote on the issue. Shadow Attorney-General Greg Smith said some MPs were concerned that the role of fatherhood was undermined by the bill, which is expected to be debated this parliamentary session. It is understood Mr Smith proposed the conscience vote.

Minister for Women Verity Firth said the Opposition's decision to hold a conscience vote on laws to give equal rights to the children of same-sex couples was evidence of the Opposition's lack of leadership.

The conservative Australian Family Association is campaigning against the change.

Gay & Lesbian Rights Lobby spokeswoman Emily Gray said the changes would give children added emotional and financial stability.

Daughter fails math test, so dad thrown in jail

noreply@blogger.com (GR Klein) — Mon, 12 May 2008 14:19:00 +0000

WorldNetDaily, 11 May 2008

Pop gets 6-month sentence for contributing to delinquency

A northern Kentucky man is in jail today – serving a 180-day
sentence because his 18-year-old daughter failed a math test
and didn't get her General Equivalency Diploma, or GED, as
a previous court order required.

Brittany Gegner, the daughter, says if anyone should be jailed,
it should be her.

"It's like I should, if anybody should be punished for this,"
Brittany toldWCPO-TV in Cincinnati. "I would way rather me go
to jail than my dad."

Even Brian Gegner's ex-wife agrees the judge's decision is absurd.

"They probably should have punished me if they were going to
punish anybody," said Brittany's mother Shana Roach. "Because
she did live with meat the time, but because he had the custody,
that's why he's being punished. But I don't understand the
punishment altogether because she's going to school, she's been
going for four months. The only thing that's holding her back is
she can't pass her math test."

Butler County Juvenile Court Judge David Niehaus ordered
Gegner to jail for contributing to the delinquency of a minor
by not following a court order which required Gegner to be
sure his daughter got her GED.

"It's ridiculously wrong," said Brittany.

"Of all the punishments they could have given him, to make him
go to jail?" she asked. "I mean, probation until I get my GED,
would be reasonable, but to send him to jail? That's overboard."

The problems began when Brittany was 16 and started skipping
classes at Fairfield High School and then, Butler Tech.

Though Brian Gegner had custody of her, Brittany says it was
while she lived with her mother that she was truant.

"I'm about to be 19 and my dad's being punished for something
I did when I was 16," she said.

Brittany has a daughter who's about 18-months-old. She says
she's determined to pass the GED for her daughter – and her
father.

The judge says if she passes the test, her father could get out
of jail before his six-months sentence is up.

Brittany's stepmother worries the time in jail will ruin their family.
She says he could lose the job he's worked for 15 years.

"I never dreamed they would put him in jail for this – for six
months – it's crazy," said Stephanie Gegner, Brittany's stepmother.

"He has no control over what his adult daughter does," she said.
"He just doesn't."

Court administrators say that even though Brittany is an adult
now, the case remains active in their court because she was a
juvenile when the problems started.

Woman charged over nightclub glassing attack

noreply@blogger.com (GR Klein) — Mon, 12 May 2008 00:46:00 +0000

Here is an example of gender myth busting. In recent months there has been a spate of stories in the news in which mostly young women have been seen engaging in brutal acts of violence. Like this story and this story and this story.

While singer Amy Winehouse's ongoing bouts of violence give credance to the idea that we need a campaign to protect men and women from violent women.

But I have said it before and I will say it again, women who do such things are only a very small proportion of the female population. In the same way that men who commit violent acts represent a very small proportion of the the male population. These acts are aberrations but both men and women are capable of violent actions.

In recent years we have had the "stop violence against women" campaign which implied that it is only men who are violent toward women (which Erin Pizzey challenges) , while the recent "one punch can kill" campaign once again urges girls to support blokes who dont fight.

Basically both of these campaigns have missed the point and presented highly discriminatory views of violence in which men are always cast as the instigators and women as victims, which we know to be totally untrue - By GR Klein

May 11, AAP, Brisbane Times

A woman has been charged with glassing another woman at a Fortitude Valley nightclub in Brisbane.

Police said the victim received a deep cut to her cheek and lip and was taken to Royal Brisbane Hospital for treatment following the attack with a glass bottle about 11pm (AEST) yesterday.

A 22-year-old woman has been charged with unlawful wounding and is due to appear before Brisbane Magistrates Court tomorrow.

AAP

Girl gang on 'playground' rampage at Bowwral High School

byBruce McDougall, Daily Telegraph, April 11, 2008

FEMALE intruders entered a public secondary school and viciously assaulted a 14-year-old girl on the same day Merrylands High School was attacked this week.

The Daily Telegraph can reveal that the teenage student at Bowral High School, in the Southern Highlands, suffered head and rib injuries after being set upon by three older girls armed with a garbage bin.

The victim's mother Louise Forster said yesterday her daughter Stevie-Lee, a Year 9 student, was forced against a fence, bashed on the head with the garbage bin and punched during the lunchtime attack.

The Bowral revelations emerged as police received numerous reports from schools fearing a repeat of the Merrylands violence.

One parent claimed her son was told more attacks were imminent and that those planning them were buying school uniforms to "blend in".

Detective Inspector Jim Stewart played down the threat, saying reports of escalating tensions between schools was being assessed, but there was no need to panic over "Chinese whispers".
"At this stage we believe there isn't any credible threat," Insp Stewart said.

Mrs Forster said her daughter was treated for bruising to her nose, eyes and body and for lumps on her head.

"Stevie-Lee wants to go back to school but she is too scared because she has heard they plan to come back and finish her off," Mrs Forster said.

"She knew (them) from Year 7 but she doesn't know why she was attacked."

Mrs Forster said she was seeking an apprehended violence order against the assailants, believed to be aged between 15 and 17. One of them had been expelled from the school.

"The three of them have been bragging about it at the railway station, showing off the bruises on their fists," she said.

Goulburn MP Pru Goward, who received a complaint from Stevie-Lee's family, said she was horrified to learn of the "vicious and unprovoked attack by intruders on school grounds".

Ms Goward said the incident should be given the highest priority by the Education and Police Ministers.

Police are investigating the assault.

Teen-sex woman gets sentence cut

noreply@blogger.com (GR Klein) — Thu, 08 May 2008 13:23:00 +0000

May 8, 2008 - 11:46AM, AAP, The Age

A 35-year-old Melbourne woman who had sex with a 15-year-old boy has received a reduced jail sentence because treatment is not available to female sex offenders in custody.

Bianca Aleida Smulders, 35, formerly of Pakenham, wept in the dock as she was sentenced in the Victorian County Court today to at least 12 months in prison.

Smulders had pleaded guilty to four counts of sexual penetration of a child under the age of 16, and was also charged with breaching an intervention order.

The court heard the parents of the victim, who cannot be named, became suspicious of Smulders last July after realising she had bought gifts including cigarettes, CDs, a mobile phone and an iPod for their son.

The pair had sex in the back of Smulders' car and a caravan at her home on about 18 different occasions between July and October last year, the court heard.

An intervention order was taken out against Smulders on October 18 last year, but the court heard Smulders breached the order by sending letters to the victim.

The pair also had sex in Smulders' car at the Bunyip State Park, in Melbourne's outer east, while the intervention order was in place.

They each also sent more than 2,000 mobile phone text messages to one another up until November 3, when Smulders was taken into custody, the court heard.

In sentencing, Judge Geoffrey Chettle said authorities claimed that Smulders be treated no differently to any other sex offender because she was a woman.

He noted the maximum penalty for sexual intercourse with a child under 16 is 10 years in prison.

Judge Chettle sentenced Smulders to 36 months in prison, with a non-parole period of one year.

He said he set a "longer than usual parole period" in order for Smulders' to seek treatment for her offending while on parole.

He said he did this because courses for sexual offenders were not available to women in prison.

"You will not be able to benefit from a sex offenders course while in custody," he said.

Judge Chettle said Smulders' guilty plea and the genuine remorse she had shown for her actions, also entitled her to a substantial reduction in sentence.

Smulders has already served 187 days of her prison sentence.

‘Dissing’ men: the new gender war

noreply@blogger.com (GR Klein) — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 05:55:00 +0000

By Jim Macnamara, 15 September 2006

Feminism has drawn attention to and fought against stereotypical and sexist portrayals of women in mass media, but new research shows that media portrayals of gender have largely done an about face in the past decade or so. There is a new “gender war” and the main target of discrimination is no longer women, according to research - it is men.

Gender studies have claimed that mass media portrayals and images are key influences that both reflect and shape society’s views of women and women’s self-identity. As well as attacking obvious sexist media portrayals such as page three girls and “girlie” magazines, feminists have challenged objectification, marginalisation, trivialisation and other negative portrayals of women in movies, advertising, TV drama and other media content. Their argument that such portrayals are damaging have won support from legislators and from many media professionals including film makers, advertising producers and editors.

Research shows that, while sexism against women remains, representations of women have evolved with less stereotypical portrayals and more women shown in heroic, successful, independent and sexually liberated roles such as in Buffy and the Vampire Slayer, Sex and the City and even in aggressive roles such as Kill Bill.

A 1995-96 study reported in a 2002 book, Media, Gender and Identity by media researcher David Gauntlett, found 43 per cent of major characters in TV shows were women - up from 18 per cent in 1992-93. The study reported that, on a character-by-character basis, females and males were equal in all criteria studied. Analysis of newspapers and magazines also has found portrayals of women improving - albeit there is still a way to go in some areas according to feminist scholars.

Until recently, gender theorists and media researchers have argued or assumed that media representations of men are predominantly positive, or at least unproblematic. Men have allegedly been shown in mass media as powerful, dominant, heroic, successful, respected, independent and in other positive ways conducive to men and boys maintaining a healthy self-identity and self-esteem.

However, this view has come under challenge over the past few years. John Beynon, a Welsh cultural studies academic, examined how masculinity was portrayed in the British quality press including The Times, The Guardian and The Sunday Times over a three-year period from 1999-2001 and in books such as Susan Faludi’s 2000 best-seller Stiffed: The Betrayal of Modern Man. Beynon concluded in his 2002 book, Masculinities and Culture, that men and masculinity were overwhelmingly presented negatively and as “something dangerous to be contained, attacked, denigrated or ridiculed, little else”.

Canadian authors, Paul Nathanson and Katherine Young in a controversial 2001 book, Spreading Misandry: The Teaching of Contempt for Men in Popular Culture reported widespread examples of “laughing at men, looking down on men, blaming men, de-humanising men, and demonising men” in modern mass media. They concluded: “… the worldview of our society has become increasingly both gynocentric (focused on the needs and problems of women) and misandric (focused on the evils and inadequacies of men)”.

The role of mass media in creating and or reflecting identity has long been debated and the findings of some studies have been questioned. Nathanson and Young admitted in their foreword that their findings were based on a small sample. Also, most analysis of media content has focused on movies, TV drama and advertising: mass media genre which are fiction and, therefore, not representative of reality and ostensibly “taken with a grain of salt” by audiences.

However, an extensive content analysis of mass media portrayals of men and male identity undertaken for a PhD completed in 2005 through the University of Western Sydney focusing on news, features, current affairs, talk shows and lifestyle media found that men are widely demonised, marginalised, trivialised and objectified in non-fiction media content that allegedly presents facts, reality and “truth”.

The study involved collection of all editorial content referring to or portraying men from 650 newspaper editions (450 broadsheets and 200 tabloids), 130 magazines, 125 TV news bulletins, 147 TV current affairs programs, 125 talk show episodes, and 108 TV lifestyle program episodes from 20 of the highest circulation and rating newspapers, magazines and TV programs over a six-month period. Media articles were examined using in-depth quantitative and qualitative content analysis methodology.

The research found that, by volume, 69 per cent of mass media reporting and commentary on men was unfavourable compared with just 12 per cent favourable and 19 per cent neutral or balanced. Men were predominately reported or portrayed in mass media as villains, aggressors, perverts and philanderers, with more than 75 per cent of all mass media representations of men and male identities showing men in one of these four ways. More than 80 per cent of media mentions of men, in total, were negative, compared with 18.4 per cent of mentions which showed men in a positive role.

The overwhelmingly negative reporting and portrayals of men in mass media news, current affairs, talk shows and lifestyle media was mainly in relation to violence and aggression. Violent crime, including murder, assault, armed robberies and attacks such as bashings, accounted for almost 40 per cent of all media reporting of male violence and aggression, followed by sexual abuse (20.5 per cent), general crime (18.6 per cent) and domestic violence (7.3 per cent).

Other major topics of media coverage of men were fatherhood and family, male sexuality, work and career, and men’s social behaviour. In all of these categories, men were predominantly reported and portrayed mostly negatively.

Fatherhood was also a prominent subject in relation to men, discussed in 361 media articles and features during the period of the study. Some media coverage positively discussed men as fathers, pointing to increasing recognition of the importance of fathers in children’s lives. However, along with recognition of the importance of fathers and the depth of many men’s emotional connection with their children, discussion contained an almost equal number of criticisms of men as “deadbeat dads”, “commitment phobic” and as perpetrators of domestic violence and sexual abuse within families.

Despite evidence of violence and abuse committed by women, such as a National Family Violence Survey in the US which found women just as likely to commit violence against men as men are against women, and a US National Incidence of Child Abuse and Neglect report in 2000 that found “where maltreatment of children led to death, 78 per cent of the perpetrators were female”, men are almost exclusively portrayed as the perpetrators of domestic violence and child abuse.

As identified by Mary Hood in a 2001 book chapter, “Developing new kinds of relationships between men and children”, a “feminist construction of men as responsible for child abuse has had consequences for the relationship of non-abusive men [the vast majority] with children. A side-effect has been to cast a shadow over the interaction of all men with all children”.

One third of all media discussion of male sexuality examined in the study was in relation to pedophilia which demonstrates the distortion inherent in debate on men, given that a very small proportion of men are pedophiles.

Male homosexuality has become prominent in media representations of men, highlighted in TV shows such as Queer Eye for the Straight Guy and numerous press reviews that followed its international launch. Homosexuality is lightly and positively portrayed in Queer Eye. However, the program and media coverage generally continues to reflect gay stereotypes, and homosexuality is negatively portrayed in media discussion of gay marriages and social commentary reflecting homophobia.

Significantly, male heterosexuality was found to be equally negatively portrayed. Male heterosexuality is widely associated with what is termed “hegemonic masculinity” which is described as violent, aggressive and dominating. Traditional masculinity has become a target of ridicule in many forms of mass media from TV shows such as Men Behaving Badly to major newspaper opinion columns and cartoons.

The new idealised image of men presented in the media during the past three years has been the “metrosexual”, a term reportedly coined by British author Mark Simpson and made popular by New York trend-spotter Marian Salzman, referring to men who are fashion-conscious and well-groomed - often to the point of becoming effeminate such as wearing make-up and waxing to remove body hair.

Recent research has shown “metrosexuals” to be mostly a fabrication of mass media - and not just advertising and TV drama. International current affairs show, 60 Minutes, devoted a major segment to “Metro Man” (August 24, 2003) and Australia’s other top-rating current affairs program, A Current Affair, devoted two programs to metrosexuals (September 19, 2003 and December 2, 2003). Men’s magazine Ralph (October 2003) published a quiz headed “Are you a metrosexual” in a tongue-in-cheek tone. But the underlying message was that, if a man is not a metrosexual, he is a sexist, football-loving, beer-drinking slob.

The research found that men are also objectified in women’s magazines and popular media in the same ways that women were in male-orientated media for several generations, but which is now regarded as blatantly sexist and “politically incorrect”. For instance, Cosmopolitan magazine’s “Guy without a shirt” section features male pin-ups such as David Beckham - for example, “Want to see Becks take a free kick - naked” (October 2003). The top-rating TV program, Sex and the City has extensively portrayed men as little more than sex objects and “handbags” for women’s amusement and pleasure.

In relation to work and career, men are mostly reported as power-obsessed “Atlas Syndrome” workaholics, neglecting their families and forming discriminatory “boy’s clubs” to prevent women progressing beyond the “glass ceiling”, despite many men claiming that this image is far from reality. Recent research such as Barbara Pocock’s 2003 book, The Work/Life Collision, reveals that, far from enjoying power and privilege at work, many men are suffering alienation from their families and even shortening of their lives through the stress of post-industrial work culture.

With the exception of a small minority of positive media portrayals of male heroes such as war veterans, fire fighters and rescuers, and an equally small percentage of portrayals of men as good fathers, husbands and citizens, the only males presented positively are men and boys who have been “feminised” and who exhibit their “feminine side”. The latter term highlights the gender bias against men in popular discourse.

Descriptions of male sensitivity, emotion and other positive attributes as men’s and boy’s “feminine side” lays claim to any good in men and boys as female. The implication and the message extensively communicated in popular culture is that maleness is innately and culturally evil and the characteristics of masculinity are undesirable and anachronistic.

Some try to dismiss concerns over negative representations of men arguing that they are simply reporting the facts; men are abusers, pedophiles, deadbeat dads and so on. Some men, yes. But, proportionately, only a relatively small number of men personify these negative stereotypes. Data from the Australian Bureau of Crime Statistics and international studies on violence and child abuse show these are substantially misrepresentations of men and male identity.

There are signs that men are concerned and conflicted by the shifting kaleidoscope of identities presented in mass media. During the period of research, a letter to the editor from a young man under the headline “Men in need of direction” stated: “The increasing trend towards this portrayal of men in advertising is a representation of the indeterminate role of males in modern society … men are less secure in the part they have to play in the social structure … for the young male, there is a great deal of confusion about the contribution they have to make to society and in relationships…”. The letter concluded by appealing against “lauding one gender and denigrating the other” (The Daily Telegraph, July 7, 2003).

The Australian Advertising Standards Bureau reported in 2005 that TV commercials drew a record number of complaints from men during 2004 and that the number of complaints by men is increasing while those from women are decreasing. The Australian Federal Government’s advertising campaign against domestic violence which targeted only men as perpetrators of domestic violence was labelled “propaganda against men” with many men criticising its “stereotypical portrayals” (The Age, January 3, 2005).

As they seek their identity and role in society, men and boys today are being plunged into a vortex of social, political and economic change; feminist philosophy that dominates thinking about gender, and mass media images and discussions that condemn traditional male attributes and masculinities and promote confusing new identities such as “metrosexuals”.

To the extent that the negative views of men and masculinity in mass media reflect social attitudes, these findings have alarming implications for men and boys and for societies generally. Just as women have struggled against misogyny, men today face an increasingly misandric world that devalues and demonises them and gives them little basis for self-esteem.

Boys face education systems that inadequately cater to their needs and lack positive role models to help them grow up as healthy men. By propagating negative views of men and male identity, mass media are perpetuating them and giving them social and political traction. Widespread views on men as violent, sexually abusive, unable to be trusted with children, “deadbeat dads” and in need of “reconstruction” have the potential to and strong likelihood of shaping future policy making and political decisions. Ultimately, negative public and media discourse on men and boys could have major social and financial costs for societies in areas such as male health, rising suicide rates, and family disintegration.

In a book reporting this research released in September 2006 by Palgrave Macmillan, it is argued that the negative portrayal of men and male identity in contemporary societies is not only a matter of concern for men, but also for women. What is happening to men has an impact on women who live and work with them and who care about the health, welfare and happiness of their husbands, partners, brothers, male friends and their sons growing up and seeking their role and identity in a changing world.

This article is based on research findings from a PhD research thesis completed in 2005 through the University of Western Sydney and published in Media & Male Identity: The Making and Remaking of Men released by Palgrave Macmillan, London in September 2006.

Jim Macnamara is the author of 11 books on media and communication and works with a global media analysis firm, CARMA International.

Two Mommies Is One Too Many

noreply@blogger.com (GR Klein) — Mon, 28 Apr 2008 06:05:00 +0000

I cant say that I agree with all of Jame's views (I am not a Christian or a member of any established church), but I think he still raises some thought provoking ideas. You can read some of my previous posts on why two parents are important and while I dont have a problem with adults who want to have homosexual relationships I do think it presents problems when they decide they want to raise children - GR Klein

Time Magazine, 12 December 2006, By James C. Dobson

A number of social conservatives, myself included, have recently been asked to respond to the news that Mary Cheney, the Vice President's daughter, is pregnant with a child she intends to raise with her lesbian partner. Implicit in this issue is an effort to get us to criticize the Bush Administration or the Cheney family. But the concern here has nothing to do with politics. It is about what kind of family environment is best for the health and development of children, and, by extension, the nation at large.

With all due respect to Cheney and her partner, Heather Poe, the majority of more than 30 years of social-science evidence indicates that children do best on every measure of well-being when raised by their married mother and father. That is not to say Cheney and Poe will not love their child. But love alone is not enough to guarantee healthy growth and development. The two most loving women in the world cannot provide a daddy for a little boy - any more than the two most loving men can be complete role models for a little girl.

The voices that argue otherwise tell us more about our politically correct culture than they do about what children really need. The fact remains that gender matters - perhaps nowhere more than in regard to child rearing. The unique value of fathers has been explained by Dr. Kyle Pruett of Yale Medical School in his book Fatherneed: Why Father Care Is as Essential as Mother Care for Your Child. Pruett says dads are critically important simply because "fathers do not mother." Psychology Today explained in 1996 that "fatherhood turns out to be a complex and unique phenomenon with huge consequences for the emotional and intellectual growth of children." A father, as a male parent, makes unique contributions to the task of parenting that a mother cannot emulate, and vice versa.

According to educational psychologist Carol Gilligan, mothers tend to stress sympathy, grace and care to their children, while fathers accent justice, fairness and duty. Moms give a child a sense of hopefulness; dads provide a sense of right and wrong and its consequences. Other researchers have determined that boys are not born with an understanding of "maleness." They have to learn it, ideally from their fathers.

But set aside the scientific findings for a minute. Isn't there something in our hearts that tells us, intuitively, that children need a mother and a father? Admittedly, that ideal is not always possible. Divorce, death, abandonment and unwed pregnancy have resulted in an ever growing number of single-parent families in this culture. We admire the millions of men and women who have risen to the challenge of parenting alone and are meeting their difficult responsibilities with courage and determination. Still, most of them, if asked, would say that raising children is a two-person job best accomplished by a mother and father.

In raising these issues, Focus on the Family does not desire to harm or insult women such as Cheney and Poe. Rather, our conviction is that birth and adoption are the purview of married heterosexual couples. Traditional marriage is God's design for the family and is rooted in biblical truth. When that divine plan is implemented, children have the best opportunity to thrive. That's why public policy as it relates to families must be based not solely on the desires of adults but rather on the needs of children and what is best for society at large.

This is a lesson we should have learned from no-fault divorce. Because adults wanted to dissolve difficult marriages with fewer strings attached, reformers made it easier in the late 1960s to dissolve nuclear families. Though there are exceptions, the legacy of no-fault divorce is countless shattered lives within three generations, adversely affecting children's behavior, academic performance and mental and physical health. No-fault divorce reflected our selfish determination to do what was convenient for adults, and it has been, on balance, a disaster.

We should not enter into yet another untested and far-reaching social experiment, this one driven by the desires of same-sex couples to bear and raise children. The traditional family, supported by more than 5,000 years of human experience, is still the foundation on which the well-being of future generations depends.

---

Dobson is the founder and chairman of Focus on the Family.

McCain vs. Clinton: Gender Gap on the Pay Gap

noreply@blogger.com (GR Klein) — Sat, 26 Apr 2008 07:52:00 +0000

From Warren Farrell

Senators Hillary Clinton and John McCain have a gender gap on the pay gap.

Senator Clinton repeatedly introduces the Paycheck Fairness Act. John McCain has just announced he opposes it as a contributor to unnecessary lawsuits.

Their differences cover up a fundamental difference in what the pay gap reflects. Clinton understands it as a reflection of discrimination.

McCain understands it as the marketplace's reflection of the different work-life choices made by men and women. To Clinton, a law beyond the Equal Pay Act
is needed to protect women.

To McCain, preventing a pay gap would force employers to pay women equally even if they worked fewer hours or relocated less, or took fewer technical jobs or hazardous jobs - and this would make employers hesitant to hire women to begin with.

Who is right?

Dr. Warren Farrell, the author of Why Men Earn More: The Startling Truth Behind the Pay Gap - and What Women Can Do About It, has studied the pay gap for more than a decade, and uncovered twenty-five factors that create the pay gap.

Ask him about these, or:

- What are the 25 ways to higher pay?

- What are the 80 fields in which women are paid more?

- How does the workplace discriminate against women?

- How does the workplace discriminate against men?

Ask Dr. Farrell "Who is right: McCain or Clinton?"

You can get a look at some of Dr. Farrell's findings at
http://www.warrenfarrell.com ; then click on "Warren in the News."

Or, email him directly for an interview: warren@warrenfarrell.com

Amy Winehouse bashing the boys

noreply@blogger.com (GR Klein) — Sat, 26 Apr 2008 07:16:00 +0000

By GR Klein

Amy Winehouse has been arrested and charged with assault in relation to an incident at a bar in central London. It is alleged that the singer attacked two men punching one and headbutting the other.

This comes on the back of Amy's ongoing erratic behaviour and substance abuse problems. Prior to the assault she was heard to be yelling, "I am a fucking legend..." as she proceeded to smash up the bar in what some witnesses described as the actions of a "violent lunatic".

Winehouse's husband is currently in hospital and Amy has previously admitted to bashing Blake when drunk.

Amy has been previously quoted as saying the following, "I'm not a fighter, but if I am backed against the wall I'll kick the s**t out of anyone. I don't think your ability to fight has anything to do with how big you are. It's to do with how much anger is in you."

So here we go ago folks yes its true, "women can do anything" and Amy Winehouse is proof of that. I really enjoy Amy's music and might even agree that yes indeed she is a legend, but despite that violence is not acceptable regardless of how much talent you have.

Fox attacks fathers in distress

noreply@blogger.com (GR Klein) — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 04:08:00 +0000

I came across this outrageous story today. As if divorced fathers in America are not disadvantage enough already, now we have bunch of rabid vultures who want to rip them to shreds.

Today in America fathers can be jailed for failing to pay child support even if they are unemployed due to ill health and incapable of doing so. This is a grave injustice and we must stand united to denounce TV programs (like the one featured below) that simply want to profit from the misery of others at the same time perpetuating the cliched myth of the "dead beat dad".

Yeah sure there are some fathers who dont pull their weight but destroying their lives and attacking them will do nothing to enhance their ability to meet the needs of their families. If men do resist paying child support it is often because the manner in which it is calculated puts fathers in grave financial distress.

You see when a women decides she doesnt want to be a mother they call her "pro-choice" and she gets a surgeon to rip the living fetus from her uterus and cast it into the trash like some left over rubbish. But when a father has trouble meeting his committments their is no investigation of the reason why just a mad witch hunt to catch this so called "dead beat dad".

GR Klein

From Reuters, Fox zeroes in on "Bad Dads"

LOS ANGELES (Hollywood Reporter) - After embracing the dark side of reality television with its marriage-busting hit "The Moment of Truth," Fox is taping the power of its unscripted division for the forces of good.

The network has ordered a pilot in which an avenger of penniless single mothers hunts down deadbeat dads and forces them to pay child support.

Jim Durham, director of the National Child Support Center, functions as a sort of "Dog the Bounty Hunter" for tracking deadbeats. In the pilot, a financially destitute mom is contrasted with her wealthy ex-husband, who is living the high life. Durham confronts the man at his country club to shake him down in front his friends. It's ambush reality TV -- but for a noble cause.

"(Durham) calls them on the phone and gives them the chance to do the right thing," said executive producer JD Roth ("The Biggest Loser," "Beauty and the Geek"). "Of course, those calls are never met with anything but yelling. Then he goes into their life, finds out what kind of assets they have and makes their lives miserable -- foreclose on their house, repossess their car. He will squeeze them until the women get paid."

Roth sold the idea to Fox with the title "Deadbeat Dads." But Fox president of alternative entertainment Mike Darnell famously concocts his own catchy titles for his shows. ("Nothing but the Truth" became "The Moment of Truth," and "Do You Remember 5th Grade?" morphed into "Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader?") Darnell has rechristened "Deadbeat Dads" with the very-Fox working title "Bad Dads."

"It's a show that depicts the sacrifice and heartache of incredibly brave women on behalf of their kids and then ends in the most gratifying way possible -- justice for these women," Roth said.

Sluggish government agencies often fail to persuade financially liable fathers to pay child support. Durham's National Child Support Center is one of several collection agencies that serve as a last resort for neglected single mothers.

Some critics say such companies do more harm than good. Child support collectors have come under fire for charging steep fees and using ultra-aggressive tactics. Durham bills his clients 34% of whatever he collects.

Roth counters that Durham's clients typically feel so abandoned by the court system that they're relieved to get any money at all. Plus, he said Durham is the only collector who extracts interest owed on the outstanding debt, so his clients often receive more money than if the absent dads had simply paid their bills.

As for the aggressive tactics, child support is not considered a debt per se, but an order of the court. Collectors are therefore not subject to following the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, which regulates what tactics a collection agency can employ to collect a debt.

"I'm hoping that eventually this show changes how courts see deadbeat dads and how moms have to deal with it," Roth said.

If greenlighted to series, "Bad Dads" will provide Fox a fresh take on the law enforcement reality show, a genre the network pioneered with such Saturday night staples as "Cops" and "America's Most Wanted."

"I've seen 'Cops,' and I want to watch more than a crack addict with his pants around his ankles running away from a police car," Roth said. "These guys owe money, and they should pay."