logo for the website of Fathers for Life
Fatherlessness, the lack of natural fathers in children's lives
| Home | In The News | Our Blog | Contact Us | RSS button | Share


Fathers for Life Site-Search

2013 04 15: Symantec (makers and distributors of Norton Antivirus) and O2 now filter/block the website of Fathers for Life and *BOTH* of its affiliated blogs. Click for details.


 
 Site Map (very large file)
 Table of Contents
 Activism
 Children—Our most valued assets?
 Educating Our Children for the Global Gynarchia
 Child Support
 Civil Rights & Social Issues
 Families
 Family Law
 Destruction of Families
 Fatherhood
 Fatherlessness
 Divorce Issues
 Domestic Violence
 Feminism
 Gay Issues
 Hate, Hoaxes and Propaganda
 Health
 Help Lines for Men
 History
 Humour
 Law, Justice and The Judiciary
 Mail to F4L
 Men's Issues
 Suicide
 The Politics of "Sex"
 Our Most Popular Pages
 Email List
 Links
 References - Bibliography

You are visitor

since June 19, 2001

Be notified of
page updates
it's private
powered by
ChangeDetection

BADGE
 of
RECOGNITION

censored-stamp

Yes, the website for Fathers for Life and its affiliated blog are being slandered and censored. (Click for Details)

If you are a fathers-rights or pro-family activist, then it is quite likely that your website or blog is being, slandered and censored, too. (Click to check that out)

 

 
 
 

The Pocket-Money-for-Wives Charter

A part of the agenda for the planned systematic destruction of our families


Background

NJ Star Ledger Article

My Reply

Karin Jaeckel's Response

U.K.: Men's wages to be paid to their "wives"

Follow-up 2003 04 02Apartheid spreads

Human rights are not for men, by Melanie Phillips
(off-site, 2003 06 19)

Welfare can be and is a tool in the war against the family

Family-friendly Tax Credits


Background

It used to be that the family was a sovereign institution.  That was when we still thought that the family was the foundation of society in every nation on Earth, and as long as governments were considered to be the servants, not the masters of society.  Liberalists don't like that very much, because as long as the family and the rights of the family are supreme and protect every individual, man, woman and child, the power of governments, of anti-family ideologists and of the proponents of sexual freedom is very limited.

The only thing that stands between the power of totalitarian governments and the condition of slavery for individuals is the protection of the family.  If we want them, families are forever, but governments come and go.  Throughout modern history it was the intention of people who wanted to usurp absolute power to limit, erode and abrogate the rights of the family.

With the advent of the migration of individuals from rural areas to urban centres, families themselves lost the protection of their extended families and of their close communities.  Governments recognized that and established a number of schemes to alleviate the resulting hardships: social service agencies, health-care plans, pension plans and related institutions.

All of these efforts at promoting and securing the safety of individuals within their families were not totally successful. The industrial revolution brought about the exploitation of individuals and families who had to rely on working for wages as their sole source of income.  Out of that rose the labour movement and liberalism.  Those prepared the ground for the rise of socialism and its more extreme variations: communism and feminism.

The family did not do well in the political and ideological upheavals, except to some extent in those countries where the family was considered nothing much more than a production facility for soldiers and workers.  As many social problems occurred within families and always with individuals who were products of families, it was thought by some that more government control over families would alleviate some of the problems, whereas others saw the family as the source of many social ills and wanted to eliminate it altogether.

In a world in which women are necessary to ensure the production of children, where the growth of nations is measured in terms of their population, it is common to promote and encourage the production of children.  Many nations did that to such an extent that in some countries it was possible for many families to make a living by having large numbers of children.  Of course, that also made the husband and father unnecessary as a provider for his family.  It even made it unnecessary for any family to have just a single father.  The first step in the destruction of the traditional nuclear family had been taken.

Napoleon is reported to have said: "Who has the youths controls the future."  It makes perfect sense for anyone who depends for his power on nationalism and hero worship to say that, but it also means that when he gets control of the youths the families raising them lose their influence and control over them.  Nevertheless, it was a slogan that was eagerly picked up by many political and ideological interests in many nations.

Every political faction and ideological orientation in Germany began in the late 19th century to create their own youth organizations.  The German youth movement became an enormously popular and powerful force, far more popular  and perhaps far more powerful than the student radicals of the 1960s.  The youth organizations had generally one thing in mind, the elimination of the stuffiness of the establishment.  At the very least, none of them had very much respect for the establishment.

Lenin produced his own version of the slogan coined by Napoleon.  It is said that he stated: "Give me your four-year-olds, and within one generation I will build a socialist state." 

Stalin continued Lenin's legacy and established a system for the indoctrination of youths that was virtually indistinguishable from that used by Hitler. Mao Tse Tung followed the same prescription for controlling and indoctrinating his people.  One of the more remarkable results of that was the Chinese Cultural Revolution, which almost entirely eliminated a whole generation of intellectuals, a circumstance from which the Chinese economy is suffering to this day.

Hitler is often credited with the creation of the German youth movement.  That is a false assumption.  Hitler did not create the German youth movement; he consolidated it for his own aims under the concept of the Hitler Youth and put Baldur von Schirach, a homosexual, in charge of it.  That a homosexual became the Reich Leader of the Hitler Youth shouldn't surprise anyone.

The youth organizations were segregated by the sexes, and early peer sex was being advocated by many leaders of the youth movement before Hitler — who was a homosexual, too, and never even had sexual relations with his ostensible mistress and later wife, Eva Braun — came on the scene.  The result of that was that many youths were introduced to homosexuality and that the most popular and likable homosexuals became political leaders.  As things evolved, the more radical of those were communists and fascists.  The Nazis were merely the more powerful ones and won the struggle for political domination.

After 1933, virtually every German youth was a member of the Hitler Youth.  It was largely peer pressure that made younger children join at first.  Ultimately, membership in the Hitler Youth became compulsory for every student organization.  Virtually all children aged ten years and older joined, and students spent almost all of their spare time in activities within the control of the Hitler Youth.  Aside from mostly sleeping and eating at home, although they often didn't even do that, they had effectively been removed from the control of their parents and placed under the total control of the State.

Thus all of the totalitarian leaders achieved the second major step in the destruction of families, control of the children.  The attempts to achieve state control of the minds of our children by no means ended with the lives of the great totalitarian leaders.  The principle first recognized in antiquity and implemented by Napoleon is still very true today.  The war against the family continues.

Although liberalists are still very much in the process of gaining control over our youth organizations and attempt by all sorts of subterfuge to subvert them to their will, youth organizations aren't all that important any longer.  There are now far more effective tools to gather a captive audience and to indoctrinate it.  Television is currently the most influential of those, and the feminist-dominated and -controlled education curriculum is a close second.  If the State had the least bit of interest in preserving and protecting the power of the family, we would not see the daily diet of filth, violence and moral corruption — most of all not the constant vilification of men and the father figure — that far too many of our children are being subjected to for many hours each day of the week.

However, the State is no longer our servant, not since "the tyranny by the majority" (formerly called democracy) was replaced by the tyranny by the minorities.  The systematic destruction of our families continues, actively promoted by radical extremist minorities that are in virtually total control of the State.  What was called "liberty and equality" during the French revolution is now called equal rights for women and for homosexuals.  What was called "free love"* by the communists is now called sexual freedom. [See Communist Manifesto] The easy dissolution of marriages for a minimal fee of a few Kopecks under the early communists in Russia (they soon changed their minds about that on account of the Pandora's Box that opened) has been replaced by no-fault divorce and false allegations of sexual abuse or domestic violence.  After all, if you were to make divorces available for a minimal fee, then that would make it impossible for the divorce industry to derive its enormous profits from the process of the systematic destruction of our families.

The destruction of our families continues on many fronts.  Just to mention a few:

  1. On November 19, 1999, Canada held a vote by its children as to which items of a set of ten articles (to be taken from the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child)  Canadian children wish to have introduced as legislation to be promoted and established as changes to family law in Canada.  The children's vote was being promoted by UNICEF and Elections Canada, neither one of which is an elected body, but both of which are very much manifestations of family-hostile forces.  The UNICEF proposal for the children's vote hadn't even been discussed in Canadian Parliament.  However, it had been funded out of tax revenues.

  2. In Germany a proposal is being pushed through the Bundesrat (the German Federal Senate) to provide by law a five percent pocket money allowance to wives, to be paid by the wives' husbands.

  3. In October 1999, the British Minister for Women announced plans to compel employers to pay men's wages into their wives' bank accounts.
       Baroness Jay said that the new rules, which were to come into force in April 2000, will reduce poverty in the family by ensuring that family income is not  wasted. She said that wives will have sole discretion over whether or not they receive their husband's wages directly. This is in line with the current regulations which allow wives to decide which partner is paid Child Benefit. (Full Story) (Important update 2003 04 02)

  4. Given that the feminist social engineers who drive the international agenda for the planned systematic destruction of our families network very intensely, it is quite likely that Canada's feminist bureaucrats provided the motivation for the U.K. for the exploitation of working men and fathers and the sowing of consequential dissent in families.  Except that Canada did not go quite so far as to penalize all married or cohabiting men.
       In 1997, Canada implemented changes to the Income Tax Act that deprived men obligated to pay child support of their right to deduct the child support amounts they pay from their taxable income.  Ostensibly, the revenues gathered through that — which even Canada's socialist totalitarian government estimated to be in the order of about $500 million a year — was intended to pay all single mothers in the lowest 20-percentile of the income distribution a total of $250 million a year in child tax credits — leaving a cool extra $250 million per year in the government's revenue coffers to be applied in the uncontrolled and escalating spending spree of the Liberals.   Some sources a bit more reputable and credible than the purveyors of the government propaganda estimated that the extra tax revenues collected through that exploitative scheme are more likely in the order of $750 million per year.
       Of course, the extra tax revenue thus collected is money that is for all intents and purposes taken out of the mouths of Canada's children of divorced and single-parent families.
       Although divorced and child-support-paying fathers objected to the scam, the Liberal Government got re-elected with an even larger majority than in the previous election — a direct outcome of the promise in their election platform to help single mothers in poverty.  Moreover, since the scam got cooked up in virtual secrecy and was eventually passed in record time as the very last act concluded by Parliament prior to the election, it got virtually no attention in the media, while the election promise to help poor mothers was the corner stone of the Liberal Party's platform. (Full Story)

  5. In India property rights for women are being given preferential treatment, with government-assisted loans being made available to women to purchase real estate or to establish business ventures (to which their husbands have no rights, but, I suppose, to which they are nevertheless expected to contribute the fruits of their labour).  The reasoning there is identical to that in the proposed legislation in the U.K.: men, and only men, are wasteful; women are not.  In addition, the reasoning in India is that women and children form permanent units and that by giving them financial advantages, women can do what men are said to have been incapable of doing, lift their families out of poverty.  No nit-picking now.  It's feminist logic, therefore infallible.
       Well, it's neither logical nor infallible, but it is most certainly feminist doctrine, and that doesn't need any justification at all, because it is based on "women's way of knowing." Given the enormous importance of property rights for the success of any efforts to eliminate poverty, the consequence of that feminist doctrine will be nothing less than the creation of a new impoverished class: men.

Karin Jaeckel, a German author of children's books and of books about families and about love within the family, says about the pocket-money-for-wives charter, in Pocket Money for Mom, that a family of four with an average income can ill afford 175 DM per month (350 DM if the husband will be granted the same right) just for fun money.  She states that families barely scrape by as is and that to create this law will achieve nothing other than to elevate the already high levels of stress in many families.

However, what all proposals like that have in common is further intrusion by the State into the lives of families, resulting in an escalation of the systematic destruction of our families.  More children will be removed under the pretense of the law from the control and guidance by their parents, making them more "autonomous", and more men will become less inclined to become married.  Before men even enter marriage they are being told that it is not they who'll have the power, but that it is the State who holds the power in families and calls all of the shots.  Existing marriages will experience the additional stress described by Karin Jaeckel and therefore be more likely to break apart.

If the proposed pocket-money-charter for wives becomes law, it will no doubt eventually result in a five percent tax being deducted right off the husband's pay cheque, thereby giving the government not only more power but an improved cash flow.  And that is what it is all about.  When it comes to bringing about the systematic destruction of our families and to increase the power of the State, anything will do, even if it is just a "little" thing such as legislated pocket money for wives.

Walter H. Schneider, 1999 08 18 (updated 2003 04 02)
Box 62, Bruderheim, Alberta, Canada, T0B 0S0


* Free love, as the early communists called it, is today called by their successors "sexual freedom."  See also The Russian Effort to Abolish Marriage, The Atlantic Monthly, July 1926
(See also a more exhaustive history of the evolution and destructive social impact of Soviet divorce laws)

  a new international "marriage symbol" Not really.  It's a joke.
That should solve a lot of money problems,
a new international marriage-symbol, should it not? (Just kidding)


I sent German author Karin Jaeckel a copy of an article discussing the 5%-pocket-money charter that is intended to force German men to fork over money to their wives.  The article had been published in The Star Ledger (New Jersey). In addition, I sent her a copy of my response to the article.  The following is a translation of her reply.

Pocket Money for Mom

Karin Jaeckel on German Pocket-Money-for-Wives Charter

Aug. 17, 1999

Unemployment is rampant in Germany.  The average net income is currently about 3,500 DM.  Out of that income, the average family with two children has to pay 700 to 800 DM to rent a 3 - 4 room apartment, plus additional costs for water, electricity and heating, all in all about 1000 to 1200 DM.

A family of four requires about 400 - 500 DM per week just for the most necessary groceries, cleaning and laundry supplies, cosmetics and the occasional pair of undershirts; therefore 1600 - 2000 DM per month.

For the education of the children there'll be monthly costs for scribblers, pencils and crayons, drafting pads, in addition to the state-financed schoolbooks, necessary extra lessons or tutoring, costs for school trips, and possibly travel costs.  A student's monthly transit pass costs currently 60 DM per child.  That amounts to about 150 DM per child per month.

Under the best of circumstances, that leaves 750 DM out of the average income or 150 DM in the worst case.  So far not a single penny has been spent, let alone saved, for clothing or necessary acquisitions.  Also, no allowance has yet been made for recreation and vacation.

Generally, a family requires a car.  That needs gasoline and must be maintained, not to say anything about the cost of acquisition.  Let's assume that all the family can afford is a used car.  For a traffic-safe car [there are very strictly-enforced rules in Germany relating to the condition that a car must be in to permit it to be driven on public roads. --WHS], one that has been driven for about 50,000 kilometers, a small car equipped with minimum safety features, the family currently has to lay out about 12,000 DM.

Normally the average family has to obtain a bank loan for such a sum.  At monthly payments of 300 DM, the interest rate for such a loan is currently about 10 percent.  Under the best of circumstances, that leaves the family 450 DM per month.  In the worst case the income is now exhausted and it is necessary to save 150 DM in other areas.  That is done most commonly by cutting back on living costs.

Obviously, the family wants to be able to use the car, therefore it must purchase gasoline.  To fill up the gas tank on a small car costs 50 DM these days, which means that it is good for about 450 kilometers.  Even the most thrifty use of the car will require the tank to be filled at least twice per month, therefore about 100 DM.

In the best case the family is now left with 350 DM.  From that clothing must be bought for the whole family, a few friends invited on occasion and the odd visit to the movie theater or restaurant be paid.  And naturally, a penny for hard times must be saved as well.  For example, so that the car can be maintained and repaired.  A magical trick!

In the worst case, in spite of the most stringent calculations, the family will be another 100 DM in the red and has to attempt to compensate elsewhere for the deficit.  Recreation, vacation, etc. fall by the way-side.  And when a new coat, a suit or new shoes are needed for the children, when indeed the car requires to be fixed, debts must be incurred that will require further cuts elsewhere.

In view of this level of income and the unavoidable costs, disagreements over money are a given.  There simply isn't enough, and, in spite of all attempts at thrift, there is truly never enough.  The shortages limit, and the constraints necessarily lead to eruptions.

The strived-for solution is usually the part-time job that is supposed to bring in a little extra income for the family.  Since this part-time job can only be achieved by foregoing some of the spare time, renewed vexation is thereby pre-determined, because now there is a shortage of labour resources in the private area, that is, the nerves become so stretched on account of the excessive stress that even the smallest irritation turns into the famous molehill that is made into a mountain.

Now comes the new federal government and first of all eliminates the tax exemption for part-time jobs.  That is, of the income from the part-time job only half is left in the average family's purse.   Anyone who needs more money is now forced to take on a second part-time job.  That means that the amount of available spare time becomes even smaller.

Secondly, the "lazy couch potatoes" are supposed to be collared, those who don't take on half of their wives' housework.  If the wife lays a complaint about that against her husband in Court, he is supposed to be punished.  That means for the husband that, in addition to his main and part-time job, he also must take on half of all housework.  That could mean for the wife that during the time that her husband does part of her work, she must take on a part-time or second job.  This model, too, considerably reduces the spare time available for both partners in marriage and causes additional stress.

Thirdly, the new federal government poses the demand for a 5% pocket-money allowance for wives.  That would be 175 DM, based on the average income of 3,500 DM from which we started.  That amount is now supposed to be available to the wife, to be spent at her absolutely sole discretion.

In view of the foregoing calculations, a question is unavoidable: Where is that money supposed to come from?  And what if the husband, as should be his right, also insists that he receives his 5% allowance?   Neither of the two families illustrated in my calculation would be in a position to conjure up 350 DM just to be spent on fun.  There would be renewed dissatisfaction.  One would accuse the other of failure.  It would come to hefty marital problems.

The solution would now be the third part-time job for the man and the second for the woman, or what?  Maybe it would be possible that the children sacrifice their need for scribblers and pencils and negotiate even the longest trips to school in wind and weather with a bicycle that was acquired for 10 DM in an auction at the Lost-and-Found Office?  Or, how would it be if one were to sacrifice heating, warm water and electricity every second week?  What if, instead of a car, one would acquire a donkey, to pull a cart in which one would eventually arrive at his destination too, and that could to boot be rented out to the city administration as a lawn mower and applicator of natural fertilizer?

It is conceivable that one could simply fast radically two or three days out of every week, to further insert two boiled-rice days, and to dedicate the remaining days to the principle that dry bread makes cheeks red and to insist that vitamin tablets be covered through the health-care plan.  The money thus saved could then be demanded by mom and dad, to be enjoyed finally in spending it on tennis lessons, visits to the podiatrist for foot massages and to the cosmetician, or at the bar in the local watering hole at the corner to pick up a black eye or two.  But there is one advantage: at least they would be out of each others hair and wouldn't be able to argue about who is to lay charges against who on account of the neglected housework.

__________________
Karin Jaeckel lives and writes in the Black Forest in Germany.  She is a stay-at-home mom and a prolific author of popular children's books and books about the family.

One of her most recent books, the politically-incorrect "The Secondhand Man," caused a boycott in the publishing of her works that lasted for close to two years.  See translations of excerpts from "The Secondhand Man."


The following is the article that motivated me to put this page together.  The original is or was accessible at http://www.nj.com/columns/hall/ca4037.html

German men give plan low marks

By Lawrence Hall
08/16/99

Government is an intruder, contemptuous of people's right to be left alone.

Mindless bureaucrats are at the ready to enforce whatever tomfoolery is foisted on people by the ruling class. Indeed, governments around the world indulge in daftness that defies comprehension.

A case in point is legislation before the Bundesrat, the upper house of Germany's parliament. The measure would require husbands to pay pocket money to their wives.

Naturally, some husbands are fuming. It's repugnant for government to dictate how much money a husband must give to his spouse. Prime Minister Gerhard Schroeder's government is shameless in supporting this measure.

Kai Sonntag, a spokesman for the Justice Ministry of the Baden-Wurttemberg state, claims, "We have a lot of marriages in Germany where only the husband earns, and each month he hands over a tiny allowance on the kitchen table and thinks he is a hero for doing it."

The bill, known as the "pocket money charter," would require that at least 5 percent of a spouse's net income to go to his partner. But this is not what upsets some husbands the most.

The legislation would also require husbands to show their wives their bank account statements. This has some of them bristling. Failure to pay pocket money and reveal what's in the bank account could result in the offender being hauled into family court and ordered to pay.

Of course, many women welcome the legislation. "It is not just about pocket money," one editor of a feminist magazine maintained. "The Bundesrat is saying that women are equal on every level. Marriage is an agreement between two people, and women should have the legal right to say what is or is not enough money."

The bill will pass. After all, anyone voting against it would feel the wrath of women at the polls. Still, things could be worse for German husbands. For a while, feminist groups were lobbying for bill that would have required men to do half the housework.

This measure will further erode the sanctity of the home and abridge the fundamental rights of husbands or wives (if they are the sole breadwinners).

Knee-jerk measures such as this one inevitably come back to haunt governments. Society pays when politicians pander to constituencies by passing bad laws.

The British Health Ministry announced last month that it is considering allowing children born from donated sperm or eggs the right to trace the donors. Certainly, that will open a can of worms.

One of Britain's largest sperm donor organizations denounced the idea of lifting the veil of secrecy over donors. It fears that years from now, many donors may be pestered by strangers who claim they are their children. Donor organizations also contend such a regulation would result in a radical drop in donors.

But some groups think the law is necessary. "It is a fundamental negation of human rights to prevent people knowing who their biological parents are," said Elizabeth Wincott of the Project Group on Assisted Reproduction. "Adopted children have been
able to trace their parents for over 20 years."

This is another example of a measure that would do more harm than good. It's questionable whether government bureaucrats think things through.

For instance, do we really need warning labels on egg cartons and automobile seat belts, as the Clinton administration is proposing?

Governments employ ludicrous means to change people's behavior and solve society's problems.

Officials in the Mexican state of Puebla recently announced plans to swap food for stray dogs. The state has 1.1 million dogs, and government officials want to reduce the population.

Puebla Health Secretary Jesus Lorenzo Aarun said the government would give 5,000 packages of food to people who bring in stray dogs from Sept. 20 to 27.

The dogs are to be killed. Aarun said it would be cheaper to kill the dogs than try to vaccinate them. The program, he added, is meant to reduce the risk of diseases associated with the animals.

The health secretary means well. But I just can't see inducing poor folks to become dogcatchers for some grub. There's something unsavory and demeaning about that.

Still, I bet thousands upon thousands of people will be running around in days to come, trying to catch dogs, all for a sack of food.

So far, there hasn't been a whimper out of animal rights activists and human rights organizations.

We are, alas, at the mercy of nitwits running amok throughout the world. I shudder to think what further foolishness will result from the demise of common sense.

Lawrence Hall is a Star-Ledger columnist.  

Subscriptions & Contacts | Archives | NJ School Report Card | Personals | Obituaries

— 1999 The Star-Ledger. Used with permission.

The following is a letter I sent to the editor of the Star Ledger, in response to the article.

Dear Star Ledger,

Re: German men give plan low marks, by Lawrence Hall, August 16, 1999
http://www.nj.com/columns/hall/ca4037.html

Thank you for pointing out the insanity that the proposed German legislation represents.

There is always an element of truth in folklore.  There is often more than just an element of truth in jokes.  That's what makes them so funny.  However, is either of these premises true of everything the feminists say or promote?

I suggest that equitable legislation relating to the disposal of the family income earned by sole income earners, as should be the case with respect to the 5% pocket money charter, take into account how much of the sole income devoted to family expenses is actually being spent by the little woman in the kitchen on driving the car to visit boyfriends while the husband is working, how much is being spent on outings with her girlfriends, how much is being spent on gambling, etc., you get the picture, I'm sure.

I got the picture when in 1975 I was working 2 1/2 jobs full time, and my ex was spending $700 - $1,000 per month -- not counting money for groceries -- and drove more than 30,000 miles per year spending it.  She seriously believed that she deserved all of that because the Cosmopolitan told her so.

I've got another fact for the proponents of the idea that the husband who looks after holding a full-time job should do in addition half of the housework.  Before my ex became an avid reader of Cosmopolitan, on most days she managed to get all of the housework done two hours after the kids left for school.  We had six children in all, and I firmly believed that children and husband had to pitch in when they were home.

We all did that, with everything, but the house was always neat and tidy when we came home, and we had much time to play and study together.  She laughed at the ridiculous husbands in the neighbourhood who came home after a hard day at work and then did most of the housework because their wives had not been able to get it all done, in fact, hadn't even been able to get the curlers out of their hair and change from their housecoats into something more appealing.

As a matter of fact, I could swear that the joke about the woman who ran after the garbage track originated right in the street where we lived.  The woman had forgotten to get the garbage ready to be picked up, and ran – in curlers, slippers, house coat and all – after the garbage truck, yelling: "Am I too late for the garbage?"  The man said: "No lady.  Hop right on."

However,  my ex's opinions about all of that changed very rapidly.  The more she read, the more money she wanted, the more I worked.  The more I worked, the more she spent [and she never tired of pointing out the articles in sources such as the Cosmopolitan that touted how much her contributions to the family were worth but that never mentioned anything about men other than to imply the men did not appreciate their women enough].  The more she spent, the less time she had to do house work.  The less she did, the more the children and I had to do.  As I said, I worked more than two full-time jobs, and had to do my own cooking and the laundry, and pay all of the bills, and give her pocket money to boot.  She didn't need any legislation to get me to do all of that.  But then we broke up in 1975, and I still kept on paying, starting with her gambling debts, the credit that she had exhausted at the grocery store and other such things.  I paid long past my retirement, right up to the summer of 1994, for a full 19 years, just as if I was still married, never more than a step away from insolvency, long after my oldest grandchildren had entered school.

How can any of the German parties that promote this 5% pocket-money-charter BS even dream of having men vote for them?  You know what the ultimate outcome of such insanity will be?  Every boy will be assigned a woman for life, for whom he must toil all of his life.  Whether he'll get anything in return from his assigned woman will be up to her discretion, after all, she is a woman, it's her body, and he's her slave.

I know that many women aren't like that, but most of those who cheer for this outrage and lobby for it are.  It will discourage more men from becoming married and cause more divorces for those who are married.  And this is the truth that's driving it all:  anything and everything that can bring about the destruction of our families will do, even if it is just legislated pocket money.

Our children will be left holding the dirty end of the stick.  Most of them are then made to grow up fatherless.

Sincerely,

Walter H. Schneider

U.K.:  Men's wages to be paid to their "wives"

On 4 Oct 1999 23:35:04 in alt.mens-rights Blake Thoresby <thoresby@nym.alias.net> wrote:

The British Minister for Women has announced plans to compel employers to pay men's wages into their wives' bank accounts.

Baroness Jay said that the new rules, which will come into force in April, will reduce poverty in the family by ensuring that family income is not  wasted. She said that wives will have sole discretion over whether or not they receive their husband's wages directly. This is in line with the current regulations which allow wives to decide which partner is paid Child Benefit.

Men's rights groups have expressed concern and say they are particularly worried about separated men who will have to ask their estranged wives for enough money to live on.

Legal experts say that the new Family Income regulations will also be applied to unmarried couples with children who live, or have lived, together.

(See also update 2003 04 02)

It is reality.  Men aren't even permitted to have control over the money that they earn, if they ever really had it to begin with.  Without any doubt, it is a world-wide trend, and, as usual, men, being busy with bringing home the bacon, take little notice of it.  Certainly, eventually they will complain, after the horses have left the barn, after men begin to feel the impact of the government-imposed deprivation of their rights and financial resources.  However, provided it is being done very gradually, and provided men are being indoctrinated with the idea that society is being improved constantly, there is absolutely no reason why men should even notice that the wool is being pulled over their eyes.  The thoroughly feminized education system and other feminist-controlled propaganda tools do an extremely efficient job of that.

At least in Germany they are not going whole-hog as in the U.K., where the proposal is that men only work and in turn receive not even the illusion of deserving any credit for their sacrifices, and where men's earnings are to be given into the total control by their wives or mothers of their children -- married or not.  The U.K. proposal doesn't even mention that men should be entitled to a little bit of pocket money for their efforts.  Is there any doubt in anyone's mind that once the German women find out about the lavish treatment of the English women, that they'll be clamoring for a raise in pay?  What about the wives in the rest of the world?  Surely if Indian, German and English wives get "what they deserve," the other wives don't want to be left in the dust of the race for the spoils of the pillage of men.

Interestingly, the argument in the U.K. is that this will eliminate waste.  There's no doubt in my mind that the proponents of the English version of this idiocy are colluding with Indian and Canadian feminists.  Could this be a departure from the hallowed feminist tradition of following Marxism and the teachings of Mao?  Marx, Lenin and Mao wanted to bring women into the work force, to tap the potential of their productivity for the greatness of the socialist state by liberating women from the bonds of their families and all moral traditions.  The feminist goal of putting women on welfare to relieve them from oppression by their husbands and the demands of the labour market is a very extensive departure from the goals of the communist pioneers.   However, a name for this lunacy doesn't really matter.  The whole idea is nothing but the next logical step in the progression for the empowerment of women. And, sure enough, it removes the last shred of illusion anyone ever had about feminism being a movement to promote equal rights for women. The ultimate goal is to bring about the destruction of families, and few things provide more incentives to achieve that than government largesse in the form of welfare for women and relegating men to the role of beasts of burden.

As Roger Eldridge from Ireland explains in the following, the whole scheme is nothing more than a means by which to extend the principle of apartheid (that worked so well in South Africa, and still does) to all of the developed nations.  

The following article reports on the latest stealth tax on fathers being just another move down the road to apartheid in the UK.

A lot of people believed that apartheid in South Africa was to do with race.  It wasn't.  I worked back in the early seventies for the Defence and Aid Fund for Southern Africa who provided legal aid and education to Mandela and the other leaders on Robben Island. [Note]

The key to apartheid was in fact to do with gender — the separation of the workforce, the men, from their families — women and children.

The apartheid policy was for the labour units, the able-bodied men, to be sent away to live in compounds at the gold and diamond mines. They were allowed 'home' every six months. Crime, alcoholism and drug taking, violence and homosexuality were endemic.

The non-labour units, the women and children, were herded into the so-called 'homelands' — ghettos where only a few of the women and children worked as domestic servants for the ruling whites. They were completely dependent on government aid, so had no need for a husband. Family breakdown, crime, alcoholism, drug taking and prostitution were endemic.

There is no marriage, there is no morality, there are no families, just isolated, vulnerable unsupported individuals who can offer no resistance to government dictates. This is the dream of totalitarian (i.e. feminist) regimes.

This system continues to this day, which is why, twenty years after Nelson Mandela supposedly liberated the country, South Africa has the greatest problem with a dysfunctional and anti-social society in the world, with the highest crime and murder rate on the planet.

What they did in South Africa is being repeated by feminist regimes around the world. Canada and the UK are the prime candidates.

With this measure the UK government is just paving the way to transfer "child support" from the father to the mother for HER children in advance of the inevitable separation and divorce that is in the pipeline for all UK couples.

In this way the government is just anticipating making him the maintenance debtor and ruling out any opportunity for the father to object or have any protection of the law when the time actually arrives so 'maintenance' can continue to be automatically removed at source from his pay packet, even if his wife deserted him and is obstructing him from carrying out his parental responsibilities to his children, by not allowing him to parent them.

If this policy is permitted to go through it will signal the end of British society as we know it and turn the country into ghettos. Any man who accepts this will be guilty of preparing his children for his forced abandonment and their abuse and neglect.

Once the money is extracted from him on such a routine basis there is no need for any conflict to occur as his wife simply transfers her dependency from him to the state, and neither she nor society will have any respect or use for him as a parent, and his children will lose his protection and guidance  — the most important input that children receive as part of their initiation into civil society.

Men should just refuse to work if the money is taken away from them. There is no good reason other than the scenario outlined above for there to be a transfer of wealth from one parent to the other, especially since, as we all know, the father, despite all the silly talk about equality, is still deemed to be the one responsible for the financial support of the children.

The measure is probably illegal if the UK follows the tax individualisation policies ordered by the EU.

Who dreamed up such an outrageous feminist policy? Does anyone have access to the debates that took place in Westminster and the House of Lords when this law was introduced?

In Ireland we have researched the debates that took place for the introduction of our laws on Guardianship, Maintenance and Domestic Violence.  They contain a huge amount of very powerful information and give very valuable insights into what the legislators were thinking, which can be used to advantage.

Roger Eldridge
Chairman, National Men's Council of Ireland
Knockvicar, Boyle, Co. Roscommon
Tel: 00 353 (0) 79-67138
email: eldridgeandco@eircom.net

UK government acknowledges its view of mother ownership of children

Proof that the government views children as the property of mothers.

The Observer

30 March 2003

Brown set for male tax revolt

By Gaby Hinsliff, chief political correspondent

http://www.observer.co.uk/politics/story/0,6903,925787,00.html

The Treasury is braced for a 'male backlash' against the Budget over changes which will transfer tax credit money from husbands to their wives.

Sources close to Downing Street have admitted to concerns over working men opening their pay packets in April to find they appear to have 'lost' hundreds of pounds.

The family payment will have shifted to their wives' bank accounts, under changes reflecting that women are considered more likely to spend the cash on children. But fears that up to 200,000 working men will resent the loss of control — or confuse it with the national insurance rise due on 6 April — have prompted a national advertising campaign to explain the change.

"The worry is that a lot of men are not going to like this, even though their families are still getting the money," said one senior Labour source.

The Treasury is considering placing ads on sports pages to ensure men see them.

The Tories calculate that some men could see up to a quarter of the money on their payslip disappear as the Working Families Tax Credit — a top-up for lower wages paid to the family's main earner, usually male, through the pay packet — makes way for the new Child Tax Credit which is paid to the children's main carer, usually female, through their bank.

The change is particularly awkward as it comes ahead of a 'feminised' Budget promising new benefits for working mothers, including increased maternity pay and new rights to work part-time.

Gordon Brown will defend the national insurance rises tomorrow in a speech to the British Chambers of Commerce. His audience reflects the fact that while the tax hikes have been seen as an assault on Middle England's wallets, the lion's share of the cash for the NHS will be coming from employers' national insurance contributions. The Tories are warning that it will turn out to be a 'tax on jobs', with the extra costs for firms tipping some over the edge in a gloomier economic climate.

Treasury ministers are expected to argue that the money is to improve the NHS and cut waiting times, and businesses will benefit from reduced absence due to sickness. Whitehall sources argue the tax rise will compare favourably to those paid by employers in France, Germany and the US to provide health cover.

The Treasury also argues that for many families, the effect of NICS rises will be cancelled out by the more generous Child Tax Credit.

Brown is also expected to prepare the ground for the lowering of his economic forecasts, with many experts predicting the Chancellor will have to borrow more both to cover the gap in expected tax receipts and the cost of the war.

The International Institute of Strategic Studies estimates that a relatively short conflict in Iraq could cost around —3.3 billion, with the cost rising by around —750 million a month if war lasts longer than six weeks.

__________________
(Update 2008 05 10: "This year we passed the milestone of 3,000 deaths in Iraq, and of those, 2,938 were men, 62 were women." -- Is There Anything Good About Men?
By Roy F. Baumeister

Feminism is the biggest evil in the history of mankind and causes the greatest abuses of Human Rights.

Political Correctness is a tool used by those who perpetrate crimes against Humanity and treason against society in order to hide their corruption.

Two basic reasons underlie the attempt to separate America [Ireland, UK, Canada, Germany, France, Australia etc etc] from its spiritual roots.

First, the liberal goal of state socialism is incompatible with a citizenry who look to themselves and to God, rather than the state, for the satisfaction of their needs.

Socialism requires that citizens do obeisance to the state as the Source from which all blessings flow. The supreme State can have no other God before it.

The second reason for outlawing religion derives from the lobbying of those who wish their sins declared virtues. They seek the validation of the law, in the futile belief that the legal right to be wrong makes wrong right.

—Linda Bowles

 __________________

Note: I asked Roger Eldridge whether he could provide references to sources that support his assertions.  He responded:

I do not have any citations because there was no internet then (1970-74) and everything was put out on hard copy. I was responsible for the production and dissemination of pamphlets and a very well-researched and referenced Information Service which was available in monthly updates on subscription and was sent out pre-punched to add to a ring binder.

It is ironic when I recall that the people I worked for were all liberals and communists but were funded by the church and under the auspices of Canon John Collins and a charity called Christian Action.

These people now of course run South Africa.

How naive we all were then.

Best wishes

Roger

Penises with wallets

Roger Eldridge is quite right in considering the implementation of the international agenda for the planned destruction of the family to be nothing other than the expansion of apartheid to the rest of the world.

Nobody managed to make that more clear than Martin Cauchon, Canada's current minister of justice (Liberal), while promoting Bill C22 (the Justice Department's proposal – soon to be passed into law – for changes to Canada's Divorce Act, by which the cogent list of recommendations made by the Joint Senate/House of Commons Committee for urgently needed changes to the Divorce Act are to be obfuscated, neutralized and blocked.   Martin Cauchon stated:

Parents don't have rights vis-a-vis their children; they have responsibilities.

Irreconcilable Differences
Report Newsmagazine, Jan 6, 2003, p. 30

Dave Rutherford, the host of The Rutherford Show on Corus Radio, commented 2003 04 01 in response to Martin Cauchon's claim, "Are fathers anything else but penises with wallets?"  Obviously Martin Cauchon feels that way, and he will ram his way of thinking down our throats until we can no longer feel the pain or perish, whichever comes first.

Just as with children who constantly test their parents to determine what the boundaries are within which they must govern themselves, so the extremist feminists keep pushing for more and more concessions from society, and just as children for whom there are no boundaries or limits, so the extremist feminists are becoming exceedingly spoiled and demand more and more.  Surely it is high time to send them to their rooms.

Of course, as far as civilization is concerned, the whole idea is the most powerful and most effective method yet to promote not merely Zero-Population Growth, or perhaps even the more popular Negative-Population-Growth policies of the UN, but, rather, the ultimate in population control: Zero Population.  That's why it will most likely be implemented in more and more countries.
   Any man still considering getting married and and slaving away for nothing as a permanently indentured servant to his family (which men always were) without receiving even the traditional illusion of power in return would surely be insane.  Women, as they already do now, will complain of being discriminated against because more and more of them will no longer have permanently assigned providers and protectors.  Well, without any doubt, the feminists' "women's way of knowing" will serve to provide a solution for that little problem too, but it will happen in a society that won't even remotely look like anything that ever existed — if it manages at all to continue its existence.

—Walter Schneider, 1999 10 05 (Updated 2003 03 31)

A new Heritage Foundation report:

The Good News About Welfare Reform

by Robert Rector and Patrick F. Fagan

The report fits right into any discussion of the factors contributing to the systematic destruction of our families. The conclusion is inescapable:

Welfare to "families" results in farewell to the family.

The report provides hard evidence that a reduction in the easy availability of welfare results without any doubt in a general strengthening of marriages, the reduction of poverty and hunger and, most importantly, a halt to escalating numbers of illegitimate births -- contrary to all of the dire predictions of disaster that were made by feminists and other liberals when they attempted to prevent the US Welfare Reform Bill from passing.

Family-friendly Tax Credits

Just as welfare can and is being used as a very potent weapon in the war against the family, it can be successfully argued that it can also be used as a means to strengthen families.  As identified in the preceding item by the Heritage Foundation, there is no question on the validity of that point.  The Canadian Christian Heritage Party has a very constructive idea for using family-friendly tax credits, a form of welfare that aims at improving society rather than focusing on eliminating the poverty of single mothers, to eradicate the roots of that poverty rather than focus on alleviating it's consequences and thereby perpetuating it.

CHP Communique

Box 4958, Station E. Ottawa ON  K1S 5J1
Ph.(819) 669-0673 Fax (819) 669-6498 E-mail:edchp@ottawa.com

Other commentaries can be found at www.chp.ca "CHP Speaks Out"

This communiqu— may be copied

Vol 10 No 13 March 31, 2003

TALKING POLICY: #1 - FAMILY-FRIENDLY TAX CREDITS

"OK," said the man at the meeting. "I agree things are going pretty badly under the present government. But what would you do to change it?"

There are a lot of answers to his questions, but I was grateful that he had pointed the conversation in a positive direction. The CHP is the only Federal political party that has affirmed the 'supremacy of God' clause in Canada's constitution. What would that affirmation mean in terms of policies?

One result is our determination to strengthen the married, two-parent family, because the family is the foundation of society. When I say that, please don't think I'm being critical of single parents; I was one for seven years, and I know how tough a job they have. But single parents will almost all agree that a one-parent family isn't the best situation for the children.

So what would we do to strengthen the family?

One idea is the CHP's 'Family-Friendly Tax Credit': a tax credit of about $1,000 a month for families in which one of the parents decides to stay home and raise their own children. The benefits would be many:

  • The children would get better care. Parent care is almost always better than institutional day-dare. Many studies show that children raised in daycare have difficulty forming emotional attachments later in life.

  • For families that cannot avoid using daycare, or don't want to have a parent at home, this plan would make spaces available in the better daycare centres. Surveys reveal that 77% of women who now work outside the home would rather be with their children. This plan would enable them to make that choice, and only the better daycare centres would survive in the resulting competitive atmosphere.

  • Families would be strengthened, and would be better off financially.

Those three benefits would be felt for generations. In addition: We would escape the added tax burden of the Liberals' proposed National Day-Care scheme - proposed at $2 billion in John Manley's budget, but remember that they said gun registration would only cost $2 million, and it ballooned to 700 times that! In fact, the Liberals' goal (as described in the book 'The Canada We Want') would probably end up adding $12 to $15 billion a year to the tax burden - which would force more stay-at-home parents to go out to work, just to pay their taxes, which would create more 'demand' for daycare in an ever-worsening spiral.

The CHP's 'Family-Friendly Tax Credit' would open about two million existing jobs - mostly entry-level positions, which would benefit youth unemployment, exactly the sector where unemployment is worst. And the people who stopped drawing Employment Insurance and welfare benefits would start paying into the system instead. That would more than cover the lost revenue of the tax credit.

Better care for Canada's children, stronger families, reduced unemployment, no added tax burden - doesn't that make more sense than what we're doing?


Alas, who would expect the Liberal Party to pursue such a simple and affordable scheme to restore Canadian society to its former greatness? Why restore the sovereignty of the family, at no cost to the taxpayers and with immeasurable benefits to all Canadians, when the social ills caused by the systematic destruction of the family are so delectably conducive in providing never-ending justification for escalating taxation and are so much more profitable to the few who benefit from that destruction?   Restore the "tyranny" of the democracy just for such a trivial thing?

WHY NOT?!

It's that or perish.

_____________

In the meantime:

The planned destruction of the family was part of the communist agenda from its inception by Karl Marx and Frederic Engels.   It became government policy in the USSR in about 1917. It was so successful in the USSR that it threatened to destroy society in the USSR.  Curiously, while in the 1940s the USSR took steps to repair the damages its family-hostile policies had caused, American communists imported the Soviet agenda for the planned destruction of the family into the USA.  It has been and continues to be promoted by left-leaning liberals in the West ever since.

  • How is Mortality Affected by Money, Marriage and Stress?
    By Jonathan Gardner, Watson Wyatt, LLP, and Andrew Oswaldi, Department of Economics, Warwick University, March 2004

    Marriage is found to be associated with substantially lower rates of mortality, for both men and women. Married men are predicted to be some -7.2 percent less likely to die over the period [1993 to 2000] than unmarried men. For women, the effect is smaller.
       Women married in 1991 are approximately -4.1 percent less likely to die over the period 1993 to 2000 than otherwise similar unmarried women.

    Full Story (PDF file, 136kB)

  • THE WAR ON PROPERTY RIGHTS & WHAT IT MEANS TO YOU, by Dr. Michael S. Coffman Ph. D.;  August 23, 2006, NewsWithViews.com
  • Feminism For Male College Students — A Short Guide to the Truth, by Angry Harry (Off-Site)

__________________
Updates:
1999 10 05
2000 06 03 (to replace page header and to install link to Communist Manifesto)
2001 02 09 (format changes)
2001 07 26 (added reference to Free Love)
2001 09 07 (made entry for Heritage Foundation report Good News About Welfare Reform)
2003 04 02 (edited to incorporate Roger Eldridge's commentary regarding UK legislation that will transfer men's incomes to their wives, ex-wives, and even to single mothers, and to incorporate information on family-friendly tax credits)
2003 04 20 (added entry for child-support and alimony case-law examples)
2003 08 01 (added reference to From Marxism to Feminism: The planned destruction of the American family)
2006 03 04 (added link to Feminism for Male College Students)
2007 05 13 (corrected formating error - missing page header)