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 Super-Family — 1

Message to Mention, 2004 03 17

At the 2004 03 16 session of the Alberta FV Roundtable, in Edmonton, I handed out copies of the article by KC Wilson that Tom pointed out, Domestic Violence Myths are Violent, with a cover sheet showing Anne Bransdon's Domestic Violence Against Men Model. After a while there were a few people that asked me for copies of it.

You are right. There is a blank wall of silence. That is a symptom. We've got to look at the cause.

The problem, so it seems to me, goes deeper than politics. [The ideology that drives the politics is the fundamental problem.] The problem is endemic in the bureaucracy. The bureaucracy is impervious to political change. The bureaucracy, not our politicians, has controlling power. Our politicians no longer lead, but they are at the head of it all, driven by the bureaucracy like the debris at the leading edge of a flash flood. [That's not how politicians put it. Ralph Klein, the Premier of Alberta, spoke at the 2004 national leadership convention of the Conservative Party of Canada and said: "If you wish to lead, you don't run with the parade, you put yourself at the tip of the parade, because the people know where they want to go." He also once said, in the early days of his political career, when someone asked him why he chose a political career, "You slide farther on B.S. than you do on gravel."]

At Tuesday's (2004 03 16) session of the Alberta FV Roundtable, more than 200 people attended.  The FV Roundtable was opened by the Alberta premier's wife, Colleen Klein. A prayer, so they announced, was said by a female Native elder (few Native men live long enough to become elders), in Cree, her native language. Sorry, but I don't speak Cree, and it is not one of Canada's official languages. I have no idea what she said, but then she only murmured and was practically inaudible anyway.  It would not have mattered much if she would have spoken in a language most people could have understood.

Iris Evans, Alberta's Minister of Children's Services, delivered an address. It was all very emotional, I could even detect tears in some of the speakers' voices.

It was a propagandistic male-bashing-fest, including a propagandistic video, of which I now have an audio recording, but I am sure that I will have no trouble getting a copy of the video itself. Besides, I am quite certain that all Albertans will get to see more and more excerpts from that video on TV as time goes by and the propaganda campaign to eradicate all family violence in Alberta reaches its crescendo. I wonder how much the PR firm that put the whole campaign together got for it all. They are getting their money's worth, but do we, does all of society?

The video contained several sections with comments by Peter Jaffe, a prominent male feminist; and, of course, it contained victims' statements by female and male victims, with the allusion in every case that males were the sole perpetrators of the alleged carnage of violence and bullying. No objective statistics at all were presented, nothing that identified respective victimization rates for the sexes, or trends over time. Mind you, the odd word was thrown in about the possibility that some of those violent criminals were female.

We were broken up into discussion groups, 13 in all. One of those was for those Natives that would be more comfortable amongst their own. A disproportionately large share — about ten times the average Canadian incidence rate — of FV in Canada occurs amongst Natives, although the "official" statistics fed to the masses never make that distinction. Afterwards, at the end of the day, a Native women, with obligatory tear-choked voice, reported on the results of the discussion in the Native discussion group. She opened up by complaining that society at large was not listening to the Native voices. Well, pardon me, but how can anyone listen if the Natives don't participate in discussions with normal mortals and lock themselves into a room that is "for Natives only"?

In the group of which I was part, people introduced themselves and the endeavors and organizations they were involved with. I asked how many of the participants in our group were being paid to attend, and how many were volunteers. Fourteen were being paid (including the two facilitators), and five were volunteers. To which I observed that the FV issue sure funds a lot of professional careers.

One of the volunteers was a 19-year old boy that will become a great man, I am sure. He had an enormous extent of knowledge of the issues, as a result of his own personal experiences as someone that had been abused time and again by the system that was supposed to help him but let him down time and again by causing him to fall through the cracks, a system that plainly and repeatedly abandoned him. He was extremely well spoken. He is the right material for articles on the consequences of the planned destruction of the family. He will most likely express himself more concisely than the people that may write about him will be capable of doing.

Another one of the volunteers was Dr. Grant Brown. Some of you may know of him. He is the author of a study report that exposed systemic and extensive anti-male bias in Alberta jurisprudence. Unfortunately, although I have a copy of his study report that he wrote about two years ago, his study report cannot be posted on the Internet. Dr. Brown no longer owns the copyright to the study report, and the publication that bought the copyright has not yet published the article. The chains of Mammon enslave many people, and they can be very effectively used to censure dissenting voices, although ostensibly that remains to be seen in this case — but nothing of the groundbreaking report published yet after two or more years??

A third volunteer was a woman whom I knew. It was a surprise to both of us to meet in the discussion group. The woman works with a victims services advocacy organization and is generally quite objective but torn. Although she knows all the numbers, she appears to have a hard time accepting that when there is a large number of male victims of abuse by females, then there must of necessity be a large number of female perpetrators that not only abuse male but also female victims, especially when children in families are involved. But I am sure that I can get her to see both sides of the equation as time goes on.

Another one of the volunteers runs an agency providing counselling services intended to provide career rehabilitation for victims of abuse. I have enormous respect for her, because she developed a good appreciation of what is causing our social decay, namely the implementation of the planned destruction of our families.

And I was number five of the volunteers.

The other 14 people were all either directly or indirectly employed by the government. One of them was the manager of a battered women's shelter. She said that she was sick and tired of men's whining, and that if men wanted any funding, they should by now have learned from what women did to get it. Yeah, the government will pay, and I hardly think that it is a good idea to ask for equal funding, because then we are equally bound in chains as the redfems are by the redfems in government that mete out the funding under the condition that only male-bashers can get any of it. Moreover, if I had to repeat the same tactics that the redfems used to get where they are, I would not be able to live with myself anymore. I didn't tell her that.  However, I suggested that it was hardly practical for men to wait for 30 years to gain equality with women, especially not practical for someone to whom that help means the difference between life and death now.

She calmed down after a while. Maybe that was because she recognized that hers was the only voice that expressed radical extremist dialectics in the room. As the day wore on, a lot but not all of the ideological animosities disappeared into the background.

The other paid people were all very polite, but they all insisted that the status quo had to be maintained. Since the system was not quite perfect, it had to be made to work more perfectly. Most of all, they all felt quite strongly that more funding had to be made available, and that was just minutes after we had spend a long time discussing the fact that funding, no matter how much money we throw at the problem, will not solve a thing. There simply is no positive correlation between obtaining better results and spending more money in attempts to get them. Work may expand to use up available time and resources, but, and that is almost a given in social work, it will almost certainly not provide better results.

However, the facilitators were listening.  They wrote down many if not all of the key points that were brought up, and it was miraculous. All of the key points brought up by the volunteers showed up on the work sheets that were being tacked to the walls of the room, one after another.

  • Respect is the foundation for peace and love. Men are no longer respected.

  • We cannot possibly hope to eradicate FV if we insist on ignoring more than half of the perpetrators and more than half of the victims.

  • Parents are the first teachers, and children's psychological matrix is finished by age four or five. Let's make sure that every child has two first teachers, a mom and a dad, before it's too late.

  • Schools cannot successfully compensate for what pre-schoolers never learned. Some enter school unable to speak intelligibly — due to lack of human contact and interaction.

  • If we need funding, let's make sure that it is being allocated equitably to all victims [not just for the one group for which we manufacture concern.  Each year there are 84 fatalities resulting from partner violence in Canada, and 30,000 fatalities of medical maltreatment, abuse and neglect in Canadian hospitals].

  • The system is case-load oriented. [The more cases, the more funding requirements — therefore the system is a self-perpetuating self-fulfilling prophesy.]

  • We need to be honest about victims and perpetrators.

  • Any victim, regardless of sex, needs compassion and help, regardless of who made the individual a victim.

  • We need accountability, performance standards, measuring and tracking to show trends over time in terms of results obtained vs. dollars spent. [Objectionable deviations need to be identified before we throw more money at the problem to get even less desirable results.]

There were many more suggestions like that, all of them objective ones, addressing the root causes of the problem, rather than its symptoms.

There were many more symptom-oriented suggestions, and those came from the paid attendants, such as from the FV staff sergeant and to some extent the FV detective of the Edmonton Police Services' FV Unit.

The government has become aware of the consequences but not necessarily the causes of the destruction of our families. Rather than to restore conditions for families to their former greatness, the government now tries to do its best to determine what it is that families did that worked so well. But, rather than letting families do it, the government tries to do its best to act instead of families. However, not a single public servant can possibly have, let alone maintain, the close and loving personal relationships that family members have. The government, after having done its best to destroy our families, now attempts to construct a government-run, -controlled and -funded substitute for our families, a super-family, a single one. That'll never work well, but it will use taxpayers' money to attempt doing without love what families did for the pure love and joy of it and without charge.

The taxpayer is the breadwinner of that new, government-run super-family, and 70 percent of social contributions are paid by men, while women make use of 70 percent of all social benefits paid out. That is the reality of the "freedom" that women's "liberation" brought women: the welfare state. The welfare state is a dysfunctional family, and its head, the government, is the greatest abuser of all.

What struck me as most ludicrous and what illustrated the insincerity or ideology-induced blindness of many of the people there was that they thought that an intake group with a single phone number that should become as popular as 911 would have to be set up. Yet, that, too, requires government funding, they said. The irony is that not one of them offered any personal address details to anyone else, even though I told them that I run something very similar to an intake service on an international basis, and that most of the Albertans that come to me for help are people that found Fathers for Life mentioned at American websites. (I handed out business cards. That won't help much but is better than nothing.)

The experiences of the other members of our "team" of volunteers (the term applies only loosely) was identical in the groups in which they participated.

If there had been a much larger "team", many more of those objective opinions like ours would have made it into the collection of opinions that is being assembled. Quite likely far fewer of the symptom-oriented ones would have been formulated and recorded. The PC crowd would have been far too busy to say much other than to try to raise their objections to objective reality, to the real facts of life.

We need more people on our team. Let's not complain so much about what is being done to us and our families. Let's complain more about what we neglect to do.

Propaganda tactics work as well for the truth as they do for lies, but we need the masses to support the truth as eagerly as they are taken in by the lies. It is not sufficient to hold the truth to the light. It needs to be promoted massively and all-pervasively.

There is not very much that a few people can do. I know that we all do a lot, but there are not enough of us. That needs to be changed.  Although our numbers are growing, they grow so slowly that maybe it will take us 30 years before things are somewhat more normal.  Does the anti-male and anti-family indoctrination imposed on us through the education system, through the media and through government-sponsored propaganda campaigns run so deep that our society has lost the will to live?

From: Erin Pizzey [founder of the first modern battered women's shelter — Chiswick, London, England, 1971]
Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2004 10:12 AM
Subject: Re: [Mention] Domestic Violence Myths Are Violent

Tom is so right, but every [time] we quote our figures and statistics we are met with a blank wall of silence. I am accused of 'blaming the victims', 'hate crimes against women', and the door bangs shut.

The problem is political, and until we can get some people at a very high level to take the women who are plundering the public and tax payers to court and prove that their feminist ideology is false and dangerous to family life and our society, we can't move on. Part of the problem is the secrecy of the refuge movement in all countries.

There is no accountability to anyone. Most of them have charitable status and should not be allowed to practice their covert politics. The question is how do we out them? I am watching Massachusetts' battle and pray that they win. It just takes one powerful group to bring down the house of cards.

____________

From: "Tom Knoll"
To: "Mention Network"
Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2004 12:32 PM
Subject: [Mention] Domestic Violence Myths Are Violent

The DV lies women and feminists use are a form of abuse, violence and violation. Tom

____________

http://menstuff.org/columns/wilson/current.html

Menstuff, 15 March 2004

Domestic Violence Myths Are Violent

By KC Wilson <kc@socialwriting.net>

The gap between public perception about domestic violence (DV) and its reality is remarkable. DV was recruited as a weapon in gender wars, but those who live in glass houses should not throw stones.

In 1984, Diana Russell claimed that 54% of women were the victims of sexual abuse. In 2000, an advocacy group claimed that one in three women around the world have been physically assaulted by their partner. The horrifying statistics keep coming, and varying, but all insist that men are an inherently serious problem.

We rarely hear of the hundreds of serious, academic studies on intimate violence that have been done over the last 35 years. They do not serve those using violence for their own abuse of others. The most authoritative studies are the three Nation Incidence Surveys commissioned by the Department of Health. While the rate of mild violence, such as slapping or throwing a magazine, are about the same per year for each gender (around 20%), women commit over twice the severe partner assaults as men: punching, kicking, and threat or use of a weapon: 4.6% of women and 1.9% of men.

Why has domestic violence been an effective tool for women when there has always been very little and women commit more of what does exist?

Because of the morality. Men are supposed to protect, especially protect women. Women are not. Men do not perceive women as a threat, so rarely complain even when seriously abused. But male violence against women, however rare, has a high emotional impact, especially upon those same, allegedly villainous men. Female violence is ignored, while all are horrified by men's until it seems the only kind that exists.

As Patricia Pearson documents in her book, When She Was Bad, this means women get away with murder. Literally. And when everyone only reacts to male violence you can bully legislatures into special provisions for women and no protection for men, a dangerous imbalance that invites still more female abuse of men.

The natural bias is understandable, but it is a bias and should be so regarded. Is female violence less bad? Murray Strauss is one of the academic researchers who feels that, to a child, it doesn't matter which gender it sees hitting which. It models violence as a response.

And should women get away with crimes we don't tolerate from men? Gender double standards were considered bad when women took their brunt. Do we want our laws and practices based upon emotion, or real threats?

Erin Pizzey established the first battered women's shelter in the world, but by 1998 was so alarmed at the political use of DV that she wrote a scathing article for the London Observer.

"Unfortunately, at this time [in 1971] the feminist movement - hungry for recognition and for funding - was able to hijack the domestic violence movement and promptly set about disseminating dubious research material and disinformation."

This is a disservice for real victims of DV, who can be anyone. The wrong thing is targeted, wrong solutions provided, and provided to the wrong people. Advocates do not care about reducing family violence. They seek the power in vilifying others.

So far I've been nice.

Women commit 55% of spouse murders, 64% of all child abuse including 78% of what results in death, 81% of parent murders, and 55% of sibling murders. Mothers commit 55% of child murders while natural fathers commit 6.9%. Yet the more common forms of female aggression are relationship violence and emotional bullying.

In divorce, to protect children from violence, perhaps we should always award sole custody to fathers.

Want to play gender politics with DV?

[Statistics are cited from the DHHS National Incidence Survey on Child Maltreatment, and DOJ 1994 report, "Murder in the Family"]

---

K.C. Wilson <kc@socialwriting.net> is the author of "Delusions of Violence: The Secrets Behind Domestic Violence Myths," "The Multiple Scandals of Child Support," and other e-books on family issues. Available at http://harbpress.com/

 

Table 7–1 Perpetrators [of child maltreatment] by Sex and Age (DCDC)
Age Group

Male Female Total
19 years or younger 9,177 9,882 19,059
20 to 29 years 26,646 69,591 96,237
30 to 39 years 45,958 76,611 122,569
40 to 49 years 21,258 20,061 41,319
50 years old or older 8,434 8,007 16,441
Totals: 111,473 184,152 295,625
Source: Child Maltreatment 1997: Reports from the States to the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System; Section 7, Perpetrators

Perpetrators of chid maltreatment, by sex and age group, US, 1997 figures from 39 states

________________

See also:

White RoseThe White Rose
Thoughts are Free

__________________
Posted 2004 03 21
Updates:
2006 03 04 (added link to Feminism for Male College Students)