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)

 
 
 
 

A tool kit to destroy families


The two comments shown here relate to a 2001 12 03 article by Suzanne Fields, The last rites for chivalry, in The Washington Times. 

The first comment is a letter to Suzanne Fields.

From: "Walter H. Schneider" < >
To: sfields1000@aol.com
Cc: letters@washingtontimes.com
Sent: Friday, December 07, 2001 9:17 AM

Subject: Re: The last rites for chivalry

Dear Ms Fields,

Re: http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20011203-7446612.htm The Washington Times, December 03, 2001; "The last rites for chivalry," by Suzanne Fields

You are quite right in considering that sentiments which in the past promoted special rights for women are archaic relics. Women that wanted to be equal in all respects to men were quite right to abrogate some of those ancient customs. However, the world is somewhat poorer on account of women's liberation. On the surface it seems that women lost out with the hand they dealt to themselves. Looking a little deeper, we all lost because we are being cheated out of civilities that once made it a little easier to live with one another.

Women are without any doubt physically weaker than men and do deserve protection, whether some of the new amazons or androgynous women want it or not. However, it appears that especially the new women want to have rights and privileges -- deference amongst them -- at their convenience and selectively. The rights and privileges that were specially created for women in modern times didn't necessarily improve women's lot, and they came at a cost to society at large. After all, we live in a closed system, and the creation of special rights for one will cause obligations -- and losses of rights and privileges -- for all others.

Aside from that, doesn't it strike you as being odd that the more equal women became, the poorer they got on average? That is of course not true for some women whose incomes and career opportunities improved on account of the new advantages that were created for them because they wanted them, such as hiring quotas, preferential hiring, biased selection procedures, etc.. However, for the vast majority of women that insisted on following their biological destiny, motherhood -- for which women were rewarded in the past with preferential treatment and protection -- is now a bad word. Mothers, especially the growing numbers of single mothers, face more than being merely bad-mouthed. Ever larger numbers of them find themselves in various extents of poverty, while ever increasing numbers of childless men and women rely for their old age security to be provided by children of men and women that still believe that the human race must continue to exist and therefore propagate itself.

None of those issues were addressed in your article. Even though you bemoan and belittle the loss of some quaint civilities, you seemed more intent to use your concerns as a vehicle for promoting your sentiments regarding "violence against women." Well Ms Fields, you may have your very personal agenda to promote, but as a good journalist you also know that the emphasis on violence-against-women issues is the result of a hoax. As far as altercations between men and women go, women are as or more violent than men and considerably more likely than men to initiate inter-spousal violence. Hundreds of recent studies by reputable social researchers provided the proof of that. But, there is another side to women's violence that becomes almost completely obfuscated in all that violence-against-women hype. Women perpetrate without any doubt about 70 percent of all violence against children in families, with another substantial proportion of violence against children being committed by men who are women's boyfriends, common-law husbands or the stepfathers of children. The vast majority of children killed in families is being murdered by women.

Still, the sole focus on violence against women and other pro-women concerns takes well-deserved attention away not only from children but also from men. If one looks just at life and health issues objectively, men make far greater and far more numerous sacrifices in the interest of families and society than women do, yet there is far less funding for men's health issues than there is for women's. Men experience roughly 95 percent of all job accidents -- fatal or non-fatal. It is sad that on account of the sole emphasis on women's rights and privileges, men no longer have the respect and appreciation of society that they once had. The consequence of that is a widening of the gender gap with respect to the life expectancies of the sexes that goes unnoticed by many journalists.

For a prime example of that you need to look no farther than your concerns about the plight of Afghan women. Have you no concern for Afghan men? Afghan men are the ones selectively targeted for brutalization, torture, massacres, and forced conscription for labour or military service, in far, far greater numbers than Afghan women are. Women hardly ever experience such violations of their rights and persons. Afghan women have no problem seeing that, why can't you? You don't have to move to Afghanistan to observe and comment objectively. Just be objective and use some common sense instead of repeating worn-out, ideological, feminist platitudes.

Women in a country devoid of any or adequate social safety nets suffer when they are robbed of the only means to security they've got, the men in their immediate and extended families. If not for the sake of men, consider at least for the sake of women that the selective killing of Afghan men is deadly to Afghan women. Many Afghan women and their children will simply have nothing other to look forward to than at best a lifetime of suffering on account of it, likely even deadly starvation. The real and controlling cause of the suffering of Afghan women is the systematic persecution and killing of Afghan men. That is where your priorities should be if you are concerned more about the plight of Afghan women than feminist ideology dictates.

A Maserati is a luxury at the best of times, but nobody would dream of putting a three-year-old in its driver's seat and giving him instructions on how to put it into motion. Catering to the feminist ideology is a costly luxury for developed nations, a predominant cause of their economic decline and may well even become the cause of their demise, but it is almost instantly deadly for underdeveloped nations like Afghanistan. It is a luxury underdeveloped nations can't afford until their fundamental human rights are secured.

Sincerely,

Walter H. Schneider
http://fathersforlife.org
P.O. Box 62, Bruderheim, Alberta, Canada, T0B 0S0
Tel: (780) 796-2306
e-mail:

I don't know whether the letter got published.

It is odd, but without being aware of Suzanne Field's column, Stephen Baskerville wrote an article for The Washington Times that they published a few days later.  It looks at the issues from a slightly different perspective but presents much the same views.

The article by Stephen Baskerville is posted here with his permission.

Washington Times, 9 December 2001, Commentary section

A tool kit to destroy families

by Stephen Baskerville, Ph.D.

Amid the war against terrorism both abroad and at home, as we send our servicemen overseas to defend our homes and country, Attorney General John Ashcroft can apparently find time to undermine our heroes here on the home front by continuing federal action to destroy their families and children.

The Attorney General and Health Secretary Tommy Thompson have just announced the creation of a federal "Toolkit to End Violence Against Women." The Toolkit is a series of documents that rehash familiar but discredited hysteria about domestic violence and instruct mothers on how to use groundless accusations of domestic violence to end their marriages and remove children from their fathers. Like myriad existing government programs, this will do nothing to "end violence against women." What it will do is accelerate family destruction and increase violence against children.

Consider three long-established and undisputed facts:

  • First, there is no epidemic of violence specifically against women. In 1999, the socialist-feminist magazine Mother Jones, hardly a bastion of male chauvinism, reported that "women report using violence in their relationships more often than men" and "wives hit their husbands at least as often as husbands hit their wives."[1] While the politicians of feminism, such as the National Organization for Women (NOW), refuse to acknowledge this truth, its theorists admit and even celebrate the fact. "Women are doing the battering," writes feminist icon Betty Friedan, "as much or more than men."[2] In his book, "Women Can't Hear What Men Don't Say," former NOW board member Warren Farrell provides a bibliography of studies going back a quarter-century, many by feminist scholars, establishing beyond doubt that domestic violence is an equal opportunity problem.[3] Professor Martin Fiebert of California State University has compiled a similar bibliography of 117 studies [as of Sep. 2007, the bibliography examined 206 scholarly investigations: 159 empirical studies and 47 reviews and/or analyses, ...The aggregate sample size in the reviewed studies exceeds 197,900.][4]
  • Second, the hysteria over domestic violence is largely geared toward one aim: removing children from their fathers. Donna Laframboise of the National Post investigated battered women's shelters in the US and Canada and concluded they constituted "one stop divorce shops" whose primary purpose was not to shelter abused women but to promote divorce.[5] These shelters, many of which are federally funded, issue affidavits against fathers sight-unseen that are accepted without any corroborating evidence by judges eager (for their own bureaucratic reasons) to justify restraining orders against fathers and the removal of their children. Feminists themselves contend that most domestic violence takes place within the context of "custody battles." "All of this domestic violence industry is about trying to take children away from their fathers," writes Irish Times columnist John Waters, who predicts: "When they've taken away the fathers, they'll take away the mothers."
  • Third and most serious of all, the most dangerous environment for a child is the home of a single mother. Children in single-parent households are at much higher risk for physical violence and sexual molestation than those living in two-parent homes.

A British study found children are up to 33 times more likely to be abused when a live-in boyfriend or stepfather is present. "Contrary to public perception," write Patrick Fagan and Dorothy Hanks, "research shows that the most likely physical abuser of a young child will be that child's mother, not a male in the household."[6] Mothers accounted for 55% of child murders according to a 1994 Justice Department report (and fathers for a tiny percentage). As Maggie Gallagher writes in her 1996 book, "The Abolition of Marriage": "The person most likely to abuse a child physically is a single mother. The person most likely to abuse a child sexually is the mother's boyfriend or second husband. . . . Divorce, though usually portrayed as a protection against domestic violence, is far more frequently a contributing cause."[7] Adrienne Burgess, head of the British government's Fathers Direct program, observes that "fathers have often played the protector role inside families."

Domestic violence programs provide a gravy train of government funding that empowers the divorce industry to seize control of more children, with predictable results: more divorce, more single-mother homes, more abused children. In no other area has the current administration been so committed to continuing the failed policies of the last one.

Do we really believe that the preponderance of firefighters and police officers who died on September 11 were "batterers"? More urgently, how long do we expect our servicemen to fight and die to protect their country and families when the government of their country seems bent on destroying their families?

STEPHEN BASKERVILLE

The writer teaches political science at Howard University.


Index to more of Stephen Baskerville's articles

I inserted the references to the following —WHS
  1. Mother Jones: Women Hit Too!
  2. Betty Friedan's ex-husband reports that his ex-wife was a seriously violent husband-batterer who often flew into extremely violent rages.
  3. Women Can't Hear What Men Don't Say, by Warren Farrell
  4. References Examining Assaults by Women on their Spouses or Male Partners: An Annotated Bibliography, by Martin S. Fiebert , Department of Psychology, California State University, Long Beach
  5. One-stop divorce shops: A letter of support from a shelter is proven to be enough to win custody battles (Part 2 of 3), by Donna Laframboise, National Post 21 November 1998
  6. Marriage: The Safest Place for Women and Children, by Patrick F. Fagan and Kirk A. Johnson, Ph.D., Heritage Foundation, Backgrounder #1535
  7. The Abolition of Marriage: How We Destroy Lasting Love, By Maggie Gallagher, Regnery.
  8. The Fraud of Feminism (1913, by Belfort Bax) has been at work already for hundreds of years  to bring about The Legal Subjection of Men (1908, by Belfort Bax).

    _____________
    Note: The Internet Archive does not always produce results for those two preceding links. However, the two pieces by Belfort Bax can be found and accessed in other locations on the Net. You can use, for example, http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Fraud_of_Feminism and http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Legal_Subjection_of_Men

_____________________

 

See also:

White RoseThe White Rose
Thoughts are Free

__________________
Posted 2001 12 09
Updates:
2002 10 25 (inserted link to index of Stephen Baskerville's articles)
2002 12 22 (format changes)
2013 03 08 (removed reference to dvstats.org -- website no longer functions)