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)

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Newly announced Ontario-based Shelternet is an absurd undertaking


> -----Original Message-----
> From: R.J.Whiston [mailto:robert.whiston@talktalk.net]
> Sent: Monday, July 29, 2002 6:00 AM
> To: Walter Schneider CAN
> Subject: more women's deaths from DV than from cancer?
>
>
> [In relation to a press release announcing Shelternet, a new Web resource for abused women]
> Is this just woolly stats ?
> RW

My response:

From: Walter H. Schneider [ ]
Sent: Mon 2002-07-29 17:59
To: R.J.Whiston
Cc: [not shown]

Subject: RE: more women's deaths from DV than from cancer?

The Shelternet press release is quite plainly nothing more than bunk. There is not a single unbiased and objective source of information or funding amongst those listed in the press release.

The unspecified qualifiers used in the key-quote in the irresponsible and incendiary press release were: "gender-based", "world-wide", "death and ill health":

Among women aged 15-44 worldwide, gender-based violence accounts for more death and ill health than cancer, traffic injuries and malaria combined.

-World Bank Report, UNIFEM Press Release 2000-

Unless those sources turned a new leaf, which to my knowledge they didn't, you've got to take their word with more than a grain of salt. The World Bank, for example, uses food as a weapon for coercive tactics in granting loans to promote the implementation of population reduction programs in underdeveloped nations. That is part of the strategy outlined in [US] National Security Study Memorandum 200, whereby the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the UNFPA and the IPPF were to draw attention away from- and provide camouflage for the U.S.. (World Population Control -- U.S. Strategy and UN Policy Program)

Shelternet's announcement in their press release is nothing more than a continuation of strategies designed to rip apart the trust between the sexes; that being a prerequisite for the implementation of the planned destruction of the family, and that being the most effective method of all imaginable for the purpose of population reduction.

A "Shelternet" will do absolutely nothing for the reduction of violence against women anywhere in the world, least of all in Canada or in the U.S., because Canadian and U.S. violence statistics relating to women as victims are so low as to be almost totally insignificant -- relative to victims of violence in other population sectors, such as men and boys in general and especially violence statistics involving children. The vast majority of children who are being hurt in families are being hurt by women. Moreover, the hard and cold fact is that the vast majority of people anywhere in the world who die in consequence of violence are men and boys.

There are good reasons to doubt that the UNIFEM and World Bank "statistic" is even close to the truth; besides, they mentioned no numbers or incidence rates, not even what constitutes "ill health" (does "Not now honey, I've got a head ache," fall under the category of "ill health"?). Moreover, not even violence by animals would be non-gender-based, as all perpetrators of violence belong without doubt to one sex or the other and direct their violence against members of both sexes, human or not.

At http://www.acbr.com/causdeat.htm are statistics for the causes of death in Canada (1992), showing that women are less likely than men to die of virtually all causes of death, and markedly less likely so in the categories that are consequences of violent acts.

In response to your question, I took both data sets at the preceding URL and combined them into a common graph and a common table, so as to make the sex-related differences more obvious. The table and the graph derived from it are accessible at http://fathersforlife.org/health/cod_Canada_1992.htm.

The table shown at the preceding URL is as follows:

Causes of Death (Canada 1992);Number of Deaths

Cause of death Number of Deaths
Men Women
Circulatory system diseases 39,290 36,921
Cancer 30,481 25,167
Respiratory system diseases 9,411 7,252
Digestive system diseases 3,774 3,450
Suicide all causes 2,923 786
Motor vehicle collisions 2,376 1,061
Substance abuse 2,317 844
Suicide, non-firearm 1,932 727
Mental Disorders 1,559 2,034
HIV 1,288 70
Suicide by Firearms 991 59
Accidental falls 985 1,153
Accidental poisoning 528 198
Homicides all causes 487 245
Homicide, non-firearm 309 176
Homicide, by firearm 178 69
Homicide, by cutting/piercing instrument 142 68
Surgical/medical misadventure 74 80
Fatal gun accidents 61 2

Source: "Causes of Death 1992" (Minister of Industry, Science and Technology, Statistics Canada, Health Statistics Division, Sept. 1994); and, "Method of Committing Homicide Offences, Canadian Provinces/Territories, 1992" (Minister of Industry, Science and Technology, Statistics Canada, Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, 1992)

A good rule-of-thumb is to assume that domestic-violence-related injuries of women account for about one third of all injuries intentionally inflicted on women, and that not all of those are inflicted by men. For a good idea of those proportions have a look at the very last URL shown below. You'll find from that and from the other sources identified that the proportions of non-fatal injuries that require emergency room visits are similar or almost identical to those involving fatal injuries, with only a minuscule proportion of women comprising victims of domestic violence in relation to all victims of violence.

As you can see from the links to other statistics shown below, the proportions of causes of death hold true for the U.S. as well. I'm not aware of any reasons why the proportions in other countries or "world-wide" would be substantially different. Nobody has ever made a case, using reliable statistics, that they are substantially different. Therefore the claim in the Shelternet press release appears to be more than far-fetched, perhaps not world-wide but, rather, from out of this world, from way beyond the far side of the moon.

The following URLs provide related statistics and comments of interest (in no particular order):

  • http://fathersforlife.org/health/lifeexpw.htm
    Differences in the life expectancies of the sexes in various countries in the world
  • http://fathersforlife.org/fv/chivalryends.htm
    A tool kit to destroy families
  • http://fathersforlife.org/health/heartdths.htm
    Deaths from Heart- and Cardiovascular Diseases
    US Heart Disease Fatalities -- The Hype and the Truth
  • http://fathersforlife.org/health/cancer.htm
    [US] Deaths from Cancer
  • http://fathersforlife.org/health/population_control.htm
    World Population Control -- U.S. Strategy and UN Policy Program
  • http://fathersforlife.org/uspop.htm
    USA Population Figures for the Years 1980 to 1996
    (That page contains information about the leading causes of death for the sexes)
  • Is the world overpopulated?

    If all of the world's people were located in the Province of Alberta (just a touch smaller in area than the State of Texas) and each were to have an equal share of all of the land in Alberta, then each of the world's people would have 98.6m2 of land to live on.

    Assuming that the average household consists of three people, a family of three would have enough space (3,184 ft2) for a moderately-sized house and a garden large enough to grow some of the food consumed by the family.

    • Alberta land area: 661,565 km2, 255,541 miles2
    • World population: 6,706,993,152 (Source: CIA World Factbook, July 2008 est.)

    It is obvious that the world's population density will be the controlling factor.  Is that a problem?  Will people any time soon be standing on each other's shoulders? 

    How can the world be overpopulated if it is possible to fit the world population, fairly comfortably, into a province the size of Alberta or a state the size of Texas,  even if we divide the whole population into families of three and give each a bungalow and a good-sized garden to boot?

    The following table list a number of nations, ranked by their population densities. 

     A table of population densities of various countries, with columns for country, area, population, and population density per km^2

    Does anyone seeing those numbers still think that the world is overpopulated?

The search string I used to find the URLs shown above was "leading causes of death", via the site-specific search engine that is accessible on virtually every page of Fathers for Life, but I'm sure that you already book-marked it.

Here is another URL of interest:

http://fathersforlife.org/health/EDISDR_SFHR_2001_causes.htm
Emergency Department Injury Surveillance Report
South Fraser Health Region, April 1, 2001 - June 30, 2001

Lastly, I'm ashamed to say that most of my professional career was spent working for one the companies listed amongst the sponsors of Shelternet. However, why should I be more ashamed having worked for them than I am of being a citizen of a country that is being increasingly ruled by ideologists and no longer by common sense or even common law?

The corporation in question is TELUS, a Canadian (now largely foreign-owned) telecommunications company that, a little over ten years ago, came into existence through the privatization of Alberta Government Telephones. TELUS eventually bought out Edmonton Telephones and BC Telephones.
   During its new existence as a private corporate entity, TELUS performed so very poorly that it had to save itself from financial disaster once by laying off 6,000 of its employees (then half of its work force). TELUS is now in the process of doing that again. They announced that they have to lay off 6,000 of their employees (one quarter of its combined work force), apparently to make them pay for TELUS' poor management decisions that saw TELUS' bond ratings go from AAA to BB, just one step away from junk-bond performance.

Why would TELUS, apparently slated to go under or at least to enter the Nirwana of corporate oblivion, feel that it needs to scrape together the funding required to support a hare-brained scheme by radical gender activists? Citizens of Alberta and British Columbia, not radical feminists from Ontario, provide the lion's share of TELUS' operating revenues.

Officials from Shelternet and TELUS are receiving copies of this message. Perhaps they will provide fitting explanations.

Regards,

Walter Schneider

_______________________
  1. Check Shelternet's Web Page "Just for Kids". It's a prime example of rampant and rabid anti-male and family-hostile propaganda intended to indoctrinate children in radical-feminist ideology.

Lorene Vernon, a manager of TELUS' United Way campaign, worked for me when I was employed in the Network Planning section of the Engineering Department of TELUS, many years ago.
   Lorene insists on regularly sending appeals to me to give generously to United Way out of my meager pension income that has seen virtually no increases during the last eleven years and in fact was substantially reduced once I reached age 65.  Maybe it's Lorene's way of showing that she remembers me, or perhaps she simply wants to give me a hard time.
   That is even though I asked Lorene to consider my financial situation and to please leave us alone with her appeals, just aside from the fact that United Way is one of the prime promoters of male-bashing and of the implementation of the planned destruction of the family through sponsoring family-hostile social programs.  I wouldn't give them any donations even if my life depended on it.

As of now neither Shelternet nor TELUS responded to the questions I raised.


See also:

White RoseThe White Rose
Thoughts are Free

__________________
Posted 2002 08 17