« Yours magazine and mispent youth | Main | Responses »
Further to the posts and responses on Fathers4justice I have now put a chapter written by me in a book called Rewriting the Sexual Contract edited by Geoff Dench on to my side bar.
I wrote the chapter in 1996/7 and the book was published by Transaction Publishers in 1999. ISBN: 0-7658-0466-2.
Sorry this is off topic but...
Thought I should let you know that we now have the first blogging female MP. Sandra Gidley's new blog can be found at www.RomseyRedhead.blogspot.com, (this is just a temporary measure while her website is being redesigned).
Iraq casualties stats as at October 8th 2004:
Coalition dead: 1207
Coalition dead per Labour MP who voted for the war: 1207/247 = 4.9
Iraqi civilian dead (minimum estimate): 13086
Iraqi civilian dead per Labour MP who voted for the war: 13086/247 = 53.0
Please note: in the last update on Sept 21st 2004, the figure for the total US casualties was given by mistake, rather than the figure for the total coalition casualties.
Data from:
http://icasualties.org/
http://www.iraqbodycount.net/
To get this subject back on topic I'm going to go out on a limb and disagree with 99% of the posters here. I dislike with everything about Fathers4Justice, not just their 'dodgy stunts.' First of all what kind of a name is Fathers4Justice? Who named them? Prince? Someone who likes text messaging?
Secondly, the idea, that every divorced father is getting the same deal is ridiculous. The truth is that most fathers who have restricted access to their kids are in that situation because they haven't proved themselves capable of acting like mature human beings. People act like these are good men forced into desperate situations, but they're not, they're a bunch of self-pitying creeps who do this sort of thing for attention seeking and self-aggrandizing reasons, not to mention the fact that they hate women because women find them so unappealing. They're just another bunch of imbeciles who think they're above the law.
Politics of the Family is the chapter you're referring to I presume.
Nice and well thought-out piece. However, it seems to me that it is not men who are facing a crisis in their roles in society but rather society that is facing a crisis in how it deals with men.
Men have always been fathers and will no doubt continue to do so. As such, they have a right to be treated as something more than simply an essential part of a child's development... as if fatherhood can be reduced to nothing more than vitamins necessary for a child's good health - particularly when couples separate.
The appearance of publicity-seeking theatrical clowns will not diminish the very real injustice that fathers and their children suffer from separation nor the determination of fathers to care for and to protect their children regardless.
As I have stated previously Clive, this is an important issue that is gaining momentum not just in the UK but globally. It is something that is politically neutral but something that right-wing fringe groups like the UKIP or BNP will pick up and run with if given half the chance. As an MP you ignore it at your peril.
Don't listen to this idiot. This is not an issue. If a constiuent of yours is getting a raw deal from a seperation, then by all means help him. But each case should be treated on an individual basis or you run into exactly the same probalems that cause the situation to happen in the first place. Fathers don't deserve justice any more or less than the rest of us.
"The truth is that most fathers who have restricted access to their kids are in that situation because they haven't proved themselves capable of acting like mature human beings. People act like these are good men forced into desperate situations, but they're not, they're a bunch of self-pitying creeps who do this sort of thing for attention seeking and self-aggrandizing reasons, not to mention the fact that they hate women because women find them so unappealing."
Comments like this one from 'Stu' betray the same ill-informed bigotry we encounter in many press columnists and commentators - people who, on the whole, have never previously raised their voices on these issues and yet see fit to comment on the basis of their surface view of a few stunts. Fortunately, our stunts also stimulate more informed comment and debate, and that is why we shall continue to engage in them as long as we feel they benefit our campaign.
Anybody seeking a more in-depth appreciation of what F4J's principled, articulate and strictly peaceful campaign is about, should refer to the web site which I maintain at: http://homepage.ntlworld.com/f4jswansea/
Regards to all,
Graeme Cook
F4J Wales Web Co-ordinator (and Ellen's daddy)
--------------------------------------------------------
FATHERS-4-JUSTICE www.fathers-4-justice.org
Fighting for Truth, Justice & Equality in Family Law
See Tom Wontner's 'Super Hero Dads', a short movie
portrait of F4J, at: http://www.ukscreen.com/screen/95
--------------------------------------------------------
Don't give me that 'bigotry' nonsense. Just because a bunch of loudmouths want to assuage their own guilt about their inability to maintain a relationship or be a reliable parent doesn't mean we all have to buy into that tripe.
You people all think you're special and that the rules don't apply to you, but the bottom line is that you are such an unappealing person that you have alienated your family to the point at which you're being prevented from seeing your children. Maybe if you worked on yourself and stopped being such an embarrassment, your kids might want to spend time with you. Go ahead, keep doing your stunts. That will make you real popular with your kids. I can just see them bragging at school, 'Hey, my dad's the dickhead who threw purple powder all over a woman half his size.' 'Well, my Dad's the moron who dressed like Batman.' Sad and pathetic. It really is.
its sad too see so many ppl having a go at fathers 4 justice,i think they have brought to ppl a sense of what is right and what is wrong.there are many men who do not deserve the rights to be a father and some women as well who dont deserve to be mums,although before you say it im married with 3 kids when a marrige breaks down for any reason the main losers out of it are the kids,but surely now dads rights and in some cases mothers rights should be protected more so the kids dont suffer,as at the end of the day its the kids who are worse off.my view is that mums and dads are adults and learn about life from there parents,so what kind parents will the kids be when they grow up if all they see is hate and bitterness.will they grow up to be good parents themselfs,well i will leave you to ponder on that one and hope to see some usefull posts back.
Dear Stu
You speak as if u have a problem, and a little child-like if I may say. It does not matter what one's child really thinks whilst it is young as you portray, about F4J's inventive funny and fit tactics to get more male equality, what matters is a deep and proper relationship with both parents equally (and grandparents and siblings currently robbed by the State in secret Courts in this legal gravy train) that is its Right to have.
I wonder if u have and know both parents? How u can be so blind and insensitive to the child amazes me unless u are really a woman who seeks to have the child for herself solely and as Geldoff said left her ex because 'he did not communicate' or some other non sensical reason no matter the consequences for the child, or a man blind to what may happen to him one day, or probably a solicitor in Family Law worried that sooner rather than later he will be hopefully out of a job.
Charles
what a load of BOLLOCKS I have to say, stu or whatever your name is you sound like a person with some serious Father issues yourself just like Clive. Either that or you are one of these people who think everybody will fall in line with your Anal retentive thinking.Do you really fancy yourself that much that you think you are comletely appealing to other people?????????????
I just wanted to say that this is a step in the right direction to getting the law changed as far as fathers rights are concerned in seeing their children.I my self never did see my father and i am now 54 and it still affects me to this day.It is time that women realised that they cannot have everything there own way
regards kelvin.
Fathers4Justice have singularly brought this injustice into the public arena. This is something that no other organisation has achieved.
This is the trouble with you MPs Clive, anything that disrupts your perfect parliamentary world is bothersome and in need of denigration.
"Oh isn't that Batman chap infantile. Why can't he just go through the proper channels like every other disenfranchised father"
The reason there is more and more of these kinds of protests is because you and others like you are not doing your job properly. So take the log etc etc
Who oh why do people seem to think that men are such brutes when you look at history women are equally as bad is it because men do not go boo hooing when things go wrong at the moment women have most of the law on their side but times are a changing and none to soon.I have been married for thirty years brought two wonderfull sons up with my wife,i class myself as a bloody good dad,i would not like to be in the situation that these dads are finding them selves and in a lot of cases int there fault.Things go wrong in a marrige but why do SOME women use children as weapons or pawns in there sick games to get what they seem to think is getting there own back,what sort of people are they,they certainly do not deserve to have children when they are causing untold damage to the very people they say thay love and cherish.Kelvin.
Jesus, I don't know where to start respunding to you bunch of losers. I certainly don't have 'father issues.' My parents just celebrated their 40th anniversary and my father has always been there for us kids, am I supposed to be ashamed of that? According to you idiots he's being unjustly treated and needs your help. I don't think it can be overstated that you egomaniacs do not represent FATHERS, only those who have proven themselves unable to maintain the most basic of relationships. You people aren't 'fathers' you're 'imbeciles.' No wonder why there were so many responses in between now and my last post. Maybe if any of you idiots had real jobs, didn't sit around typing on the internet all day and got off your ass for any other reson than to perform some stupid stunts, your wives, children, and the courts might have a shred of respect for you.
And to the idiot who theorized that I must be a woman, well, you're probably too stupid to know that 'Stu' is a man's name. Besides, I have linked to my website. I understand that you have such hatred for women that you can't imagine that a man is saying these things, but face it, most people think you're a prick and that's never going to change, no matter what superhero you dress up like.
Oh, and another question to the Fathers Four Justice people. What exactly does your organization do about the deadbeat dads who abandon their kids, a portion of 'fathers' that certainly outnumbers your lot? Should there be no jutice for those children? Sorry, I'll rephrase that question in a way you can understand. Should there be no justice 4 those children?
Stu you strike me as some one who is fond of his own voice and if some one says something you do not like you bully them am i right or am i right by the way i have a full time job do you
First of all, I find your comment extremely offensive, as I have had my larynx removed as a result of an injury in the first Gulf War, and I can only speak through a voice box. So, NO I DON'T LIKE THE SOUND OF MY OWN VOICE!
And, yes not only do I have a full time job, but it is one which requires me to understand complex concepts like using uppercase letters and basic punctuation, something you are clearly incapable of.
Don't accuse me of bullying just because your argument is weak. Grow a pair of bollocks and quit crying for Christ's sake.
I am sorry about what you went through you were only doing your job.But please do not have a go at me for what has happened to you we all have problems and we deal with them.I only got involved in this site as i feel strongly that some fathers i repeat some fathers do get a very raw deal when it comes to access to their children.As i have already stated marriges do break up fall apart for what ever reason but all i can say is that we should never use children in silly sick games.I must agree with you yes there are deadbeat fathers out there who have no concept on being a parent but there is the other side of the coin as well.The last thing i wanted to do was to cause offence to anyone,so yes i am sorry for what i said.
Clive, on the issue of parental rights I would like to ask a question:
Why does the system allow the break of contact between a parent and their child just because the resident parent has issues that are not being solved amicably.
The point that I make is that many of the issues have no or very little bearing on the child in question and the contact is broken because the resident parent wants more money or more possesions from their ex partner. Surely the contact with the child by both parents should be continuing whilst a time consuming court order comes to play. Apart from the obvious exclusions like the child is in danger from one parent there should be no reason why one parent is being allowed to stop the other parent having meaningful contact with their child during this time.
It looks like the resident parent is abusing their rights and it is surely not "in the best interests of the children" to stop contact from a loving devoted parent.
Why does the system allow the break of contact between a parent and their child just because the resident parent has issues that are not being solved amicably.
This is your question? I'm not sure beacause where I come from questions usually end in a question mark.
I actually have a question for you.
Why do so-called caring fathers place these petty issues above their relationshps with their children?
Here's another one.
Why are so many idiots getting married to wome with such obvious mental imbalances? You can't tell me that you didn't notice you were marrying a psycho.
Clive, here below is excerpt from BBC report dated Oct 15, 2004, I hope you don't mind me sharing with your readers. What I find most interesting about the report (I can't find whether author is male or female) is of the six people quoted, all are women - as if men and fathers don't have a say. It would have been interesting to read the same number of quotes from men.
See, seems even when it comes to reporting on the subject of divorce and children, men's views don't seem to count and aren't even sought! Well done to Bob Geldof for saying laws assume that children are always better off with their mothers.
I'm not sure what he means by the evils of the 1960s but I see his point about "soap-opera" culture; like any commercial advertising - viewing "customers" do get influenced. It'd be interesting to know if the separation/divorce rate in the UK, particularly England, increased around the time that both Diana, Princess of Wales and her sister-in-law Sarah, Duchess of York, were seen as having a good time in pastures anew. Their attitude, behaviour, decisions and actions may have influenced many married (and single) mothers who saw them as role models.
Question I'd like to raise is (not sure if I have correct terminology here) whether the introduction of "no fault divorces" - were a good thing. Even when the mothers are the guilty party, and the father the innocent party, the courts and officialdom treat the father like he is the villain whose only role is to be milked of 65% or more of everything he has worked for - including future pension (how can there ever be a clean break?) to the "victim". The mother is seen as the victim because of the children. The children need to be treated as victims NOT THE MOTHERS - the mothers get red carpet treatment by officialdom all the way to the bank, and they know it too.
In the 60s men were womens meal ticket - now women can get that meal ticket for life with just a few years investment of time in one or several men. I know of a women who never married but has four children by four different men. She treated it as a way of life and has ended up with her own mortgage and property and has never worked a day in her life. One of the daughters is now 20 unmarried and has three babies but by the same boyfriend. She was taught the system by her mother. The point I am making here, is not criticsing other people's lives, it's to say that it need not necessarily be a man's fault that a woman has four children by four different men. "Fair and equal human rights for all" is what I say - not for the law to favour females over males or vice versa, and for asset splitting to be no more than 50-50 and legally binding clean breaks to be the norm - all of the wrangling and bitter battling is horrendous for the children who are used as pawns, emotional blackmail and bargaining tools by mothers initiated and fuelled by greedy unethical solicitors who are on a gravy train with Legal Aid.
The CSA has improved hugely and seems more sensitive towards what is really going and why most men can't handle dealing with the carpet being pulled from under them by someone they love. I've yet to hear a man saying he does not love, or would not try do right by his children. Seems to me the vast majority of those who "walk away" are those that simply cannot handle being beaten down by the system and vicious vindicative greedy (and violent) wives - the whole thing falls down on a man's head. It's mighty cruel, especially if he is the innocent party - he's just expected to keep a stiff upper lip, knuckle down and work hard to fund the solicitors and ex wives lifestyles for the sake of the children who he has no idea how or what they are being fed or how they are being treated by new strange men on the scene.
Matrimonial lawyers CSA and court welfare officers are on the front line - they know what is going on but are trained to take the mothers side in the best interest of the children - even if it means enforced sale of family home for the mother to get her so-called half (which turns out to be the lions share) while she is living with the children in private rented accommodation fully funded by the State, along with free legal aid (wonder how many of those bills get repaid) in receipt of all the family allowances (that get frittered on partying and clothes) while the father is stripped of everything including his own family, home, savings and pension - and becomes homeless without enough capital to become a homeowner or even afford to rent. Some end up in a bedsit feeling suicidal - and give up - and reject CSA demands because they don't trust the money will be spent on the children that it will be used for the wives drinking and partying habits.
Here is the report (sorry about my long comments Clive but you have a knack for raising emotive issues):
Bob Geldof has now turned his attention to the family and the father's place in it. In two television documentaries, Geldof launches a tirade against the evils of the 1960s and the country's high divorce rate.
He makes the case for why families should stay together, berates women for their attitude towards men, and believes fathers are getting little justice in divorce cases through laws that assume that children are always better off with their mothers.
Geldof has rounded on modern-day "soap-opera" culture. "If our expectation of married life were more realistic, then the everyday reality would not be thought of as difficult, limiting or mundane but rather as comforting and supportive."
He has seized on statistics that women initiate 70% of all divorces, suggesting they should lower their expectations of men. "Men have never felt the need to talk, so why is it now that 'he doesn't talk to me anymore' is enough to end a relationship?" he asks.
Predictably, Geldof's treatise has provoked bitter debate.
Maureen Freely, in the Guardian, accuses Bob Geldof of emphasising the trivial reasons behind divorce. "Poverty, heartbreak, exhaustion, public censure and long, lonely nights. That's what divorce brings to most people in the short term."
Cristina Odone, in the Times, points out that while divorce can affect children badly, so can quarrelling parents at home.
Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, of the Independent, suggests Geldof should focus not on fathers but "on the rights of children and the responsibilities of parenthood".
On the other hand, Conservative MP, Ann Widdecombe, applauds Geldof for having the courage to state the obvious. "We are not a happy society for being licentious," she says.
Journalist Amanda Platell, a former Tory spin doctor, believes Geldof is "fighting against a blatant and outdated system that fails to reflect how men have changed".
And Melanie Phillips, of the Daily Mail, in sympathy with Geldof, urges the Conservative Party to stamp out "this libertine free-for-all" from which "all our social ills" derive.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/3746058.stm
Well here we go again Stu,i have to pick up on waht you have said about some men marrying some one with mental problems.Well just to clue you up Stu my wife had post natal deppression for three years after our first son was born (MENTAL PROBLEM SOME WOULD SAY) so that was not there before i was married Stu,indeed if you were as clued up as you seem to think you are you would know that mental problems can happen at anytime. For some one that has served in the armed forces and has been in theatres of war you would know that it can happen to anyone in a heart beat yes.No one has the right to say what you said in your statement that they are marrying a psycho,just who the hell are you to say such things certainly not into relations,full of sarcasm and full of your self YES.
If Geldof wasn't such a completely worthless father do you think he would have given his daughter a godawful name like Peaches?
Stu should be stir grow a pair of bollocks and dry your eyes ye thats using your language go away and get a life
I am saddened to see some of the slaging off and name calling in front of me on this page by supposedly intelligent people.
To those of you who have not and hopefully never will have theire children forcebly removed from them, maybe you could take the time to imagine what it could be like.
I'm not going down the road of dredging up the rights and wrongs of my marriage right here and now and expose myself to some idiot who has never walked in my shoes.
It is 2am with me right now I came to this site in the hope of getting some answers or hope I don't know if I'll get either.
Not long ago society was happy to see me as a full time dad to 2 small children,the admiration fo many a mum in our small village. Not long ago a Caffcas (probation) officer, wrote a report telling a court how good a dad I am,no criminal record, large close extended family,and my children worship the ground I walk on,that was last year.
Four days ago I was once again sitting in my car holding a worthless court order looking at my little boy through the window of what was my home crying and mouthing the words once again "Daddy why don't you want us anymore",and once again I had to drive away totally unable to do anything.
So what would you so called enlightened people in your ivory towers have me do about this?
Or would it not be better to ask our children what they would have us do, do you think that little boy in the window would prefer his dad to dress up as santa and spend some time together or batman and climb tall buildings to get anybodies attention.
My children as all children, have the human right to have the same ammount of time with both parents,this right is being denied them and is causing more damage than having bad parents.
I am not the type of person who would dress as batman or carry an automatic weapon and blow the crap out of the family courts social services and the rest of the buffoons involved in these cases, so what would you have me do oh wise people what would you have me do? give up and put my children down to something that happenned before and given time I will forget about them?
And are they expected to do the same? and should my son one day when he's older take it upon himself to vent his rage on society with a kalashnikof who will you blame? His absent dad?
It would seem that the arab world may have much we could learn by after all.
Stu is what's known as a troll. He is one of those people who delight, childishly, in creating rage in others because he cannot deal with life himself. A typical abusive personality. The best thing to do is totally ignore him because he is only happy when he has got a rise out of you.
I run a help line for male victims of domestic abuse. (Yes, they DO exist and there are millions of them). I listen to terrible tales of abusive women who use children like battering rams to get their own way. However, recently I heard for myself how abusive women can do this kind of thing.
My next door neighbour was having a row with her husband. Because the walls are so thin and because she was screaming at the top of her lungs, I could hear every word she said. By contrast, I could only hear some of what her husband was saying because he was trying hard to remain calm.
The whole thing was over money she had taken from his wallet without his consent. He asked for it back and she flew into a rage. (Both work).
I heard her say to him, "Get out of this house." (Joint morgage). Then she said, "Dont think you will get to see the effing children every weekend either. I will see to it you never effing see them again!" At this point he was standing on the porch next to my front door and I heard him clearly say, "I am not leaving my house. I pay for it too and you dont own me or the home. Its "our" house, not your house. The children are "our" children, not your children. You have no right to keep me from them." She then screamed at him, "Watch what I do now, you b----rd!"
Then I heard her talking on her mobile phone. She said, "Its my husband. I want him out of my house now." There was a pause and she said, "Yes, I am afraid of him."
Within 5 mins there were two police cars outside my house. The police entered the home next door and ordered the man to pack a suitcase and leave. I went outside and told one of the officers exactly what it was that I had heard and expressed the view that the man was innocent and she was being vindictive. The police officer told me to go inside and mind my own business.
I was shocked that a man could so easily be turfed out of his home, with no proof of wrongdoing and based on the say so of a women caught stealing from his wallet.
This is the kind of thing men face all the time and, because their rights have been so eroded, they are powerless to fight back. It is surely time that a balance was brought back into the law on these matters and some proof of wrongdoing be needed before a man can be robbed of his children and home in these ways.
She misued the system and the police aided her in the abuse of her husband. It seems to me that as long as polticians are willing to listen to only one half of the voices (female) then these kinds of injustices will spiral until frustration and rage spill onto our streets in violence.
Incidentally, the man in question is now back in his home but, he is forced to endure the most terrible and humiliating abuse because to do otherwise is too lose both his home and his children. No One should have to live under those conditions and it is to the shame of our legal and political system that they have both created these circumstances and refuse to help these men when they are caught up in them.
The Labour Party seems to have turned against 50% of the population in blind pursuit of some outdated feminist ideology. I am certain it will have dangerous consequences for this nation if it is allowed to continue.
Well done fathers4justice. Keep up the fight. You have my full support.
SEND THE WOMEN OUT TO DIE!
An article for men only by George Rolph.
The world, as we men know, is full of women who hate men. Women fed a diet of bitterness, rage, lies, fury and hatred, from radical feminists who have had one single agenda for thirty years: The eradication of the family.
How do we men know that women hate us? Ask yourself these questions.
How many women do you know who have marched in protest when all men were described as "rapists" by radical feminist leaders?
How many women do you know who have stood up and described the horrors of domestic abuse and the total absence of help that men get in that situation, as unjust?
How many women do you know who have spat their hatred at you from TV screens, magazine articles, newspapers or personally, in your face, day after day?
How many female politicians have you listened to, making laws that will destroy your family and remove all justice from you on the basis of one single, unproven allegation of abuse?
How many of those feminist lawyers and politicians have you heard saying that removing the rights of a man to a fair trial who is facing a long term in prison for an allegation of rape, is unjust?
How many women have you heard standing up and calling for those female vermin who make unfounded rape or abuse allegations, be tried for their crimes?
How many songs have you listened to that are filled with male hating lyrics that no female has ever raised a single complaint against and then wondered, "What would happen if this song was about women."?
When men have been stripped of all their financial assets by unfair divorce settlements and family maintenance orders by the courts, how many women did you hear screaming that these things were wrong?
How many times have you seen an official from the Equal Opportunities Commission standing up on TV and decrying the blatant hatred of men that TV and the press is filled with?
How many women have you heard demonstrating that the 66% of child abuse carried out by mothers was intolerable and the children MUST be protected from these monsters?
How many times have you heard that any critical comment made by any man about a women's behaviour is so-called "evidence" that he hates all women?
When did you last hear a feminist say that women have grabbed enough and all the rest is just greed?
How many women have you seen demonstrating outside of a prison for the freedom of a man wrongly accused of rape by a vicious liar seeking revenge?
How many women have you heard telling other women that ripping up a mans clothing, destroying his family heirlooms, damaging his car, stealing his money, rubbishing his reputation in the neighbourhood and calling him anything from "pig" to "moron" is unacceptable sexist and abusive behaviour?
When did you last see anti-sexist legislation favour a man..., any man?
How many times have you seen women granted huge sums of money for flimsy allegations of sexual harassment because some guy told a blue joke and she heard it?
When did you last hear a feminist complain that men are dying in huge numbers all over the world and that the male suicide rates, school performance figures, inadequate testicular cancer research funds, or male deaths in the work place figures are disgusting and something needs to be done about it?
When did you EVER hear a feminist say that marriage was important and needs to be cherished?
Have you noticed that when men have a club or activity that is strictly for men, women call it sexist and demand the right to enter and take part but, when they want a club exclusively for women, or want to get into night clubs free, or demand "women only" sessions at the local gym, sexism is suddenly forgotten about?
How many women have you seen demonstrating and screaming that keeping a perfectly good man from his children by poisoning a child's mind against him is brutally abusive, both to the children and to the father?
Sure, there are a few women out there who raise the occasional voice of protest. I have marched alongside some of them on demonstrations for a fathers right to see his kids. Most women though, prefer to snigger and point their fingers as they scowl and write angry accusing letters to the cowardly press.
Who taught our wives, mothers, daughters, sisters, aunts and nieces to behave in this way? Who filled them with venom and hatred against men? Who is it that encourages these women to turn away from the failings of their own sex in unmitigated cowardice? People like Germain Greer, Robin Morgan, Betty Friedan, Polly Toynbee, Gloria Stienham, Lorrain Kelly (GMTV presenter who thinks women hitting men is fine and encourages them to "hit him harder"), and on and on.
Thousands of radical feminist scum bags taught them. Women who think that, "I feel that 'man-hating' is an honorable and viable political act."
And,
"let's put one lie to rest for all time: the lie that men are oppressed, too, by sexism--the lie that there can be such a thing as 'men's liberation groups." Robin Morgan Former editor of MS Magazine.
Or,
"Heterosexual intercourse is the pure, formalized expression of contempt for women's bodies." Andrea Dworkin.
What about this little gem of feminist "wisdom:"
"And if the professional rapist is to be separated from the average dominant heterosexual [male], it may be mainly a quantitative difference." -- Susan Griffin "Rape: The All-American Crime"
Here is another beauty,
"I believe that women have a capacity for understanding and compassion which a man structurally does not have, does not have it because he cannot have it. He's just incapable of it." -- Former Congresswoman Barbara Jordan.
Did you know that you are incapable of understanding and compassion? The next time some soldier risks his life to free the children in a village under fire, or, a guy rushes into a tower that has just been struck by a terrorist filled plane, remind him that the female politicians think he is incapable of such emotions!
These and thousands of other hate filled messages are being taught to our daughters -- your daughters -- by these sick, man-hating, lesbian icons of feminism. This stuff is being taught in colleges and universities all over the western world and YOU are paying for it in your taxes! Is it any wonder that the streets are full of angry young men brought up by single mothers fed on a diet of this trash, day in and day out, by cowards in the media?
Day after day we sit and watch men portrayed as vicious thugs or pedophiles, rapists, killers and downright stupid morons, in thousands of movies, soap operas and TV sitcoms but, let one writer in this brave new world of the radical feminist, politically correct, communist inspired, social revolution, say just one nasty thing about women; the streets will overflow with screaming, banner waving protesters moaning on about it being a mans world and all the men are scum!
The BBC is one of the worst offenders. Great care has been taken to fill it up with what Arnie Schwarzenegger recently called, "Girlie Boys" and their endless diet of biased and feminist propaganda floods our homes day after day. When women, or gays, break the law (and they do it often) the BBC will try in any way they can to keep that news off the air. They only want heterosexual men to be seen in a bad light. So saturated are they in political correctness and feminist ideology they cannot see the absurdity of their position; yet they demand that red blooded, heterosexual males go on paying the licence fee so they can attack us on a daily basis!
Its time we said no to these vermin!
Its time we stood together and defended our sons, our fathers and our brothers.
Its time to shake off the false shame the feminists have laid on our shoulders and remind these scum that without men they would not have homes to live in, cars to drive, clothes to wear or any other of the myriad of modern comforts we invented, developed and produced.
Its time to vote these lunatic left wing idiots out of power and return to sanity.
Its time we took actions to rid ourselves of this monstrosity that is killing our families .
Its time to remind these hate filled women that if they think we are so bad, they can go fight the next war and die!
Fathers 4 Justice are a complete and utter joke, except they really aren't funny. They have created and atmoshpere of fear and intimidation, that anyone who dares not completely agree with their extreme right-wing views will be assaulted or intimidated. They blame everyone but themselves: the church, the state, their ex-partners, lawyers, the social services etc.
The quicker the general public realise what they really stand for, the better.
Andy
I should be astounded by your comments but I am not. Your responce is a typically uneducated piece of nonsence based, not on fact, but on personal prejudice. If you think that f4j have created an atmosphere of intimidation check this out. It tells a true and attested tale of real intimidation. Should we all just stand by and allow it because some socialist like you cannot face reality? Read on Andy:
Lead article: MR JUSTICE SINGER – CHILD ABUSER EXTRAORDINARY SCENES
Extraordinary scenes took place at the Royal Courts of Justice on 23 January 2003 culminating in the Honourable Mr Justice Singer abusing a defenceless 10-year old boy in the passageway outside Court 32, aided and abetted by a CAFCASS Children & Family Reporter and two of Her Majesty's High Court Tipstaffs. Forhad Matin, born in March 1992, was terrified of going to his Mother's house where he had been regularly beaten and assaulted by her and her relatives, so when Mr Justice Singer made an Order that he go and stay with her he refused to obey it. This so incensed the Judge that he spent nearly half-an-hour outside his Courtroom trying to intimidate and threaten Forhad into submitting to his Order, finally reducing the child to tears. Try as he would, however, he was not able to break the will of this brave boy, and the Judge was forced to reconvene the hearing and rescind the Contact (access) Order he had made, so that Forhad was able to go home with his Father.
CHILD POWER
In the public interest CONTACT brings you a full account of what took place that day. It's no exaggeration to call it child abuse: one of the nastiest things the Honourable High Court Judge said to Forhad was – "If you don't go with your Mum I'll put you in a place where you can't see your Mother or your Father – How do you like that?" – which Forhad understood to mean that the Judge was threatening to put him in a children's home. In one form or another the abuse of children who want to live with, or have a meaningful relationship with, their fathers is happening every day in the High Court Family Division and in County and Magistrates' Courts throughout the country. The malign ethos of the Family Division is still that children should be in the effective custody of their mothers not their fathers, and nothing infuriates the Judges more than the child who votes with his feet, repudiates the maternal Residence Order, and elects to live with his father. Child power is increasingly becoming the response to the stupidity and stubbornness of the Judiciary.
NO CENSORSHIP
There is no censorship in this story, of names or anything else. Censorship of any kind is against the editorial policy of CONTACT (see this Issue's Editorial). The Family Division uses censorship by injunction and contempt laws to suppress free debate about its wretched decisions and to hamstring effective campaigning by those who want to publicise injustice. If you did not know who Forhad Matin's Father was then you could not communicate with him and work with him to reform the law and the way the law is applied by the courts. Reciprocally, neither he nor others can communicate with and support you, the reader, in your own battles in the courts and campaign for change if you are forced to remain anonymous with your very name suppressed (because it is your child's name too and the child is not to be identified, according to the judges). That is exactly what the Judiciary and those who formulate family policy want – to stultify protest and stop men working together: it has nothing to do with protecting children.
CHILD ASSAULTED
Abdul Matin has been battling in the courts for over 7 years to ensure he sees his children. Originally in Edmonton County Court his case was transferred to the High Court in 1997: see the reported case Re Matin (Minors) (Contact: Supervision) [1998] 1FLR 721 CA where the Court of Appeal removed an absurd supervision order imposed by Judge Tibber at Edmonton. Forhad always wanted to see more of his Father to which his Mother Ruqia Ali reacted with harsh physical chastisement. On 26 November 2002 in the early hours of the morning Forhad was dragged out of bed by his maternal Aunt, one Nashima Ali Hipkiss, by profession a social worker, and Mother and Aunt held a kangaroo court for Forhad's crime of wanting to live with his Father. The Aunt brutally assaulted Forhad to punish him for this crime and knocked out one of his teeth. The Mother also threatened to kill Forhad if he did not live with her. Typically as happens in these cases the Police and Social Services were not interested when Abdul reported the matter – after all it wouldn't do to have a social work professional prosecuted for child cruelty and assaulting a child occasioning actual bodily harm.
RECOVERY ORDER FAILED
Forhad was again viciously beaten by his Mother on 27 December 2002 and then went for a holiday Contact stay with his Father until Sunday 5 January 2003. On return to his Mother's he ran away from her back to his Father who was waiting at the bus stop, and adamantly refused any more to stay with his Mother, albeit she had a Residence Order under the Children Act 1989. So Forhad went home with his Dad and has lived with him since. Ms Ali made attempts to enforce her Residence Order but failed because each time Forhad resolutely refused to go with any one sent to take him from his Father. On 16 January 2003 Mr Justice Hughes made a Recovery Order under s.34 Family Law Act 1986 and sent the Assistant High Court Tipstaff, Mr Philip Johnson, to Forhad's School to collect him and hand him over to his Mother. But Forhad refused to leave the safety of his Headteacher's Office and the Judge on hearing this declined to order the Tipstaff to physically carry Forhad away by force. So his Father was able to collect him and take him home from School.
However, Mr Justice Hughes directed a further hearing on 23 January 2003, requiring Abdul Matin to attend with Forhad. You might think that the Court would have taken steps to protect Forhad and at least ordered (as Abdul requested) that he reside in the interim with his Father pending a full investigation of what he had been suffering with his Mother. That is not how the Family Division works. Mother custody is sacrosanct and has to be preserved at all costs, never mind if the child is tormented, injured or even killed in the process. Had it been the Father with the Residence Order ill-treating the child the Court would immediately have transferred Residence on hearing the Mother's plaint. All the Court did in Abdul Matin's case was to suspend his Contact Order and make a series of orders to enforce the Mother's Residence. The Father resisted none of these orders – every time it was Forhad who stood his ground and refused to leave his Dad.
CRASS CONTACT ORDER
On 23 January 2003 Father and son duly attended Court 32 at the Royal Courts of Justice at 2 PM accompanied by Dr Michael J.Pelling as McKenzie? Friend (also personal friend by now of Abdul and Forhad), and Mr Anthony Torrance (also legal adviser and family friend) & Mr Steve Stephenson (of Families Need Fathers). A CAFCASS Children & Family Reporter, Mrs Muriel Raleigh, was in attendance. In Court before Mr Justice Singer, Abdul Matin applied for his son to be seen personally by the Judge, which is what Forhad wanted: however the Judge ruled he would not see Forhad, who was to be interviewed by the Reporter. This was done and the Reporter then truthfully gave evidence. After hearing this sad and shocking account not even Singer J could insist that Forhad would reside with his Mother, but in typical Family Division manner refused to make an Interim Residence Order for the Father.
Doing his best to salvage the mother custody default, and ignoring the very real dangers to Forhad and his manifest fear, the Learned Judge then ordered immediate (literally) Contact with the Mother at her home for 2 days to 25 January 2003. He ordered that the Father should immediately leave the Royal Courts of Justice and go home, though on protest this was changed to going down to the RCJ Great Hall and waiting there. The Judge's plan was to get the Father out of the way and by force somehow restore relations between Mother and son ("building bridges", he said). Too bad if Forhad got beaten to pulp or killed in the process. A more crass and stupid plan would be hard to imagine, but this is the English High Court Family Division. Had the sexes been reversed all Dad would have got would be supervised Contact in a Centre.
CAFCASS REPORTER LIES, ASSAULTS CHILD
The Judge directed the Reporter Mrs Raleigh to convey the news to Forhad, who was outside Court 32 in the passageway with Mr Torrance & Mr Stephenson. Despite the Judge's order that Abdul should leave, he stayed in Court 32 with Dr Pelling. After a while the latter became alarmed at what the Reporter might be telling Forhad, fearing that she would lie and say his Father had gone, so Forhad would think he had no option but to go with his Mother. This was exactly what the Reporter did. Dr Pelling went out and interrupted the Reporter to tell Forhad that he was not being told the truth, his Father was still there in the Courtroom, and if he did not go with his Mother then his Father would be able to take him home. The Reporter got cross at her lie being exposed, and her attempts to persuade Forhad to get up and go with his Mother failed. During these attempts the Reporter repeatedly pawed Forhad about and pulled him by the shoulder to force him to get up from where he was seated by his friend Mr Torrance.
JUDGE ABUSES CHILD
A while later the Judge himself came into the passageway, dressed in his overcoat and on his way out of the Royal Courts of Justice. By this time another Tipstaff was also on the scene, Mrs Susan Cheesley, the Acting Deputy Tipstaff, and she told the Judge the problem they were having in persuading Forhad to comply with his Order. Whereupon Mr Justice Singer wheeled round, went back down the passage and confronted Forhad. There then ensued the remarkable spectacle of a High Court Judge (in contravention of his own judicial decision) haranguing threatening intimidating and humiliating the 10-year old boy Forhad for half-an-hour in an ultimately vain attempt to bully the frightened child into going home with his Mother. Forhad bravely resisted but at the end was reduced to tears and held his head in his hands in miserable despair. When Forhad begged for his Dad to be with him, the heartless Judge said, "No, you don't need your Dad with you". When Mr Justice Singer saw he was not getting his own way with Forhad, he resorted to crude threats, abusing his authority as a High Court Judge to say for example, "If you don't go with your Mum I'll put you in a place where you can't see your Mother or your Father – How do you like that?" – which terrified Forhad into thinking the Judge would put him in a children's home.
JUDGE GIVES UP; TIPSTAFF ASSAULTS DR PELLING
Eventually even Mr Justice Singer had to give up, and he reconvened the case in Court 32, immediately rescinding his earlier Contact Order. While the parties went back into the Courtroom Dr Pelling took the opportunity to sit beside and comfort the distressed Forhad, whereupon the Assistant Tipstaff told him not to talk to Forhad and assaulted Dr Pelling by grabbing him to pull him away from Forhad. Dr Pelling then returned to Court 32 as McKenzie? Friend and Mr Justice Singer informed him that he was going to take steps to have a summons issued on him for criminal contempt of court. However, Dr Pelling is disappointed to have heard nothing further on that score. Then the Judge ordered that Dr Pelling should not continue any more in the case as Mr Matin's McKenzie? Friend and so he left Court 32 and went out to tell Forhad the good news of his victory. Whereupon the Assistant Tipstaff again intervened in a threatening manner and Dr Pelling had to take Forhad down the other end of the passage and tell the Tipstaff to keep out, warning him that he now faced legal proceedings.
The hearing concluded shortly after; Forhad continued to live with his Father despite the Mother retaining Residence. On 31 March 2003 Mr Justice Johnson adjourned Abdul Matin's applications for a Residence Order for Forhad and a Shared Residence Order for Forhad's sister Forida (born 1990) who wants to live with both her parents. We hope that at the final hearing on 29 April 2003 the 8 year saga that Abdul Matin and his children have suffered within the English Family law jurisdiction will conclude and that Johnson J [the most hated Judge in the Family Division whose erratic judgments are a by-word and who only escaped compulsory retirement on 9 February 2003 on reaching 70 because he was appointed before the amendment to s.11(2) Supreme Court Act 1981] will for once show a little wisdom and compassion and make the right orders. It will not, however, be the end of the saga so far as the general civil law is concerned.
FORHAD SUES JUDGE, CAFCASS REPORTER, AND TIPSTAFFS
Because Mr Justice Singer was not acting in a judicial capacity when he tormented Forhad in the passageway outside his Court, and indeed was on his way out of the RCJ and acting in contravention of his own Order that he would not interview the child, it is believed that he has no judicial immunity from suit. Of course, the Reporter Mrs Raleigh and the Tipstaffs Johnson and Cheesley have no immunity anyway. So Forhad on 28 March 2003, suing by his Father as litigation friend, issued a Claim in the High Court Queen's Bench Division (No.HQ03X01005) seeking damages in excess of £15000 plus aggravated and exemplary damages for all that he suffered at the hands of these four persons on 23 January 2003.
He is suing in tort for common law harassment threatening health and safety, statutory harassment (the 1997 Act), intimidation, and trespass to the person, and for human rights violations under the Human Rights Act 1998. The latter are for inhuman and degrading treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention on Human Rights (this Article is absolute), and for violations of the right to respect for private and family life under Article 8(1). He is further suing all defendants for misfeasance in public office. The day the Claim was issued Senior Master Turner immediately ordered it be not served and be struck out, an obviously craven act designed to thwart justice being done against the High Court worthies who have persecuted Forhad. This decision is now under appeal.
DR PELLING SUES ASSISTANT TIPSTAFF
Because the Assistant Tipstaff Philip Johnson interfered without lawful authority and assaulted Dr Pelling when he sought to comfort and talk with Forhad, Dr Pelling on 6 March 2003 also issued a Claim in the High Court QBD (No.HQ03X00730) for damages in excess of £15000 plus aggravated and exemplary damages, suing for trespass to the person, misfeasance in public office, and for violation of the right to respect for private life under Article 8(1) of the Convention. The day after the Claim was issued one Master Foster made an own motion Order that no person be permitted to examine the Particulars of Claim without Leave of a Judge or Master – normally the public have a right to inspect the Claim and take a copy, on payment of the prescribed fee: Civil Procedure Rules 1998 r.5.4(2). Since the Learned Master's Order only applies to the Court File, Dr Pelling is happy to provide anyone interested with a copy of his Claim – and you can also obtain it by emailing a request to paulmw@ji-net.com.
http://www.fathercare.org/pelling05.htm
I see objections to F4J and child contact run to the usual biased and blinkered views held by many. I am a single father of two children. It took me 8 years to gain residence from their mother. Mum was a drug-abuser and dealer who negelected them so badly they were medically malnourished when they came to live with me. Concerns by health visitors, schools, the police and doctors were ignored for years by courts and social services who despite me being a law-abiding, non-criminal, non-violent, loving, devoted, working father chose instead to support the kids residence with the mother and grant me one day per month access. It was only when the children were finally placed in care and I forced a residence application against the advice of my female solicitor that residence was granted.
The commonly held misconception, is that somehow we fathers are unfit to be involved in the lives of our children and deserve all this criminally abusive system has to throw at us. The truth is, that no matter what the circumstances of your relationship with your children or your ability to provide and care for them, your wishes will always be considered subordinate and totally at the discretion of, their one 'true' parent - their Mother.
I wish in all sincerity, that the likes of 'Stu' and 'Andy' never have to endure what I and many of the F4Jers have had to go through, just because we were born with testicles and not breasts.
To Andy and anybody else who believes that F4J have created an atmosphere of fear, and we have “extreme right-wing views”, here are the true facts.
F4J have created a climate for change, a change that is long over due and one that is in step with our social changes experienced by most average families today. If equality is such an “extreme right-wing view”, why is it that this Labour Government has pledged to make it one of their priorities? I quote from Margaret Hodge, Minister for Children:
Quote:” In our quest for a new equality we must not become responsible for creating further inequalities. A society built on each individual enjoying the opportunity to exploit their potential could quickly develop into a meritocracy that does not ensure the equal worth of all its citizens.
Equality may be a relative concept, a constantly shifting target, but pursuing greater equality remains a core aim. Now is the time when we should be innovative and radical in that endeavour. It's a time when we can and should take risks, for if we really do want to change the world for the better, we need bold and determined action to achieve that aim.”
Taken from: http://www.epolitix.com/EN/MPWebsites/Margaret+Hodge/8DCF8310-7572-4C11-B894-E62DA931F3F1.htm
Those who oppose F4J and their tactics may be just in their reasoning and entitled to their views, but those who oppose what F4J is campaigning for, their reasons for campaigning and the very aims it hopes to achieve, need to have a close hard look at why they oppose change.
Change is always scary to the small minded, and dependent, who will one day become extinct through their own fear. Change is truly for the healthy mind, and brave of sole, and must be embraced.
So why fear the change that would place two parents as equals in the eyes of the law? What fear and intimidation does the status of equality in parenting roles bring out in you? I read further up, that someone’s parents had celebrated 40 years together. I say well done and congratulations, they never had the misfortune for recourse to the Family Laws of this land. Unfortunately the sons or daughters of this couple now face the real prospect of a 50-50 chance of their marriage lasting the course. We are heading to the 50% mark of all marriages failing and more and more parents cohabit which has an even greater rate of failure. Or is it failure? If two people can’t live together for the rest of their lives, should we call it a failure or just another change?
Today we view parental relationship breakdowns as failures, because the damage to the children and the parents is so great. Why is this? It is because we can’t handle the change. As a nation we are making divorce and separation the catalyst that can destroy lives, instead of it just being another of life’s changes.
Is it so difficult to be able to take, two adults who no longer love each other, and who happened to be parents, and help then transition from being a family unit, to being two separated parents, with the continued and lifelong duty to care for their child’s best interest. Why can’t we look at these parents who were equally responsible for the creation of their child, probably equally responsible for the day to day care of the child (maybe in different ways, maybe in exact ways) and now that they are separated, equally responsible for maintaining their relationships and care with and of that child.
For those children lucky enough to have both parents together for 40 years, they should count themselves lucky, because their parents were equal, and because they never had to have the state challenge their roles you were lucky to have been raised by parents who didn’t need any recourse to their legal status as parents. In an ideal world we wouldn’t need equal parenting rights, because they would stay together until one died, and then the resident parent is the one who lived longest.
Today with parental relationships breaking down more, and with equality in the workplace, and the past three decades of the hands-on sharing caring dad, it is clearer than ever before (thanks to F4J) that we do need parental rights of status. It is no longer acceptable to blindly believe that mums are best. It is no longer acceptable to rely on dads walking away without so much as a tear or heartbreak. Both parents have embraced the social change of sharing roles, of changing roles of cooperative parenting. All these things work today in intact family units, and there is no reason they shouldn’t work in separated families. Fathers who have cared for their children can not walk away, mothers who have shared parenting with fathers should be expected to be the sole carer and pick up the pieces. The presumptions of yesteryear have gone, and the law needs to keep track with what we now do within our families.
Yes, some families work by old models of “carer mothers” and “breadwinner fathers”, but today when separation hits, it is a tragedy for the family, with the fatherectomy that removes the man and maintains the shadow of his wealth in a deceitful play that attempts to maintain a status quo of blissful happy families and home with the exception of the dad. Honesty is needed in family breakdown. It’s a time of change, changes to be embraced, so that the best outcome can be arranged, and negotiated. Instead it is a time of deceit, loss, pain, war and gain. Do we really cater for our children’s best interest by having two parents at odds with each other, uneven scales of justice, imbalance in roles and discrimination of the sexes?
F4J is asking for equality and fair and accountable justice, with adequate support and help services that work for the best interest of the child and of the parents. We cannot negate the needs of the parents in some single-minded paramount interest of the child. The best interest of the child is best catered for by both parents, not the state or by a blanket policy that mum is best, and this can only happen when the parents have resolved to resolve their issues, and differences. The first difference faced by all parents today is their unequal status and ability to continue to be a parent, and to maintain a healthy relationship with their child.
So shoot the messengers if asking for equality in parenting is such a taboo subject, but ask yourself the question, from your ivory tower of happy parenting, or never had children, what would you do if you had chose to be a parent (for life) then for reasons beyond your control your relationship with your partner failed, to then find out that your continued parenting role was entirely bases on your ex-partners will. It could literally mean your child could not see you because (in most cases) mum decided she didn’t want her ex-lover in her life anymore. There is nothing more unnatural than being a parent without a child, and being a child denied a good parent.
Many who don’t think they will ever get into a failed relationship will look upon parental separation and try to blame one or both the parents, but what about the children? Blame isn’t going fix the problem, its not going to ensure the child maintains both parents in its life. Giving parents equal rights to ensure that neither of them can be disposed of, on a will or a whim, will do more for children than any single policy or law change. Children deserve to be cared for by both parents and we need to do all we can to ensure that happens, mediations and soft tinkering with a failing system will not stop the abuse this government is sponsoring, that is the removal of fathers from the lives of innocent children. Stop the discrimination, stop the inequality, and stop the abuse. You wouldn’t wish this upon your worst enemy, so why accept it for the children of this country?
Whilst I will say that their are fathers who sometimes are unfairly treated, I will say that your organization is still an absolute disgrace. Just look at "your leader" for example, a man who admits that during his marriage he was a drunk and committed adultery, whilst leaving his wife to look after the kids. I have read interviews in which she states that the courts did her a favour, allowing her time and space to get herself together whilst allowing him to gain a realization that such activities as kicking your ex-partners car door whilst the kids are in the car are really not acceptable.
I mean do you screen your members for convicitions of domestic violence? or other violent and intimidatory behaviour? Because whilst as i say some fathers may be unfairly treated, there will be others who have been given restricted access for a very good reason.
Fathers 4 Justice have created an atmosphere of fear and intimidation, anyone that disagrees with them gets a flood of abuse through e-mail or intimidated in other ways.
Andy,
Once again, you are missing the point. Whilst, there are undoubtedly men who have not behaved in the way the should. The situation in which fathers find their contact being restricted to a few hours a month is not the exception it's the rule. Also, do you think that fathers woke up one morning and 'I know let's start a campaign of direct action and civil disobedience - cos I feel like it'. Men have been campaigning for 30 years for a change in our system. Had you even heard of this as an issue before F4J? We are fed up of being treated like 2nd class citizens just because society decides that we are expendible.
On the issue of individual behaviour by members of F4J - everyone has done things in their life they are not proud of. The situations in family breakdown that give rise to separations/divorce are tough on both parties - made tougher still by the fact that, one party, can remove your children from your life simply because she chooses to...I wonder if that might make you kick the odd car door!
On the subject of intimidation, try writing a pro-father e-mail on the average forum and watch the level and intensity of personal abuse you recieve. Try writing a letter to a national broadsheet and be stunned by the way in which the system attacks you just for asking for equal treatment.
I would suggest you have a look on the web and do some research before you attack people who, despite mistakes they may have made in the past, just want to be involved in their children's lives...
To add to what steve r and Dave have said above I would just like to say that there are many many mothers out there also committing adultery and violence against their partners in front of children. 66% of them also commit child abuse, yet as ever, all of the invective is aimed at men. The word "sexism" is never applied to those who, with extraordinary bigotry, sweep all men into the catagories of violent abusers..., but it should be.
Men and women are not perfect. They make mistakes and act foolishly sometimes. Even MP's have been known to do the most stupid things and get caught. However, piling all the blame for societies ills onto one sex is opressive, dishonest and downright evil. It does neither sex justice because on the one hand, men are demonised by these attitudes (attitudes reminisant of the Ku Klux Klan) and women who could be helped through their problems are denied access to treatment because of our denial that they are even capable of doing violence to others.
Its time to get real and get honest about these things but, as dishonest as it is to take Andy's viewpoint and always blame the man, it is equally dishonest to deny that the children seperated from their fathers are somehow unaffected by that experience. Our streets team with the angry and out of control evidence of children brought up by single parent families. It mirrors EXACTLY what happened in the Soviet Union in the 1920's when an almost identical feminist policy was followed and it brought disaster to the children of that once great country.
Those, who today scoff and call for the heads of f4j members, will be judged by the next generation of estranged children who will grow up to ask why you allowed their fathers love to be torn away from them. In fact, there are too many young men and women doing exactly that today.
We cannot steal children and expect their parents and grandparents to remain calm and dignified by this raping of their families. In any other situation (such as a war) we would not blame a father for getting enraged but, for some wierd reason, we try to deny him the same emotions in peacetime. Yet at exactly the same time, we applaud a female for fighting for her kids.
I am old enough to remember Ken Loaches films in the 1960's that exposed the terrible way children were snatched from their mothers. He brought out the terror those mothers faced in those days when officious little men and women from Social Services could take a child away on a whim. Today, its fathers who are forced to weep alone in bedsits as they stare at photographs of kids trying to remember what their voices sound like. Today its the dads for whom Christmas and birthdays become an agonising curse. I myself was helpless as the woman who had stabbed me, split my head open with a piece of wood, punched me between the legs while I was driving down the motorway, bit me and scratched me finally kidnapped my son and took him to New Zealand. At this time of year, when I should be antiscipating watching his face light up with joy at the presents I would love to buy him, instead I am forced to try NOT to remember him. I always fail. No one, who was not there; who did not see what happened; who has not been where I and thousands of other fathers have been in that situation, ever has a right to judge us and tell us that we cannot get angry or that are bad fathers for not just walking away.
My rage trancends your bigotry and suspect ideology Andy. I channel that rage into marching for the rights of others to have what was denied to me. I write articles for men subjected to horrifying abuse by women and the state. I work long hours every day and appear on television or radio programs and in the press, begging our deaf politicians to lay down the very prejudices Andy and Stu have displayed here. Their thoughless and foolish utterances bite into us as the word "nigger" bites into the soul of a black man.
Dont dare to presume to tell us to keep silent and dont dare to judge us by your feeble perceptions of what intimidation is. When I have stolen your offspring like a vicious Pied Piper and tied your hands behind your back with legal nonsense designed to rob you of your childs love, your money (your childs inheritance) and your dignity, then, and only then, would you understand just how restrained these fathers are being. If you think that angry emails amount to intimidation then you have no idea what life will be like in this land if we keep spitting on men and drive them to the point where their self control finally snaps. In the meantime, I suggest that writing the kind of things to men who have spent years in hell that you have written here DESERVES an angry responce and if you cannot see that then you are half the human being that the men of fathers4justice are.
Politicians need to understand that they are witnessing the birth of a world wide mens movement that will no longer sit down and be silent in the face of prejudice and hate. It is the fastest growing political movement on earth.
The silence is over. 40 years of begging deaf politicians to listen failed... now we are demanding they listen and, by one way or another, listen they will! We will no longer tolerate being their whipping boys as they rob of us of a childs love because they cannot adapt to the realities of the new fathers in this new age.
My son is on the other side of the world and I have not seen him or heard from him since he was 6 moths old. She will not "allow" (as if she has a right to allow or disallow) me to send even a card to my son. Were he on the other side of the galaxy my love for him will NOT be dictated by some wierd socialist ideology or the stupidity of a family court judge. I will be dammed before anyone else will prevent that love because "they" dont like it. My answer to them and to Andy, Mr Soley and Stu is simple: Get used to it because your prejudice and feminist ethos will NEVER destroy it and niether will the whim of an abusive state or mother!
George Rolph
Non member of fathers4justice.
George, Just wanted to say that your post was excellent, full respect to you and your honesty, compassion and dignity. It is fathers like you that make foolish boys of the bigots who twitter away as if they know what life is really like.
Your son will be proud of his daddy, you are certainly being a father in every action you do to change this corrupt system. One day he and all other state sponsored abused children will benefit from the efforts or good people fighting for a better system. I hope the fools are reading your words and choking on them. To the ignorant - Shame on you !
My god,how can this self called Stu ,keep writing such a verbal dhiarrea,Stu you lost your voice in the Gulf?
Only that? Where did your balls go? Not to mention your sense of reallity.
Let my tell a beautifull love story,i'm 46 years old,after i've served in Angola,Mozambique and Bosnia ,a few decorations,i said enough time to get a familly ,England offer me the chance of using my KnowHow on 12 hours a day job,5 days a week,(so ask me again if have a job)i married a south-african woman,got her a visa,got her £400.000 house and two beautifull daughters,she met another guy,called the police and said she feared for her own life,i'm kicked out of my house ,she forges my signature in a cheque book ,wipes off my account ,forges pay slips in order to get benefits ,dennies me acess to my daughters if i don't drop the charges for the cheques,NOW YOU TWAT TELL ME THAT THE FATHERS WRITING IN HERE ,JUST COULDN'T BE GOOD ENOUGH !!!!
Like someone wrote before you must have some kind of ANAL problem,if you were a soldier i'm the queen of egipt,your photos in your site,shove them up ,you know where.
I'm sorry,but this self called Stu ,got me so upset that i just wanted to tell him a few facts of life,that i didn't even noticed Andy,obviously another ANAL complex,today i went to a police station in London ,because my dear Ex. disapeared with my children in order to make me give in to her blackmails,she asked the police to arrest me ,because i was "pestering" her with text messages,which is true,about my girls,the police woman(who for obvious i'm not going state the name) told me ..." To arrest you would be an act of injustice,so i'm letting you go,and as you came here voluntarly just proves you don't have nothing to hide,contact Fathers4justice,they'll help you..."
This said i rest my case!!!
Clive
I have just read your side bar piece called "Politics of the family." I need to study it much more closely but my initial thoughts are that I disagree with much of what you have said because its a typical politicians view of the family. Its full of complex and convulated logic that reminds me of what someone said to me as a child, "If a little education is a dangerous thing, too much education is worse. Just look at the messes our highly educated lawyers and politicians get us into!"
Having said all of that, I do recognise that your heart is in the right place and you are genuinly trying to understand the family of today. I dont mean that to sound as arrogant as it does. I am sure you understand what I mean.
I think the problem many MP's have today is that they are too removed from the people they (alledgedly)serve. They are very well paid (They see to that). Their pensions are very secure (They see to that). They "do lunch" in ways that Joe Bloggs can only dream of (They see to that). They travel on "fact finding" junkets (They see to that)that most of us would die for. They move in very restricted circles and they have a strange belief that if they hold a "surgey" it keeps them "in touch" with people when, in fact, it tends to only keep them in touch with a tiny percent of people, most of which will be their supporters. All of this means they are as far removed from the real concerns of most real people as its possible to get. Even out of office it appears that their circles are pretty exclusive. The only time any politician turns up on our estate is when they are opening something or there is an election. The rest of the time we do not see them, or their local party activists. Therefore, when I read something like your side bar peice, all of this is present in my mind.
Also present are the things politicians say and do. Things like, "People drawing sickness benefit are scroungers." "Domestic abuse is men hitting women." "Women do not belong in prison." (Apparently only men do... duh!)Taking us all into a war that the British people did not want or support. Etc,. Etc,.
In other words, I bring my own perceptions to all that politicians write and say based on what I have learned about them. What I have learned is this: The last people who should ever be allowed to run the country are politicians and the last people qualified to talk about the family are also politicians. After all, Ms Hodge said recently that contact, "is not about the amount of time a father spends with his child but the quality of that time." This is from the mouth of someone who is a) Not a father estranged from his kids and b)Has no idea what the hell she is talking about! How do you have "quality" time with a child you are "allowed" to see for an hour a week, when all you can do is feed the poor kid a MacDonalds burger and stare at your watch?
People like Ms Hodge give politicians a bad name but then she would, shes over educated, out of touch, has no real understanding of the issues and places too much store in the importance of her opinion.
If she spent more time listening to the people affected by family policy (like men and their kids) and less time listening to her internal prejudice, maybe she could get somewhere. That is the point I am making Clive. If you want to understand families go and spend some time with them. Your intellect, no matter how impressive, will never understand the family if you starve it of "real" facts. In case you dont believe me take another look at Michael Portillo's experiences when he went to live in a poor council house for a week. See his misconceptions about what other peoples family life is "really" like. Watch, as he struggles to feed the kids on the wage she gets paid.
Marriage is far more than a "public ceremony of commitment" to most people. There is a deep cultural and spiritual meaning to it as well. Every time some politician writes a new bill, often in responce to some misguided lobby group, that undermines marriage (such as the stupidly easy divorce laws) it frustrates joe and jane bloggs in ways the politicians utterly fail to understand. Judges do the same thing. The incredible ruling recently in the Ray Parlour divorce case caused real fear to ripple around the country. A point that the learned idiot in the court has totally failed to understand. (Judges:Another bunch of cloistered, pampered law makers who are out of touch with real people).
Though people often think that yesterday was a golden age it does not automatically follow that it wasn't. Also, why the hell is moralising wrong? What exactly is wrong with being moral? Let me guess, its not PC.
I will think hard about what you have written and try to be more coherent about it than perhaps I am being here.
As they say down here in the real world, Catchya later.
Politics of the family... A critique
As I read this I had a vision of a politician, sitting on a huge stack of past social legislation he and his political colleagues had built, seemingly unaware that he was sitting on the causes of the family breakdown and ills, but wringing his hands and anxiously worrying about why the family was in trouble. Either, there is genuine ignorance of the legislation contained in the stack or, there is an attempt to hide the stack by sitting on it and appearing innocent.
The family is in deep trouble and there are many reasons why. By examining Mr. Soleys words, I am going to attempt to try and figure out some of those reasons. I will be quoting from passages of Mr.. Soleys writing and then commentating on what I find. My comments are in square [ ] brackets. Though much of what I say here is a purely personal view I think there will also be much that others agree with. Having said that, I may well get at least some of my views wildly wrong and I welcome fair feedback that points out where this has happened.
--------------------------
"When politicians dabble in family values, beware. John Major's ill-fated back to basics campaign foundered when various Conservative MPs were found to be engaged in a wide range of relationships not normally associated with traditional family values. This should be a salutary warning to politicians of all political persuasions and is one of the reasons that politicians should resist the temptation to preach or to use their own families in the political process, especially in any attempt to garner votes."
[John Major's idea was a good one but it was let down by those in his party who could not keep their sexual desires under control. In fact, as it turns out, John Major and Edwina Curry were both busily failing in the same way with each other while Mr. Major was telling us all that we need to respect core family values. No surprise there. Politicians are great at telling others to do what they cannot do themselves.
The real question is, why did this failure come about? Why did those MP's find it so difficult to restrain themselves? I believe the answer lies firmly in the 1960's. It was in that decade that the restraints upon society, which kept us all from indulging our every selfish whim, were pulled down. The teachings of the Christian church were abandoned because they do not sit well with a society wanting to do anything it likes, whenever it likes and with whom it likes. The flood gates of immorality were opened and the family was doomed, from that moment on, to a long painful battle to cling on. Without the influence of the Church people were freed from what they called "restriction and slavery" into the myth of immoral "freedom." Unable and unwilling to see that a license to do what you want is just another form of slavery, the way was opened to all kinds of weird and strange societal practices. Drugs made a serious impact on millions of lives and are still ravaging our society. Strange new "religions" flooded our shores and the battle with cults began. Crime surged in staggering proportions. Revolutions started and faded every other day it seemed. One revolution remained and is still damaging society today. The left wing, radical feminist movement, is the biggest, most paranoid danger to the family ever conceived and its avowed aim is to destroy that institution which it sees as a hot bed of "patriarchy."
Ireland exploded into violence and remained in that sorry state until recently. People who wanted still more from society began screaming for "rights" but no longer wanted to accept the responsibilities that those rights bring. Pornography flooded into our homes and book stalls and generated a crime wave all of its own. Shacking up together became the norm and relationships became as throw away as our retail consumption habits. Divorce was made ridiculously easy, ensuring that marriages would also become throw away. Unrestricted personal and corporate greed led to huge discontent and strikes ravaged the land. Aids and other sexual diseases began their terrifying march to epidemic and pandemic status.
On and on the decline went but anyone who stood up to say that this surge of unrestricted and false "freedom" must be stopped was shouted down as a moralising prude. The spiritual life of the nation was all but extinguished and it was not long before the church herself became as corrupted as the society it once served. Just as Rome before it, Britain is tumbling into a state of moral decay that will, eventually, become the source of its demise. As it has been said in the past, "Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it."
Real freedom involves restriction and self discipline. Without those two moral brakes, the "freedom" becomes a licentious anarchy and that, I submit, is where this once great land is heading.
Presiding over this mess in the 1960's were two prominent politicians, Harold Wilson and Ted Heath. Neither had the courage to tackle the decline head on and each capitulated to pressure for more of this damaging "freedom." In 1971 Erin Pizzey opened the worlds first domestic abuse shelter and local government did all it could to shut it down. (No change there then.) Within a few years the radical feminists had booted her out of the refuge and threatened to kill her so often, she was forced to flee the country. (No change there then.) After a brief bombing campaign radical feminist were quietly accorded political status and the government funds came rolling in. The people of course, were never consulted.
By 1976 Wilson had resigned from office and James Callaghan was the next "leader" to prove he was incapable of leading anything. Ism's suddenly appeared everywhere. Racism, sexism, ageism, this ism that ism and all became illegal or, in words of breathtaking hypocrisy from politicians, isms became "Morally repugnant." (Strange how they moralise when it suits them huh?) The most damaging of all isms, radical femin-ism, was not, unfortunately, given the same status as the rest and that led to the weird and dangerous world of Political Correctness and legalised man hating. Feminism infiltrated every area of public life like a cancer: Universities, social services, government offices, education, advertising, press reports, magazine articles, radio programs and on and on. From each of these offices it spewed a one sided view of the world and its history that set the tone for the family court destruction of the role of the father in the life of his children.
Following the infamous "winter of discontent" Margaret Thatcher came to power and missed a golden opportunity to halt the moral decline of the nation by becoming obsessed with the miners. The brand of "freedom" she sold us came wrapped in ever more greed and the 1980's became a spectacle of savage, selfish and appalling grabbing of money by anyone and everyone. Newspapers were sold into too few hands and the freedom of the press was all but killed off. Riots erupted as never before. The poll tax crippled the poor (what else is new?) and was not repealed until 1991. The police were used as professional thugs in blue serge to beat old ladies over the heads with batons when the people protested. (What else is new?) The seeds sown in Ireland in the 60's came to harvest with an assassination attempt on Thatcher and the government. The loony left were sent scurrying into their bunkers by twin assaults by Neil Kinnock and Margaret Thatcher, only to reemerge as "yuppie Labour" in 1997 under Blair and continue their destruction of the nations morality and their assault on the family.
Through most of this shameful history, the fledgling men's groups were pleading with various governments to strengthen the family and to give equal time to the rights of men and fathers as it was giving in its blind pursuit of women's rights, to females. All, to no avail. Men had become the "enemy" and a debate on just how much men had really done wrong to women in history was utterly suppressed, as it is today. In 2002 Jack Straw announced -- in a spirit of equality you understand -- that, "Domestic violence is men hitting women." Million and millions of pounds flooded into "Women's Aid" and "Refuge." Sandra Horley, the director of Refuge famously told the Spectator that she did not want people to help male victims because it might affect her funding. As those coffers swelled with money, exaggerated and often totally false statistics about domestic abuse flowed the other way. Shame was poured onto every male in the country. Wild assumptions were made about women's inability to hurt anyone that would make a saint cringe in disgust. Advocacy "research," not worth the paper it was written on, was lapped up by MP's on both sides of the House of Commons, anxious to show they were more feminist than their colleagues. Naturally, the appalling female violence in Abu Ghraib and Beslan School in Russia were ignored because such acts undermine every one of radical feminism's core beliefs. In the meantime, men's groups found themselves frozen out of the world of funding for male victims of abuse. Children were encouraged to spy on and inform against their fathers (not, you will notice, their mothers) if they hit mummy. Incredibly one sided abuse campaigns began to flood our TV and cinema screens (led by the ever compliant BBC of course) that all failed to mention women's violence against men, or gave it only lip service in passing, while the press filled up with lurid images of female injuries. Millions of leaflets were produced that also excluded help for male victims and that were covered in sexist assumptions and language. Only Women's Aid and Refuge were consulted on matters relating to domestic abuse, thus ensuring that only the feminist view would prevail. Against this hysteria the politicians are busy writing the next round of draconian legislation that will ensure, that if a man is accused (note: Accused, not proven) of domestic abuse, he can be kicked out of his home and lose contact with his kids. (No change there then). This means that if the family courts are forced to change the government can use DV legislation to achieve the same ends their feminist "sistas" have always wanted. An end to the family.
Aint democracy great?
As Morpheus said to Neo in the movie, The Matrix, "Welcome, to the real world."
It is against this background that the family has had to cling on and politicians have become a hated, distrusted and frankly, incompetent elite. Through all of this history the BBC has been the single most compliant purveyor of propaganda, who have regularly breached the terms of their own charter with apparent immunity from public scrutiny. It suits politicians to use it to lie to the people and tell us that its everyone else's fault but theirs. All the while, of course, claiming that the BBC is anti their own party. It was with a sense of supreme irony then when I read -- faced with this history of the last 40 years of our nation -- Clive Soley MP should begin his chapter with the words, "When politicians dabble in family values, beware." They have done little else for almost all of those 40 years above and they have created the systems and social climate that will almost certainly guarantee the death of the family unless the people take it back!
In the light of all I have written above the following quotes from Clives piece should become self explanatory in their misunderstanding of ordinary peoples understanding of the need to cherish the family.]
"...Yet politicians are under pressure to 'do something' about the supposed decline in the family and in standards of behaviour in society." [I think the word "supposed" says it all.]
"Whether or not standards really are worse than in previous times is debatable." [No. Its not debatable at all. Its as real as the nose on your face]
"The fact that we no longer enjoy 'the crispy bacon we had before the war' may have more to do with our aging taste buds than with real change and the same principle applies to other aspects of human behavior." [This is an old political trick to divert the reader away from the truth.]
"In reality we cannot know with any certainty whether the family is in greater crisis than in past historical periods." [Another misleading statement from Clive. Again, the object is to quash any thinking in the reader that does not "conform" to the "Soley Message," by claiming there is no alternative view because "In reality we cannot know..."]
".... The difficulty of making any reliable historical comparison should not however prevent us from examining the problems facing families today. Above all it should not stop politicians and decision makers from looking for ways in which family functioning can be improved. The reason why politicians should debate the family is because it is such an important institution and crucial to the happiness and effective social functioning of individuals. If families are not functioning well then not only do individuals suffer but also the society in which they live has to pick up the consequences of family breakdown, whether in the form of mental illness, crime or simple failure to maximize the individual's potential in life."
[The sheer, breathtakingly hypocritical nature of this statement leaves me staggered but not at all surprised. I shudder to think how politicians think they can "improve" our families without restoring them to their rightful place as number one priority in a healthy societies life.]
"Recognizing diversity" [Labour "new speak" for, 'a false picture of what constitutes the family is coming up'.]
"Ask most people what their mental image of a family is and they are likely to conjure up a picture of husband, wife, two children and in all probability a dog and a car!" [Oh, the joy of the arrogance of the political animal. They always think they know better than "most people." In this case, most people are right! However, Clive will now redefine what "most people" think and impose his ideas of what a family is based upon his own political views and not the realities of most people.]
".... The adults will frequently not be married..." [I wonder why? See above.] "... or have been married before. The family may be of an adult child living with an elderly parent, two sisters or brothers living together. The variety and complexity of family life is too great for simplistic legislation or prescriptive moralising."
[Two sisters or brothers living together are not a family Clive! They are just two people sharing a house. A family is a husband and a wife with or without a child or six. However, in a typical left wing politicians way, it is important to complicate traditional definitions in order to impose and justify a new political definition. Its dishonest to pretend otherwise. "The variety and complexity of family life is too great for simplistic legislation or prescriptive moralising." This actually means, 'My version of the variety and complexity of family life is too great for simplistic legislation or prescriptive moralising.' Note also the 60's thinking inherent in the anti morality wording of the phrase, "prescriptive moralising."]
"This is not some fine academic point. I saw a constituent recently who had fathered a child and the mother then had two other children by another man with whom all three children lived following her death. Because the deceased mother had felt the second father wan not capable she had asked for the first father to stay involved. He did so and in fact goes to the home several times a week to cook, wash and iron. Where does this family fit in the conventional wisdom of the moralists and who is going to be so bold as to criticise the morality involved?"
[ This is a real beauty. Good ole dad. He was fine until the new boyfriend showed up then he got dumped for a plank that was incapable of bringing up the two kids he fathered, so father number one becomes an (probably) unpaid baby sitter on the wishes of this "responsible and caring mother." The reason this "family" does not fit into the "conventional wisdom of the moralists" (our Clive really hates morals doesn't he!) is because it was the politicians that created exactly the mess that has led to this situation in the first place! Now here is another politician doing all he can to justify this brave new world of utter confusion by laying the blame firmly with the "moralists." Who are these moralists that Clive cant stand? Anyone who disagrees with socialist views.]
"The latest manifestation of this desire to prescribe family form is the growing tendency to associate marriage with family..."
[This caused my biggest mental double-take in the entire thinking in the piece so far. Associating marriage with family? Good grief! Whatever next?]
He continues ".... This latest form of politically correct thinking holds that if we encourage marriage then family functioning will be improved; politicians from both parties have therefore suggested altering the tax system to benefit marriage. But why this should necessarily produce happier or better parents is not immediately obvious. In fact it is the quality of the relationships within the family that is likely to determine its success, not the legal framework or the financial payments made by the state. You cannot buy love and you cannot buy good relationships."
[Note the clever reverse psychology. Political correctness is a left wing invention. Here Clive ascribes it to those "moralists" who want a real family for daring to think that, "if we encourage marriage then family functioning will be improved." How was this radical idea to be implemented? "politicians from both parties have therefore suggested altering the tax system to benefit marriage." Good Lord! We cant allow this. It is too radical for words! Worse still, it might actually help traditional marriage. It must be stopped at once! "But why this should necessarily produce happier or better parents is not immediately obvious." Oh, OK then. "In fact it is the quality of the relationships within the family that is likely to determine its success, not the legal framework or the financial payments made by the state." OK. Gotcha. "You cannot buy love and you cannot buy good relationships." Fine. So you will not be advocating any financial help for gay "married" couples then but, you will go on removing financial incentives towards traditional marriage because doing this will help marriages get better by improving the "quality" of the relationships." Glad you cleared that up Clive. For a moment there I was worried I had misjudged you and you really do know what you are talking about.]
"None of this should be taken to mean that marriage is unimportant...." [its just not worth encouraging with tax help.... Yeah, we got that bit Clive]
I don't need to take this any further. I am sure you get a good picture of where I am coming from by now. Sometimes people make ill fitting garments. When they do, they tend to unpick them and start again. Politiicans rarely do this. It amounts to an admission of failure and, as we have seen recently with Tony Blair, admitting failure is not something they do easily. As a result of this prideful inability to say, "we got it wrong," the Labour party is engaged on a process of tinkering with a garment that will never fit when it should be started anew. The worst area, today, of this tinkering is in the manner of their "adjustments" to the policy of keeping dads from their kids.
Almost everything you have said in your chapter is typical political thinking that is out of step with reality and which lays the blame everywhere but where it really belongs.... In the House of Commons.
You are spot on. Its funny how they all went quiet though.
Friedrich Engels, one of the fathers of communism, wrote in The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State: "The first condition for the liberation of the wife is to bring the whole female sex into public industry…this in turn demands the abolition of the monogamous family as the economic unit of society." This is the key goal of both feminism and communism. Destroy the traditional family, and Western nations will crumble.
On the issue of domestic violence
There is much confusion about whom to believe in the debate about spousal violence. On one side we have gender activists who rely on law enforcement statistics. On the other side we have social scientists who rely on scientifically structured studies.
Unfortunately, the results of scientific studies do not receive media attention. America's press is seemingly more interested in political correctness than scientific accuracy. Therefore, the public perception, and the perception of many well-intentioned domestic violence activists, is radically skewed away from the more balanced perception of social scientists.
Many abuse shelter personnel below the executive level are unaware of the scientific studies, even though they claim to be "domestic violence experts" and often conduct "training" sessions for government agencies. There are towns and cities in our country where the entire legal establishment, including law enforcement, family law attorneys, and judges, are making decisions about family violence based on political propaganda rather than well established research.
Ignorance on Violence is no excuse
Before 1975 the topic of domestic violence was something that few people talked about. Few people truly knew the scope of the problem, and conversation ranged from blatant hyperbole to open indifference. Silence, for the most part, was as common as ignorance. Today that silence has largely disappeared; unless you happen to be a very specific class of victim. Furthermore, this silence is calculating, deliberate, and driven by malice.
In 1975 a team of U.S. researchers lead by Dr. Murray Straus and Richard Gelles conducted a national BOTH GENDER survey in the U.S. regarding "inter©spousal battery". The survey was anonymous, and they found that 16 percent of couples were violent toward each other, and that fewer than 1 percent fit their severe abuse criteria.
Most surprisingly they found that "women assault their partners at about the same rate as men assault their partners", including the most severe forms of abuse gathered. This latter finding was so unexpected that the researchers assumed it to be an abberation. However in 1985 a secound survey gave the same findings, and the results of both surveys were published in the 1986 August edition of the "Journal of Marriage and the Family" (vol 48). So was born the subject of the "battered husband".
One of the more well©known individuals to write on this topic was Suzanne Steinmetz, the author of the book "The Battered Husband" and one of the co©investigators of the 'First National Family Violence Survey' by Murray Straus et al. She would frequently give lectures at various universities regarding women's violence toward their spouses and, as a result, became the object of wrath of many a women's group.
When she was scheduled for a promotion, women's groups launched a letter writing campaign urging that it be denied. Other times she and her family were the object of death threats; one of the conferences she spoke at received a bomb threat.
Why, one wonders, would certain groups or individuals, within the women's movement, be so paranoid at acknowledging the fact that men, too, can be victims of battery at the hands of their wives? One theory offered is that women's groups "feared" that they would be forced to share funds allocated for shelters; however even if this were to occur, it hardly excuses their behaviour. Everyone is entitled to live a life free of violence regardless of their gender, and to have their issues equally aired and dealt with.
By raising these issues and perspectives that have been ignored for much too long in Society many Radical Militant Feminist and their Government partners don't wish the public to know or understand the issues put forth. As for these government MP's who are more interested in money, lust of power and malice tend to remain apathetic.
Just as disturbing is the willingness of governments and the media to willingly play along in this conspiracy of silence. For example, the Attorney Generals' office of B.C. has publicly stated their familiarity with all of the work done by Murray Straus, yet does not even recognize men as a significant number of victims of domestic abuse in its family violence guidelines document © named, interestingly enough, the "Violence Against Women in Relationships Outline".
The policy guideline not only ignores all of the studies showing men as half of all victims, (to which Murray Straus has stated now number no less than 70) it deliberately states the opposite. Even recent requests to have this document use "gender neutral" language were repeatedly turned down by both the office of the premier, and the attorney general.
Despite blatant sexism within the document, both the premier and the attorney general maintain that all victims are treated equally.
Likewise the media still routinely substitutes the words "women" for "victim" and "men" for "abuser" whenever they cover this topic. Media that openly acknowledge men as a substantial number of victims are by far the exception than the rule, even today.
Sadly, the result of this combined effort, be it spawned of ignorance or malice, is to further stigmatize male victims and therefore contribute to their further silent victimization. Likewise it has produced a system whereby violence by women, no matter how extreme or premeditated, is excused.
We have all witnessed the fact that even when a woman IS arrested and charged, she is far from likely to be judged or punished with the same standards that men are. We are at a place now where a woman, such as Dorothy Joudrie, can shoot her spouse in the back six times and be found "not guilty". There is not now, nor ever has been, an equivalent law for men to that of the "battered women's syndrome".
Of course none of this worries the women's groups fighting to keep the 'battered husband' in the closet, and absolve those women who do abuse. And media and government is hardly nocking down any doors to change this situation either. To one extent or another they are all co©conspirators to the silence and misinformation that plagues this entire issue. And while much of this may have been attributed to ignorance some ten years ago, it is very hard to come to that conclusion today.
From Baby Killers to Wife Beaters: The Media Attack on Men, by Michael
Gilson De LemosResending missing article
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
From Baby Killers to Wife Beaters
The Media Attack on Men, and Coverup of Violence by Women
by Michael Gilson De Lemos
The recent titillating spate of ghastly stories on military wife
beating[1] carried by services as Reuters is part of the open hypnotism of
the American Public now underway.
During the Vietnam war men were excitedly characterized as
baby-killers — and no doubt there were shocking things covered up by
military fat cats — but this has spread throughout the culture so by the
mid-eighties police forces began training courses on the assumption that
married men, especially any with guns, military background, or self-defense
skills (though apparently not the police) were inherently abusers. In one
course in Pittsburgh that I reviewed, that was the phrase: “…marriage is an
inherently abusive male dominance relationship.”
The truth is the US is suffering an epidemic of husband beating, false
accusations, robbery, abuse and murder of males by women with legal and
cultural impunity. They no more view what they do as a crime than the old
oppression of peasants was thought a crime, even by the peasants.
Many men, afraid of being accused as “abuse enablers” and led by false
chivalry, are joining in their own destruction like Eloi running to serve
the Morlochs. And beware — the US is exporting this epidemic of social
hysteria to foreign countries through incessant TV shows, UN meetings, and
scholarly blarney. This is not to say abuse of females does not occur. But
that I have to make sure to include that disclaimer tells you that the
culture waved bye-bye to rational discussion of these matters years ago, and
is slowly dragging the rest of the world with it.
Take the most scary sounding feminist tract you can find, reverse the
use of male and female, multiply by perhaps 10, and brother, you will have
the truth. Like Blacks demeaned decades ago, men have become accustomed,
habituated to an open prison and constant indignities — while the Whites who
inflicted them were convinced they were the Black‘s best friends.
An experiment: Show a video of a woman hitting a man to both sexes.
Most will perceive male abuse, or justified female attack. Try it, take a
scene from TV. My experience is that more men think they see the man hitting
the woman.
When many, vaguely hearing the soothing voice of the hypnotist, look
at a potato and see an apple, that is the classic definition of mass
hypnosis.
Do You Believe Your Lyin' Eyes?
Forget the additional narcosis of academic studies, news reports, and
endless government pronouncements. Use your head to observe. Try this
experiment: Go to your cable TV tomorrow afternoon around 4 PM (prime time
female viewing hours) and jot down on a legal pad, one line for each
channel, a summary of what you see. Just look for 15 seconds or so per
channel till you get the gist. This is what consultants call a “Gilson
snapshot” — typically, you will find over 80 percent of the channels portray
abuse, devaluing, or demeaning of men. See if you experience highlights
similar to these as you flip the channels, one by one:
a.. An afternoon cartoon: the girls push around the boys, who
somehow just can‘t get science. Barney appears afterward to say let’s all be
friends.
b.. A show on financial empowerment for divorced women
c.. A wife in a movie discovers her husband is involved in an affair
and sets out to kill him to everyone’s approval
d.. A man is slapped by a woman
e.. A woman screams at her son and calls him a loser. She is then
praised by the talk show host for attending anger management class. The boy
is told it is up to him to keep her calm by a guest therapist.
f.. A man is shot by a woman
g.. “The More You Know” series of ads warns abuse can happen to
anyone, so call for help immediately when he, repeat he, does it
h.. A man says he is wildly in love with a woman who just kicked his
testicles and insulted his father
i.. A news report on forced or fraudulent government castration of
men in India — focus? The emotional effects on the women, unhappy with their
subsequent sex lives …but who are learning they can now remarry, and many of
whom targeted their unsuspecting husbands for such “radical birth control”
to government bureaucrats in the first place. “Improvements must be made
based on experiments there before this can be rolled out to America,” says
the commentator.
j.. A woman shoots her boyfriend for buying a stereo without
consulting her
k.. A woman throws off her wedding veil and abandons the groom to
have what looks like a personal erotic moment while driving a car
l.. Another abandons her boyfriend and steals his car after
discovering a soft drink is all she needs in life
m.. A court case is interrupted when a woman begins to shampoo her
hair and is happily pursued by sex maniacs, cheer-led by a psychotherapist
n.. A government panel determines more funds are needed for
“violence against women”
o.. A man bursts on the screen saying "There is a plot by the
government to use women to take over the world!” That one made be pause.
Alas, it was an old comedy — the man is soon characterized as mad
p.. Barry Scheck is interviewed with his discovery that DNA shows,
in apparently those few cases where the police did not screw up the
evidence, that 1/3rd of those serving time for rape (in many states until
recently still a capital offense) were falsely accused. The panel afterward
speculates on the “growing problem” that this fact may discourage women from
making domestic violence accusations. The commentator continues, “Of course
there is the rare case as we saw with Barry Scheck, maybe one in a million
cases, where the woman lies.” “Or much more likely just made a mistake
because she was upset,” says the other. The two women both nod, satisfied
with the math that turns one third into a million to one shot.
q.. A rerun of Donahue. He says under no circumstances should you
hit a woman, even if she attacks you or must fight back. This is followed by
a news story of the pardon by the Governor of a woman who dug through
several walls to beat her disabled husband to death while he repeatedly
called police who felt his call was insignificant. She felt abused, said the
Governor. It is a victory for women, said several women’s shelters and
advocacy groups.
r.. A man comes home to discover his girlfriend has cleaned out the
house and run off with a lesbian. He sets out to win her back after she hits
him over the head with a bat
s.. A woman throws a drink at a man who says she looks better in the
blue dress
t.. In the final episode of Star Trek, Captain Kirk finds his body
stolen by a sympathetically portrayed woman
u.. A woman fakes a rape scene to frame her lover and makes off
triumphantly with her husband’s money, whom she has just murdered. Her
husband is bad as he deals drugs, unlike her, who wants a better life.
v.. Boys are embarrassed by a smug teacher because they can’t give
the birthdate of Susan B. Anthony or name when votes happened for women.
They are not taught when, or by whom, votes were won for men
w.. A man tries to help an eccentric and distressed visiting
professor by inviting him to stay over. His wife leaves him
x.. On a nature show, a female praying mantis eats the male while
mating
y.. In Afghanistan a desperate father whose home was destroyed by
American bombing has his young daughters take in piecework. This, says the
reporter, is a vestige of Moslem male dominance the US is trying to correct.
The reporter patronizingly asks the wife why she doesn’t leave him since he
won’t send the daughters to school and continues luridly on the custom of
polygamy. The reporter has apparently forgotten she also reported the US
bombs had pulverized the school to flinders.
z.. A man is slapped and hit by his girlfriend and called an abuser
because he did not tell her that he was adopted.
aa.. Psychologists discuss the “controversial” proposition that
fathers are beneficial
ab.. A CNN reporter reveals the shocking fact that in Arab
countries, women do not automatically get custody. Tune in tonight for the
courageous story of a woman who kidnapped her son to America after leaving
her husband to avoid the custom of the country where the boy has grown up.
ac.. A man gets twenty years for consensual non-vaginal sex with his
wife. She gets therapy
ad.. A raped 12 year old boy is ordered to pay child support to the
rapist, his teacher
ae.. A story on deadbeat dads features a man who must, under antique
laws, pay support even though the child was by the man with whom his wife
was two-timing him. “Women are fighting back against the many men who seek
to avoid their legal obligations,” intones the reporter
af.. “You worm!” a woman tells a befuddled Curly, slapping the icon
of male power.
What message do young girls watching with their mothers, or police who
work the night shift and watch this, get?
If some satirist came up with this it might be denounced as
exaggerated and showing more the anxieties of the satirist. But it is normal
US TV fare at the beginning of the Third Millennium. Some days are worse,
others better. If one looks at the programming of 20 years ago when cable
first came out, it is hardly much different.