Wednesday, March 31, 2010

Great letter from National Coalition for Men

This well written lettter has been sent to leaders of the USA, Canada, New Zealand, Australia,Ireland and England.

RE: Services for male victims of female perpetrated domestic violence


Dear President Obama,

Science has long ago abandoned the notions that often included erroneous principles like there are four elements, the earth is flat, the earth is the center of the universe and the sun revolves around the earth. Today we imagine a more rounded and comprehensive grasp of civilization using scientific methods and data which prove once held beliefs and myths as being false. We learned that evidence based realities are better than fanciful mythologies; or have we?
Unfortunately, in certain areas we still hold fast to out dated myths and legends, for example, ideologically driven, wrongful, and harmful beliefs about domestic violence, especially that only women are victims of domestic violence and men are not deserving of equality of support services.

Science confirms gender symmetry with domestic violence victims regardless of gender, including studies from the United States Center for Disease Control, the United Kingdom’s British Crime Survey and Statistics Canada.
Additionally, over 270 academic studies from the western world universities and research agencies clearly establish that men and women equally experience domestic violence at similar degrees of seriousness.i There is no reliable evidence based data to the contrary.

Regardless of the science and facts, governments support the myth that men are perpetrators and women victims. The belief is codified through programs designed by women, for women, and administered through women, legislation like the Violence Against Women Act (USA) and resulting Office on Violence Against Women, Status of Women Canada (SOW Canada), Domestic Violence Act 1995 and associated The Ministry of Women's Affairs (New Zealand) and Women’s Aid in the UK.

Last year President Obama directed;
“The public must be able to trust the science and scientific process informing public policy decisions. Political officials should not suppress or alter scientific or technological findings and conclusions… If developed and used by the… government it should ordinarily be made available to the public. To the extent permitted by law, there should be transparency in the preparation, identification, and use of scientific and technological information in policy making,”
WE ASK as gender symmetry in domestic violence is proven to exist; where are the shelters and services for male victims of female abuse?

WE ASK if your administration relies on scientific fact and evidence based information from which to establish international trade policies, home security policies and other related legislation, policies, procedures and programs then how is it that no funds have been appropriately provided for direct support and shelter services, specifically, for male victims of female perpetrated domestic violence, equally to what is provided for female victims of domestic violence?

WE ASK that you facilitate the establishment with sufficient funds ministries, departments, or commissions for men, as applicable.

WE ASK that you ensure government domestic violence policies, procedures, and programs provide equally for all persons adversely impacted regardless of gender, race, religion, color or other diversities.

We no longer believe there are only four elements or the earth is flat; it is time we replace domestic violence fiction with fact. All victims are deserving of support services and facilities.

An international reply to all concerned is graciously requested

http://www.familyofmen.ca/pgm-download_media.php?name=100317_ltr_to_Obama-2.pdf

Tuesday, March 30, 2010

Father gets court bill after wife murdered kids

This comment from a fellow member of the MRM says it all;

I really thought that there was nothing in the messed up, corrupt, man-hating feminist sycophantic world of divorce and family law that could surprise me. I was wrong.

It seems that the Belgian justice system (and boy am I using that term loosely) has found a particulalry unique way of sticking it to divorced fathers. If this story wasn't so terribly, terribly tragic it would be laughable. What's really frightening is that the feminist socialist sycophants that run the Canadian Family Law system are probably meeting to determine why they didn't think of this first.
Sobotic Research



Father gets court bill after wife murdered kids



http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/03/28/2858167.htm?section=justin



The Belgian state has stuck the father of five children who were murdered by their mother in 2007 with the bill for convicting her of the crime, the Le Soir daily reported.

A Belgian court sentenced Genvieve Lhermitte to life in prison in December 2009 for killing her son and four daughters, aged three to 14, while her husband was on a trip to Morocco.

As Lhermitte is incarcerated and insolvent, the Belgian state has sought to recover court expenses and collect fines from her then husband, Bouchaib Moqadem.

"I don't know what to say. I am disgusted and revolted that I, who was wrongly deprived of my children, am being asked to pay for the trial of my ex-wife, who was convicted of murdering my five children by cruelly slitting their throats," Mr Moqadem was quoted as saying by the newspaper.

The bill appears to conform with Belgian law, the newspaper said, with the state seeking funds due to have been shared from the sale of their house under their divorce agreement.

However Mr Moqadem's lawyer, in a letter to finance minister Didier Reynders, called for "administrative requirements to be balanced by decency" given the nature of the tragedy.

- AFP

Monday, March 29, 2010

Iceland: the world's most feminist country

In New Zealand we boast the most sexually active females in the Western World and tragically kiwi women on WINZ benefits will soon be forced to work as whores in brothels so they can feed their kids. New Zealand is a case study in social madness.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2010/mar/25/iceland-most-feminist-country


Iceland is fast becoming a world-leader in feminism. A country with a tiny population of 320,000, it is on the brink of achieving what many considered to be impossible: closing down its sex industry.

While activists in Britain battle on in an attempt to regulate lapdance clubs ? the number of which has been growing at an alarming rate during the last decade ? Iceland has passed a law that will result in every strip club in the country being shut down. And forget hiring a topless waitress in an attempt to get around the bar: the law, which was passed with no votes against and only two abstentions, will make it illegal for any business to profit from the nudity of its employees.

Even more impressive: the Nordic state is the first country in the world to ban stripping and lapdancing for feminist, rather than religious, reasons. Kolbr?n Halld?rsd?ttir, the politician who first proposed the ban, firmly told the national press on Wednesday: "It is not acceptable that women or people in general are a product to be sold." When I asked her if she thinks Iceland has become the greatest feminist country in the world, she replied: "It is certainly up there. Mainly as a result of the feminist groups putting pressure on parliamentarians. These women work 24 hours a day, seven days a week with their campaigns and it eventually filters down to all of society."

The news is a real boost to feminists around the world, showing us that when an entire country unites behind an idea anything can happen. And it is bound to give a shot in the arm to the feminist campaign in the UK against an industry that is both a cause and a consequence of gaping inequality between men and women.

According to Icelandic police, 100 foreign women travel to the country annually to work in strip clubs. It is unclear whether the women are trafficked, but feminists say it is telling that as the stripping industry has grown, the number of Icelandic women wishing to work in it has not. Supporters of the bill say that some of the clubs are a front for prostitution ? and that many of the women work there because of drug abuse and poverty rather than free choice. I have visited a strip club in Reykjavik and observed the women. None of them looked happy in their work.

So how has Iceland managed it? To start with, it has a strong women's movement and a high number of female politicans. Almost half the parliamentarians are female and it was ranked fourth out of 130 countries on the international gender gap index (behind Norway, Finland and Sweden). All four of these Scandinavian countries have, to some degree, criminalised the purchase of sex (legislation that the UK will adopt on 1 April). "Once you break past the glass ceiling and have more than one third of female politicians," says Halld?rsd?ttir, "something changes. Feminist energy seems to permeate everything."

Johanna Sigur?ardottir is Iceland's first female and the world's first openly lesbian head of state [http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/30/johanna-sigurdardottir-profile" title="Guardian.co.uk: Profile: Johanna Sigurdardottir]. Gu?r?n J?nsd?ttir of St?gam?t, an organisation based in Reykjavik that campaigns against sexual violence [http://stigamot.is/" title="St?gam?t], says she has enjoyed the support of Sigur?ardottir for their campaigns against rape and domestic violence: "Johanna is a great feminist in that she challenges the men in her party and refuses to let them oppress her."

Then there is the fact that feminists in Iceland appear to be entirely united in opposition to prostitution, unlike the UK where heated debates rage over whether prostitution and lapdancing are empowering or degrading to women. There is also public support: the ban on commercial sexual activity is not only supported by feminists but also much of the population. A 2007 poll found that 82% of women and 57% of men support the criminalisation of paying for sex ? either in brothels or lapdance clubs ? and fewer than 10% of Icelanders were opposed.

J?nsd?ttir says the ban could mean the death of the sex industry. "Last year we passed a law against the purchase of sex, recently introduced an action plan on trafficking of women, and now we have shut down the strip clubs. The Nordic countries are leading the way on women's equality, recognising women as equal citizens rather than commodities for sale."

Strip club owners are, not surprisingly, furious about the new law. One gave an interview to a local newspaper [http://icelandreview.com/icelandreview/daily_news/?cat_id=16567&ew_0_a_id=359882" title="Iceland Review: Legislation Bans Stripping in Iceland] in which he likened Iceland's approach to that of a country such as Saudi Arabia, where it is not permitted to see any part of a woman's body in public. "I have reached the age where I'm not sure whether I want to bother with this hassle any more," he said.

Janice Raymond, a director of Coalition Against Trafficking in Women [http://www.catwinternational.org/" title="Coalition Against Trafficking in Women], hopes that all sex industry profiteers feel the same way, and believes the new law will pave the way for governments in other countries to follow suit. "What a victory, not only for the Icelanders but for everyone worldwide who repudiates the sexual exploitation of women," she says.

J?nsd?ttir is confident that the law will create a change in attitudes towards women. "I guess the men of Iceland will just have to get used to the idea that women are not for sale."

Sunday, March 28, 2010

BBC - Who Needs Fathers

This documentary sounds worthwhile. It would be good to acquire and share these programs.My comment on the article -Agony of the frozen -out fathers;

A gender bias family court drove me to wear a "batman costume" and I can assure you I am no "extremist". Just a loving dad shafted by a sick system.


Quote #1: The prospects for children who don't see their fathers are bleak, according to a Unicef report in 2007. Educationally, they do less well. They are more likely to get in trouble with the police, and to abuse drugs and alcohol. They also find it more difficult to form relationships. If Broken Britain ­ that over-used moral call to arms ­ has roots, they lie in broken homes. A third of children are now growing up without parents living under the same roof. Each of the 150,000 to 200,000 separations per year is a source of sadness for the children involved, children who yearn ­ however unrealistically ­ for mummy and daddy to live together happily ever after.

Quote #2: Not only did these women want total control of the children ­ believing their love was enough ­ they also expected their exes to keep them in the style to which they had become accustomed, while the men lived in cramped bedsits. When one man finally manages to remortgage his own home to keep a working mother in hers, her response is: “OK, so I can book a holiday.”

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00rwnsk

------------------------------------------------

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/features/7528771/Agony-of-the-frozen-out-fathers.html

The Telegraph
27 March 2010

Agony of the frozen-out fathers
By Cassandra Jardine

A new BBC series explores the reasons why fathers lose touch with their children post-separation. Cassandra Jardine investigates.

Watching a preview of next week’s BBC series Who Needs Fathers?, I felt ashamed to be a woman. The men on the programme appeared to be loving, attentive fathers ­ not extremists in Batman costumes. All they wanted was to play their part in the upbringing of their children. But, at every turn, it seemed, vengeful, short-sighted women were selfishly trying to thwart them.

These mothers cancelled contact arrangements, scuppered telephone calls, made false allegations of abuse, and prevented the men taking their children on holiday. “Honestly, I feel like throwing in the towel,” said one tearful father, who sat in his car outside his ex’s front door, waiting in vain for the children to come out. Only an emergency court order won him the day.

Not only did these women want total control of the children ­ believing their love was enough ­ they also expected their exes to keep them in the style to which they had become accustomed, while the men lived in cramped bedsits. When one man finally manages to remortgage his own home to keep a working mother in hers, her response is: “OK, so I can book a holiday.”

The programmes not only seek to explain why 40 per cent of fathers lose touch with their children within two years of divorce ­ the figure is likely to be even higher when unmarried parents separate ­ but also why this matters. Looking at the confused faces of children being fought over by parents like favourite toys, it was not difficult to imagine what might happen when they grew into teenagers, unsure about their loyalties and identities. Indeed, in the third programme, we see fatherless teenagers behaving appallingly.

The prospects for children who don't see their fathers are bleak, according to a Unicef report in 2007. Educationally, they do less well. They are more likely to get in trouble with the police, and to abuse drugs and alcohol. They also find it more difficult to form relationships. If Broken Britain ­ that over-used moral call to arms ­ has roots, they lie in broken homes.

A third of children are now growing up without parents living under the same roof. Each of the 150,000 to 200,000 separations per year is a source of sadness for the children involved, children who yearn ­ however unrealistically ­ for mummy and daddy to live together happily ever after. But those partings can be handled more or less well. “The emotionally healthy 18 year-olds,” says Judge Nicholas Crichton, who works in the family courts, “are those who can say, 'Whatever happened between my parents, I knew I was loved and that I was free to love both parents without feeling guilty.’?”

Too few children are growing up with that balance. Ninety three per cent of children live with their mother after a separation, and half then lose touch with the non-resident parent. That’s a tragedy not only for the fathers, but for the grandparents, aunts, uncles and cousins who would otherwise provide a support network for those children.

Acrimony is unavoidable when relationships end, but some couples, such as Chris and Angela in the first programme, succeed in suppressing their irritation with one another for the sake of their children. Why then do so many children lose a parent to this game of bitterness and revenge?

“Henry” (not his real name), who is seen in the second programme, tells me he blames a court system that is biased against fathers, as well as being expensive, slow and ineffectual. When his daughter was born, Henry wanted to be involved, even though he had subsequently married. In return for maintenance, he saw his daughter alternate weekends and took her on holiday. “She was a massive part of my life,” he says. “Then her mother decided to live abroad.”

He fought the move but, as in 99 per cent of cases, the mother won in court. “All a woman has to say is that refusal will psychologically damage her. There’s a view that whatever is in the mother’s interests is also in the child’s interests, even though nine out of 10 non-resident parents then lose touch.”

Henry did not wish to be one of them, but despite a “mirror order” giving him visiting rights and regular contact, he has had to fight for every glimpse and chat, at a cost of £70,000, putting considerable strain on his marriage. “When we meet it’s wonderful, but it’s hard to slot into a role if you haven't seen a child regularly.”

During the whole court process he felt “like the puppet in the hands of a puppeteer”. He says: “I can understand why mothers use whatever power is at their disposal, but there was an imbalance.” Many fathers feel the same. “In order to be considered equal, you have to be twice as good,” says Simon Ramet, who has fought for half his child’s time.
“The courts are still stuck in a 1950s paradigm of mothers doing the caring, and fathers doing the earning,” says John Davies, chief executive of Families Need Fathers.

Women are also more likely to get legal aid than fathers, who have to weigh up the cost of pursuing a case against the fear that the longer they go without seeing a child, the weaker their case for maintaining contact becomes. “As few parents with young children can afford it, access to the law often depends on having wealthy parents. It tends to be a middle-class privilege,” says Sara Feilden, producer for Films of Record, who made the BBC series.

Despite fears that speaking out will harm participants’ contact arrangements, Fielden is glad to have found the brief window of opportunity in which to tell their stories. Last year, it became legal to report on the family courts, but a Bill is going through Parliament that would make it impossible, once again, to film people who have been involved in family legal disputes. “It’s unlikely that we would ever again be able to make a programme about this important issue,” she says.

The men filmed are eager to highlight the shortcomings of an overburdened legal system. Cafcass (the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service), which appoints guardians to represent the child’s interests, is so stretched that it can take nine months to produce a report. When allegations of misconduct are made, contact is rightly refused until they have been investigated. But sometimes they are purely vexatious.

Families Need Fathers is fighting for a number of changes on behalf of all non-resident parents, mothers as well as fathers. These include publication of judgments so parents know what to expect (and may therefore avoid court), sanctions for those who make false allegations, and financial recognition that non-resident parents also have to maintain a home suitable for their children to visit.

The current system finds favour with few, least of all those whose lives are dominated by endless hearings and court orders. “You should be reasonable when splitting up,” says Juliette Thomas, who was brave enough to defend on air her reluctance to allow Alex, her ex, his share of their four sons’ time: she claimed lack of clarity in his plans. Unable to agree, the court process has made the gulf between them wider and Alex resentful.

Family breakdown is not unique to the UK, but some countries seem to handle it better. In Australia, an assumption of shared parenting was introduced four years ago, backed up by family centres where separating couples could be given information and counselling on sharing their children. More children are now staying in contact with both parents as a result.

Dr Mandy Bryon, chief psychologist at Great Ormond Street Hospital, tells parents: “Whether you like it or not, you will remain in a relationship with one another as parents of your children.” To prepare for that, she believes couples need to acknowledge the errors in thinking that occur when people are angry and upset, and to anticipate the problems that cause flare- ups ­ late delivery back, changes of plans, and so on.

“If parents are living together and a child comes back from a visit to the park with the father in tears, the mother will try to reassure both parties. If they are separated she will say, 'Never again.’ The father might ask the child not to tell Mummy. Then, when the child blurts out what Daddy said, the mother thinks something sinister is going on.”

Judge Crichton already sends many parents on courses to learn about sharing. If we adopted a system similar to the Australian one, that would be compulsory before a couple go to court. “A good thing too,” he says, “as the courts are not the best place to sort these matters out.”

Both the Labour and Conservative parties have reviewed the family-law system. Henry Bellingham, shadow justice minister, talks of introducing automatic shared contact, if the Conservatives are elected, and using Sue Start centres for counselling. Looking at the worried eyes of children caught up in disputes that they don't understand, change can't come too soon.

'Who Needs Fathers’ starts on BBC Two at 9pm next Wednesday (31 March 2010).

cassandra.jardine@telegraph.co.uk

31 Comments
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/features/7528771/Agony-of-the-frozen-out-fathers.html#comments

==================================

Friday, March 26, 2010

Rising suicide toll kept under wraps


http://www.theage.com.au/national/rising-suicide-toll-kept-under-wraps-20100326-r37k.html>


Rising suicide toll kept under wraps
JULIE ROBOTHAM
March 27, 2010




REVISED suicide figures suggest at least 180 more people took their lives in 2007 than previously acknowledged, sources in the mental health sector say.

The Australian Bureau of Statistics has kept the official numbers under wraps since it backed out of a plan to release them last Wednesday, citing ''a technical issue which may impact on the quality of some estimates''.

But health advocates close to the process said they understood the revision - undertaken to update the figures with the results of coronial inquiries that had not been concluded when the statistics were collected - had alarmed health bureaucrats who feared it reflected badly on the government's mental health and suicide prevention policies.

If confirmed, the figures would show an increase of about 10 per cent on the 1881 deaths formally documented by the bureau as suicide, and fuel growing controversy over the integrity of the suicide count, which had appeared to decline in recent years.

About a third of deaths investigated by the coroner were unfinalised when the bureau compiled the initial version of its annual Causes of Death report, rendering the suicide statistics a probable underestimate.

It is the first time the bureau has reopened a previous year's death statistics. It has committed to repeating the practice for three years.

Ian Hickie, executive director of the brain and mind institute at the University of Sydney, said the bureau should be required to release the data immediately. The bureau's statement was ''a completely non-transparent response … There's been no explanation and no time frame for when they will actually release it.

''It's a serious policy and public health question. Are we in the middle of a serious increase in suicide, as some have suggested, or not?''

Professor Hickie said suicide rates had risen, especially among the young in countries affected by the economic crisis.

At the least the bureau should tell doctors of the magnitude of any rise and whether particular demographics were more affected, so prevention strategies could be tailored.

The bureau acknowledges suicide figures are likely to be incomplete.

For help or information visit beyondblue.org.au, call Suicide Helpline Victoria on 1300 651 251, or Lifeline on 131 114

Tuesday, March 23, 2010

Smacking dad in Court

The woman who complained was a vindictive and vengeful busy body bitch (a feminazi off duty cop). The keystone cops bring this father before the Courts, but the disgraceful lunkheads can't solve the Kirsty Bentley murder cold case - (eh Greg and Rex!!) How dare the maggot cause so much pain for a decent dad.Get real you corrupt politicial cops and do your job properly for once!

http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/3490898/Smacking-dad-in-court

The Christchurch man sentenced for punching his four-year-old son says he is not confident of winning an appeal against his conviction.

"I did not come up to win, just to make a point," James Mason said after a Court of Appeal hearing at Wellington yesterday where he challenged his conviction for assaulting a child.

His trial last May had been described as a test case for anti- smacking law changes.

The District Court trial judge Michael Crosbie disavowed that and said it would have been dealt with no differently before the law change.

Mason, 51, a musician and hotel maintenance worker, and a father of six, spoke for himself at the Court of Appeal with his wife of 25 years, Ann Mason, at his side.

"I know what I did. I'm not confident of winning but you have to stand up for what you believe in," he said after the hearing.

Mason said outside of court that he had done the parenting course required under the supervision sentence but, with respect to the "lovely" people that ran it, all he got out of it was a gold certificate.

He has given up his daily walks with his younger children and they "get away" with more because he feels he cannot do anything about their behaviour.

Mason said he wants to form the "Jo Public" political party and stand for Parliament with policies including changing the parental discipline law, getting more support for new mothers in the first weeks after giving birth, and raising the legal drinking age back up to 21 years.

He told the three judges, who reserved their decision, he had tugged his son's hair and flicked his ear when the defiant boy wanted to ride off on his bike while Mason was dealing with two younger children.

But witnesses said he yanked the boy's ear and punched his face during the incident on the Bridge of Remembrance on December 19, 2007.

He was not arrested at the scene, was left to care for his children, and later told he would receive only a warning.

He was charged after one of the witnesses complained to police and media weeks later, he told the Court of Appeal.

One of his complaints was that the charge he was found guilty of contained both the pulling of the ear and the punching allegations and the jury was directed that he should be convicted if either claim was proved.

The judge sentenced him to nine months supervision on the basis that he punched the child.

Mason told the Court of Appeal he thought the charge should have been split so each act was a separate charge. It should have been clear what the jury thought he had done, he said.


But Crown lawyer Megan Ball said the evidence supported Judge Crosbie's decision to sentence on the basis of a punch.

Computer male or female: now we have that cleared up

A SPANISH Teacher was explaining to her class that in Spanish, unlike English, nouns are designated as either masculine or feminine.

'House' for instance, is feminine: 'la casa.'
'Pencil,' however, is masculine: 'el lapiz.'

A student asked, 'What gender is 'computer'?'

Instead of giving the answer, the teacher split the class into two
groups, male and female, and asked them to decide for themselves whether computer' should be a masculine or a feminine noun. Each group was asked to give four reasons for its recommendation.

The men's group decided that 'computer' should definitely be of the feminine gender ('la computadora'), because:

1. No one but their creator understands their internal logic;

2. The native language they use to communicate with other computers is
incomprehensible to everyone else;

3. Even the smallest mistakes are stored in long term memory for possible later retrieval; and

4. As soon as you make a commitment to one, you find yourself spending half your pay check on accessories for it.

(THIS GETS BETTER!)

The women's group, however, concluded that computers should be Masculine ('el computador'), because:

1. In order to do anything with them, you have to turn them on;

2. They have a lot of data but still can't think for themselves;

3. They are supposed to help you solve problems, but half the time they ARE the problem; and

4. As soon as you commit to one, you realize that if you had waited a little longer, you could have gotten a better model.

The women won.

Send this to all the smart women you know...and all the men that have a sense of humour.

Sunday, March 21, 2010

d4j is a Proud Grand dad

Yahoo, I am a proud Grand dad for the first time. The latest addition to my family is a beautiful blonde haired, blue eyed baby Grand son who is healthy as. I thank God for his successful entrance into what can only be described as a sad and mixed up world. My daughter has done well and I have no doubts as to her parenting ability despite her young age.

This gift from God has produced deep thoughts within about family loyalties and the strength of bonds of love, which can only be cemented solid when they are genuine feelings from a loving heart. Controlling governments really fear family bomds because they are the hardest to break.

I am a lucky dad who has four good looking children , two handsome blonde haired mid twenty twin boys and two stunning teenage daughters. I am jubilant with the arrival of a Grand son, its unreal, who could possibly complain about life.

I am soon to hit up a rugged half century of life on planet earth. I have little in the way of material wealth; however my four children love and respect me as a good father who always has his door open for his children when life throws them a curly ball.

Nothing in this world can buy love. Having all the money in the world cannot bring the feelings of happiness experienced by a father who is loved by his children and Grand child. The richest person in the world must leave their collected wealth behind when they die {can’t take the money honey) however, this father of four will leave copious amounts of love behind on planet earth when he moves on.

Love will conquer all.

What will you leave behind?

Saturday, March 20, 2010

Feminism reaffirms its fighting focus

Quote: Research suggests that while the term "feminist" might be out of favour with young women, its central tenet of equal rights and opportunities is anything but. "It's hard to tell, but I think something is happening, that women are getting angry again," says Mackay, a senior lecturer in politics at the University of Edinburgh. "There are a lot of really uncomfortable truths about the fact that women's position is still disadvantaged, and it's systematic. It can't be explained away as a series of choices."

http://www.theage.com.au/national/feminism-reaffirms-its-fighting-focus-20100319-qm8x.html

The Age (Melbourne)
20 March 2010

By Kelsey Munro

Three ideas you won't hear in Parliament: introducing quotas to guarantee a number of women MPs; making half the senior public service jobs part-time to encourage more women to apply; or mandating paternity leave to ensure child-rearing is more fairly shared.

Yet while the po-faced feminism of old has become, as writer and academic Rebecca Huntley puts it, "daggy or passe", a new front is opening up.

In this election year in Britain, for example, academic Fiona Mackay detects a resurgence under way. A run of new books is reinvigorating the topic, including Living Dolls: The Return of Sexism, by Natasha Walter; The Equality Illusion, by Kat Banyard; and a reissue of The Feminine Mystique by Betty Friedan.

There's new energy in campus women's groups and gender studies courses; a blooming of feminist blogs; and membership of the venerable British women's group the Fawcett Society jumped 25 per cent last year, she says.

Research suggests that while the term "feminist" might be out of favour with young women, its central tenet of equal rights and opportunities is anything but. "It's hard to tell, but I think something is happening, that women are getting angry again," says Mackay, a senior lecturer in politics at the University of Edinburgh. "There are a lot of really uncomfortable truths about the fact that women's position is still disadvantaged, and it's systematic. It can't be explained away as a series of choices."

Yes, 1970s-era feminism is finished, a victim, according to some narratives, of its own success. In Western countries feminism achieved the mainstreaming of once-radical claims for women's rights to self-determination, Huntley says.

But then it split into warring factions preoccupied with incompatible concerns and sometimes self-defeating trivialities: the cosmetics of sexual empowerment versus exploitation, gender separatism and glass ceilings.

Today those fights continue around the fringes, while in the centre is the harsh reality: a 17 per cent pay gap and scandalously low representation of women in Parliament and on corporate boards mean that even in Australia there is still a long way to go to achieve true equality, says Professor Louise Chappell, a researcher in gender and politics at the University of NSW.

With women making up only 27 per cent of lower house MPs and 35 per cent in the Senate, Australia is on a par with Afghanistan, but doing better than the US (16 per cent in Congress) and Britain (close to 20 per cent). However, we lag behind Cuba (43 per cent), Sweden (46 per cent) and Rwanda (56 per cent).

"Those countries where women have higher representation are countries that have quotas," Chappell says. "Quotas are not the perfect solution, because … there are debates about the best person not getting the job. [But] without those sort of measures it's really hard to overcome entrenched stereotypes."

Huntley says that while there are notable women such as US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Deputy Prime Minister Julia Gillard, the experience of a few striking individuals does not represent the reality of women's power in politics.

Gillard says that instead of parliamentary quotas, the onus should be on political parties to recruit candidates of merit from "particular groups".

Since 2002, the ALP has required 35 per cent of candidates for winnable seats to be women, but the Liberals are against resorting to quotas.

Finding ways to boost female representation is important, says Karen Beckwith, a political science professor from Case Western University in Cleveland, who, along with Huntley, Mackay, Chappell and others, will debate the new fronts of feminism and politics in Sydney on Monday.

"Women constitute half the population ... I see no reason why they shouldn't constitute half the elected government," Beckwith says. "Women constitute a majority in university, in postgraduate study. We should be asking, what's wrong here?"

The US party system requirement for independently financed, self-nominated political candidacy erects barriers, she says. But she sees some progress.

"Parties have been responsive ... because they think that by running a woman against an incumbent they may be able to win when there's a perceived gender gap, a marginal district, or a man who's behaved in a scandalous way."

Dr Susan Goodwin, a senior lecturer in policy studies at the University of Sydney, who is also joining the debate, sees a novel alternative to the revival of affirmative action. She says the time demands of management jobs effectively preclude mothers from advancing to higher positions, and that creating part-time senior roles in the public service would change that.

"Many men just don't seem to feel they have to be devoted to their family in the same way women do … It means those women with kids doing senior jobs are under all this additional pressure and men aren't," Goodwin says.

Which takes us back to feminism's oldest battlefield: the domestic sphere. While women have become more involved in the paid workforce, research repeatedly shows men have taken up little of the slack at home. A solution for those who can afford it is to hire a cleaner or use childcare - to outsource what men won't take on. For those who can't, women still tend to carry the burden of household duties.

"We haven't necessarily got men taking on some of those [domestic] responsibilities or redefining those roles," Huntley says. "The solution … is not just to kick this work down the food chain."

Taking time off to raise children is a factor affecting women's position in many ways, from the pay gap to less superannuation to career seniority.

Says Mackay: "Having a human life which involves caring for other people shouldn't have such a detrimental effect on your career."

Both major parties in Australia "support" flexible work conditions, and paid parental leave is finally on the political agenda. In the US, it's a distant dream, but in Britain statutory maternity pay lasts 39 weeks.

Chappell points out that feminism has a lot of work to do in the many countries where women still have few rights and are subject to sex trafficking and other abuses. But a reinvigorated, diverse feminism has a lot to say in advanced industrialised countries, too, she says.

"These inequalities are still the product of policies and decision-making that's happening within political institutions and workplaces. Feminism offers a way of critically thinking about it and really shining a light on these things."

Thursday, March 18, 2010

Wanted: Solo parents and their kids

Wanted: Solo parents and their kids
We are looking for people to film with for a television documentary about solo parenting in New Zealand.

We can pay $1500 for the week to mitigate the time spent liaising during preproduction and for the week of a (small) TV crew following you around and we are looking for someone who might be:

      - A solo mother with one or more children, one of whom is below the age of three.

      - Prepared to show us their daily life over the course of one typical week.

      - Raising kids in a positive environment but able to explain about and show the challenges of solo parenting

The documentary will be shot and edited by professional crew using the best professional equipment and will be a fantastic high quality memento of your young family at the time of filming.

Filming can take place anywhere in New Zealand and will be sometime in mid April this year.

If you are embarrassed about being on TV don’t worry as the program will not be aired in New Zealand. It is a Japanese TV series being shot around the world but aired only in Japan.

If you are interesting in being involved please contact us. We will need to ask some questions to build up a profile about you and your family then discus with the director whether your story is the one she is looking for. (The series is being filmed all over the world and we need to avoid double ups and similarities with episodes shot in other countries so please don’t be disappointed if you are not selected as this does not reflect on you but on the balance of stories being filmed for the whole series)

If you wish to know more about the series please don’t hesitate to contact us. Your call will be treated with the strictest confidence and we hope to hear from you soon.

New Zealand Network Ltd.

Phone (09) 424 6388

Email  info@nznetwork.com

www.nznetwork.com
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Airline’s new restroom policy doesn’t fly with men’s group

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/mar/16/airlines-new-restroom-policy-doesnt-fly-with-mens/

'When he heard the news that Japan’s All Nippon Airways would start offering women-only bathrooms on most of its international routes served by large aircraft, San Diegan Harry Crouch wasted no time in drafting a letter of protest to All Nippon CEO Ito Shinichiro.
Crouch, who heads the National Coalition for Men, based in San Diego, said the policy, implemented March 1, was gender-based discrimination.
“All passengers, male and female, should be treated equally,” Crouch wrote.
The fact that men would be allowed to use the women-only designated lavatory only when few female passengers were on board or in emergency situations is considered a violation of California law by Crouch and his group.
Crouch received a response from All Nippon’s Torrance office the other day, thanking him for bringing the matter to the airline’s attention and explaining that the airline is carefully reviewing the issue with its headquarters in Japan and will have a response soon.
...
Members of the Coalition for Men, which welcomes female members, have filed lawsuits on numerous inequality issues, such as local nightclubs’ “ladies’ nights,” in which women were offered special discounts or benefits. In this instance, a lawsuit would be “way down the road,” said Crouch, who awaits the airline’s full response.'
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Wednesday, March 17, 2010

UK - The role of the father has been downgraded

 
Legislation has effectively dismissed the contribution of half the population to the upbringing of the next generation, says Ruth Deech, the chairman of the Bar Standards Board.
 
Published: 3:08PM GMT 16 Mar 2010
 
Over the last half a century there has been a sea change in society’s attitude towards same-sex relationships, marriage and the family. Homosexuality has moved from criminal status to legalisation, from legalisation to acceptance and the same respectfulness as heterosexual relationships. We have now reached the stage where, in the event of an election victory, the Conservative leader has promised that civil partners will benefit from extended paternity and maternity leave (in the case of adoption or artificial insemination babies). David Cameron has also promised that proposals to extend flexible working and married couples’ tax breaks would be granted as well. He has stated that the party is no longer hostile to same sex couples.
 
While changes to the law which have given homosexual couples the same rights and responsibilities as heterosexual couples are welcome, there are two issues involving modern society’s attitude towards children which give me unease.
 
One is the new possibility of birth certificates for children born to couples of the same sex, which name two persons of the same sex as their parents. This is logical following on the extension of rights to same sex couples, but there is an issue of principle here, which is the truth. Sections of the 2008 Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act (HFEA) even allow a dead woman, never known to the baby and not related, to be named with her previous consent on the birth certificate by the choice of the birth mother, while preventing the child from having a father. Birth registration is about genetic inheritance (albeit that sometimes the truth is not told) and about the welfare of the child, not about the relationship, legal or otherwise, between the adults whose will gave rise to it. The birth certificate that names two female parents will disclose to anyone perusing it that the child was necessarily born from donor sperm or a donor embryo or a surrogate mother. It could even result in deception to exclude the natural father where the mother conceived naturally but uses this provision to cut him out of the child’s life.
 
There are other ways for two adults of the same sex to gain parental responsibility over a baby, and it should not have to be through the birth certificate. It puts the demands of the adults ahead of the rights of children to know and benefit from both sides of their genetic makeup. It sits uneasily with the ending of donor anonymity in reproduction generally, and for the call for mothers to name fathers on birth certificates. This is not a moral issue; it is about disguising true facts, and it is about confusing biological parenthood with legal and social parenthood. Civil partnerships do still differ from marriage a little, and this is an area where the difference ought to be preserved with justification.
 
The other area of regret for me is the removal from the law of the provision in the 2000 HFEA that when a doctor is considering whether or not to give infertility treatment to a woman, he or she had to consider the welfare of the potential baby, “including the child’s need for a father.” It was removed on the ground that it was discriminatory against single mothers and lesbians, and replaced by the need to check for “supportive parenting”, whatever that may mean. Reproductive services are in fact quite readily available to single women, and it is thought that about 25 per cent of lesbian couples have children. I regret the downgrading of the father as a person of importance – the legislative dismissal of the contribution of half the population to the upbringing of the next generation. The removal of the requirement to consider the need for a father is to make a fresh statement that the child does not need a father, no matter how liberally the old law’s requirement was interpreted. It sends a message to men, at a time when many of them feel undermined as providers and parents, contrary to government policy in this field.
 
Government policy is that men should take financial responsibility for their children and stay in touch with them after separation; that they should take paternity leave and be involved. There is a wealth of research showing that children need fathers, not just two parents. Children need to see complementary roles, the relationship between the sexes, a microcosm of society, as they grow up. Recent reports have placed Britain at the bottom of international league tables for the welfare of children and we know that boys without fathers do worse at school and turn to worse role models. Research shows that their presence gives girls as well as boys advantages in educational and social development. The limit to same sex relationships is that they cannot be a reproductive unit in a way that is best for the welfare of the child if they cut out all contact with members of the other sex or falsify the birth registration. Tolerance of both types of parenting has to be ensured.
 
Baroness Deech is the chairman of the Bar Standards Board.
__._,_.___

Saturday, March 13, 2010

Violence law faces challenge

http://www.themercury.com.au/article/2010/03/14/133845_scalesofjustice.html

Violence law faces challenge

A TASMANIAN group has filed a $200 million class action against Premier David Bartlett and the Director of Public Prosecutions.
It is believed to be the first Australian class action against a law.
JAIL (Juries Against Illegal Laws) filed papers with the Federal Court of Australia on February 4 claiming that the Family Violence Act 2004 (Tasmania) was invalid.
The group is claiming $200 million in damages under Section 46 of the Australian Human Rights Commission Act.

JAIL is also seeking an additional $200,000 in damages for unlawful assault, trespass, negligence, conspiracy to cause economic loss, intimidation and defamation.
The writ further seeks an order that the Tasmanian Government and DPP Tim Ellis cease to engage in arresting people without proper evidence or procedures, giving police judicial powers, denying people the right to a fair and proper hearing and usurping the proper role of the courts.

JAIL president Ray Escobar said that if the class action was successful the money would be given to all the Tasmanians who had suffered under the Family Violence Act.
JAIL, formed in early 2008, now has more than 200 members around Tasmania who have been, or are related to, victims of false applications for violence orders.
Mr Escobar said JAIL was being represented by one of the finest legal minds in Australia, Sir John Walsh of Brannagh, who lives on Norfolk Island.

Sir John said he agreed to represent JAIL because the case raised important and fundamental questions of human rights, such as the presumption of innocence, right to a fair trial and the separation of powers.
"The legislation, and the way it is enforced, is contrary to human rights and to international law as accepted by Australia," Sir John said.

"The legislation conflicts with the Constitution of Australia and with the fundamental rights of all Australians."
Sir John said he was confident a federal judge would apply the law of the Commonwealth and the fundamental principles of Australia's legal system.
JAIL's application has been set down for hearing in the Tasmanian registry of the Federal Court of Australia at 10am on Monday, April 12.

Friday, March 12, 2010

reBlog from shrink4men.wordpress.com: A Shrink for Men

I found this fascinating quote today:



Do your children refuse to see you since you and your ex separated? When you actually get to see your kid(s), do they lash out at you? Do they know things about your break-up or divorce that they shouldn’t know? Do they “diagnose” or berate you by using adult terms and expressions that are beyond their years?shrink4men.wordpress.com, A Shrink for Men, Mar 2009



You should read the whole article.

Wednesday, March 10, 2010

Female prison population soars

 You can guarantee the radical feminists that control the New Zealand justice system will be very silent over these facts.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/3435187/Female-prison-population-soars#share

Female prison population soars

The number of women in prison since 1986 has grown at nearly twice the rate of men, according to the Department of Corrections.

The Offender Volumes Report 2009 released today showed that between 1986 and 2009 the number of female sentenced prisoners increased from 98 to 389 - a growth of 297 percent. Male sentenced prisoners increased from 2359 to 6157 - a growth of 161 percent over the same period.

Other statistics in the report included:
* The number of sentenced youth prisoners decreased over the past 25 years. In 1986, there were 500 sentenced prisoners aged 15-19 years, in 2009 there were 400;

* The growth in the number of sentenced prisoners was largely driven by the growth in older (30 years plus) offenders. In 1980 prisoners aged over 30 were 20 percent of the sentenced population - this increased to over 60 percent now;

* Longer proven offending careers of prisoners. In 1980 almost 75 percent of sentenced prisoners had recorded their first conviction within the previous 10 years. In 2009, less than 38 percent had recorded their first conviction within the previous ten years;

* Growth in the percentage of offenders serving prison sentence for violent, sexual and drug-related offending;


* There were twice as many Maori 25-year-old males in prison than there were European males of the same age. Three percent of all Maori men aged 25 years old were in prison.

Tuesday, March 9, 2010

Barbara Kay : How patriarchy ran into its own iceberg

Barbara Kay: How patriarchy ran into its own iceberg
March 02, 2010,

The Titanic sank in 1912 after hitting an iceberg. Of the 2,200 people on board, 1,517 died. The Lusitania sank in 1915, victim to a German U-boat torpedo. Of the nearly 2,000 people on board, 1,200 died. In addition to carrying about the same numbers of passengers, the demographic composition of the two ships - adults, children, men, women, old, young - was also similar.
Two stark differences distinguish the tragedies. One was the fact that the Lusitania sank very swiftly, only minutes after it was struck, while it took four hours for the Titanic to go under the waves. The other is that on the Titanic, most of the survivors were women and children: 75% of women and almost all the children were saved as against 20% of the men, while on the Lusitania, of the 639 who escaped, it was a question of sauve qui peut. The fittest amongst both men and women aged 16-35 were likeliest to survive.
According to a new study  in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the altruism of the Titanic and the length of time it took for the ship to sink are causally linked. Benno Torgler, study author and economics professor at Queensland University of Technology in Australia explains that circumstances dictate levels of altruism. According to the study, since the Titanic passengers had a few hours to consider their options, "there was time for socially determined behavioural patterns to re-emerge."
The time factor in determining selfish or unselfish behaviour strikes one as a reasonable insight. Panic arouses atavistic instincts of blind flight; more time to consider allows the intellect, the emotions and one's sense of -- call it what you will: duty, honour, morality -- to surface and in some cases overwhelm terror.
But now let us consider these "socially determined behavioural patterns" that allowed so many women and children on the Titanic to live.
The sinking of the Titanic occurred in 1912, well before the emancipation of women. Indeed, 1912, before the "lights [had] gone out in Europe" with World War One, may be said to be the last moment when the patriarchy held fairly complete sway over the lives of women. After the war, a dearth of men, coupled with women's adventures in autonomy in the work force and taking charge of their domestic domains, along with the extinction of "honour" as a viable ideal after an honour-based war's senseless horrors, the patriarchy was on its way out, gender equality on its way in.
So these heroes who willingly sacrificed their lives for women and children had been brought up in the very heart of the same robust patriarchy that feminists today use as a shibboleth to frighten young girls with. According to the feminist mystique, these men should have been controlling, egocentric, self-serving bullies, for whom women were nothing more than sexual and domestic conveniences, little better than slaves. They should all have been candidates for anger management, not a chivalry so breathtakingly selfless that they almost to a man went to watery graves in stoic humility so that total strangers might live, simply because of their sex.
It is precisely in a crisis that we often learn a great deal about what our values actually are. So this example of male heroism in as indisputably existential situation as imagination can conceive, and ideally placed to consider their deepest convictions before acting should, it seems to me, remain in the forefront of our collective consciousness. For these men were the product of a particular culture, one that perceived chivalry and honour and duty as the highest values. And the highest expression of those highest values was the privileging of women and children's lives over their own. And they acted on that perception.
Yes, women were infantilized in many ways in the patriarchy, which a cynic might say was the driving impulse behind the chivalry of the Titanic's men. But so what? At the moment when it mattered most, the notion that men should above all act as protectors of the vulnerable in times of danger to all committed them to death in the service of others. Was there ever a more noble or selfless act?
The study reminds us that the heroism of the Titanic was a willed phenomenon, and one that feminists do not wish to discuss (I have tried).
Instead of fetishizing the victimhood of women at men's hands and the deviance from our cultural norm that Marc Lepine represented with man-bashing dirges across the land every December 6, would it not make more sense - and would it not be more ethically fitting and socially unifying - to celebrate the more representative  manliness of men every April 15, the date of the Titanic's sinking? Still six weeks left to plan it.


 
 

Monday, March 8, 2010

SKELETON SUICIDE PETITION HITS NERVE

SKELETON SUICIDE PETITION HITS NERVE


The skeleton suicide petitioners say they have hit a nerve on the streets in Auckland, Wellington and Christchurch.
Since launching the skeleton suicide petition at parliament they have gathered thousands of signatures for an inquiry into suicide. The working party on suicide claim New Zealand has a serious social problem indicated by the latest OECD suicide statistics. Wearing their skeleton suits the “skeletoneers” are taking their deadly concerns to Hamilton, Tauranga, Napier and Hastings before presenting the petition at parliament at 11.00am on Friday the 19th March.

Skeleton spokesman Kerry Bevin said “we must confront this tragic secret. It is ok to talk about suicide. Decent kiwis can no longer accept so many feel worthless and powerless, too many attempt and finally complete. The suicide toll is too high; the human right to a better life is being undermined”.

Mr Bevin noted “alarming rates for males and Maori were sidestepped by Peter Dunn’s suicide plan committee who totally ignored the social devastation of suicided fathers following separation.
Autocide is not mentioned either. No clear intervention or funding for the “at risk” is proffered nor any legislative scoping or mental health supports set. Who is going to get real about suicide before this self-destructive cycle becomes a morbid population?” He asked.

“We took our plea to John Key in Parnell. No response from the prime minister. The media seem oblivious too. However we are encouraged by thousands of concerned citizens. Unfortunately many have direct experience with suicide. The Fathers Coalition and the Republican Party have been supportive” said the skeleton spokesman.

Phone working party on suicide

Kerry Bevin     (09) 473 3747
Jack Gielen     (07) 859 2939
Craig Jackson  (04) 389 2291

Saturday, March 6, 2010

The UN spreads more hate-speech about men and boys...


Once again the corrupt UN spreads hateful factoids about men and boys to further its feminist agenda. It's little wonder our slimy ex Prime Minister Helen Dyke Klark is foaming her hateful feminazi dribble all over people attending the fembot gathering of vengeful witches. She is in her vicious element in the big apple. Sadly in her UN role she can crank her intense hatred of the male species up a gear or two. Radical feminazi lesbians like Klark and her partner Heather Simpson should be burnt at the stake.These women are dangerous and evil.Go figure as these creeps are vile sickos!

This line is straight from the feminazi handbook of lies, "This time it's "up to 70% of women worldwide have been forced to have unprotected sex".

http://news. bbc.co.uk/ 2/hi/health/ 8546655.stm

BBC News
3 March 2010

UN warns HIV/Aids leading cause of death in women

HIV has become the leading cause of death and disease among women of reproductive age worldwide, the UN programme on HIV/Aids says.

At the start of a 10-day conference in New York, UNAids launched a five-year action plan addressing the gender issues which put women at risk.

One of the key issues, it says, is that up to 70% of women worldwide have been forced to have unprotected sex.

UNAids says such violence against women must not be tolerated.

"By robbing them of their dignity, we are losing the opportunity to tap half the potential of mankind to achieve the Millennium Development Goals," said Executive Director Michel Sidibe.

"Women and girls are not victims, they are the driving force that brings about social transformation, " he said.

The agency says that experiencing violence hampers women's ability to negotiate safe sex.

Singer Annie Lennox speaks out on HIV

It warns that, nearly 30 years from the beginning of the epidemic, HIV services do not respond to the specific needs of women and girls.

Women, it says, continue to be disproportionately affected by HIV/Aids.

In sub-Saharan Africa, 60% of those living with HIV are women and in Southern Africa, for example, young women are about three times as likely to be infected with HIV than young men of the same age.

The program - which will include improving data collection and analysis of how the epidemic affects women, and ensuring the issue of violence against women is integrated into HIV prevention programmes - will be rolled out in countries including Liberia.

Wednesday, March 3, 2010

Joke Time

I took my dad to the mall the other day to buy some new shoes (he is 84)..
We decided to grab a bite at the food court..
I noticed he was watching a teenager sitting next to him.
The teenager had spiked hair in all different colours - green, red, orange, and blue.
My dad kept staring at him.
The teenager kept looking and would find my dad staring every time.
When the teenager had had enough, he sarcastically asked: “What's the matter old man, never done anything wild in your life?”
Knowing my Dad, I quickly swallowed my food so that I would not choke on his response; I knew he would have a good one!
In classic style he responded without batting an eyelid …………
“Got stoned once and f*cked a peacock. I was just wondering if you were my son.”