BOB

January 27, 2006 Format log. The doors are open.

January 27, 2006

Format log. The doors are open.

Fathers To Continue Campaign

By George Rolph

Rumours of the demise of Fathers4Justice are greatly exaggerated says a spokesman of breakaway group, Real Fathers 4 Justice.

In an interview conducted by telephone this afternoon (20th Jan 06) with Martin Cook of Real Fathers 4 Justice he told me that the father's rights campaign goes on regardless of the statements by Matt O Connor. He also reiterated that the talk of a dark underbelly of extremists within F4J are nonsense, but are part of a pattern of abuse hurled at disaffected members over a nine month period by Mr O Connor.

Mr Cook went on to describe O Connor as an autocratic leader who was unable to delegate responsibility to others and inevitably folded under the strain of trying to do everything himself.

Martin Cook joined Fathers4Justice in 2003 and became a London based coordinator for the group. He says he knew the break up of F4J was coming as early as December 2004. I pressed him to tell me how he knew, but he would only say that there was not much happening within the group and it appeared to have lost direction.

He was one of thirty others that made the decision to leave and to form their own organisation. Mr Cook told me that many of those members resigned and only some of them were asked to leave. This contradicts Mr O Connor's claim that all of them were removed by him personally.

I asked Mr Cook if his group intended to keep the name, Real Fathers 4 Justice. He told me that he was in favour of changing the name once the leadership structure within the group had been finalised. He also told me that the costumes were now "old hat" and did not think they would form part of the groups public profile.

Matt O Connor always refused to work with other men's groups and many saw this as a sign of weakness that left F4J isolated and short of many potential supporters. Mr Cook told me that he can see the value of working with other parenting groups and hopes they would be pursuing that option in future.

Among members of the now defunct F4J there is considerable anger at the way Mr O Connor announced the folding of F4J and over some of the things he has said since. Two of his recent public statements that are fueling this rage, were made in interviews to the press on TV. He told channel 4 television, "I do not want to be associated with an organisation that's generating headlines like this. I don't think the vast majority of people in F4J do either...."

"We set out to change the law and we failed. The fathers in this country have let this campaign down. They have let F4J down and they have let the children of this country down."

Sources within F4J point out, that while Matt O'Connor is condemning people as extremists. These were the men and women who used to risk all for his campaign, by hanging off cranes in all weathers and risking being shot at Buckingham Palace. Yet O Connor can be heard on the Trevor McDonald program saying that blowing up one TV mast was not enough and F4J needed to demonstrate its power, by blowing up several at once.

They are also furious that O'Connor has sought to blame all fathers in the UK for his failure to keep the campaign going and have accused them of harming their children in the process.

Suspicions are rife within the group that O'Connor planned the end of F4J with a movie deal in mind. Mirimax, a Disney owned company, has bought the rights bring the story of F4J to the big screen. A deal negotiated with Matt O'Connor himself as long ago as two years.

Other sources have told me that they are now wondering if Mr O'Connor only started F4J as a means of making money from the heartbreak of fathers separated from their children. There is little doubt that Mr O'Connor has both the skill and business acumen to make such a scenario possible. Whether it is true or not may never be known.

Dark rumours concerning missing money from the accounts of F4J persist and there have been calls for Matt O'Connor to make public the account books of the organisation. If the pressure becomes strong enough, it is hard to see how Mr O'Connor can avoid doing so.

One thing is certain. This story is far from over and further revelations are sure to spice it up even more in the near future.

George Rolph

Fathers In Extreme Situations: To be Ghandi or John Brown?

"The Sun Story troublingly lacked details, as did other news accounts, and no arrest were made. The story had suspicious timing—it came out the same day as the English announced they would be using notoriously strong-armed private debt collectors to collect child support."

by Rinaldo Del Gallo, III, Esq.

When confronted with extreme deprivations of rights, reactions differ substantially, especially as between incendiary agitation or pacifically seeking change. There was Booker T. Washington who sought advancement through personal development and industrial education, versus the radical approach of WEB Dubois who thought of Washington as an accommodationist. You had Malcolm X who had no use for the non-violent approach of Martin Luther King. There was the National Women’s Suffrage Association that was only run by women and believed that it was more important that they receive suffrage before blacks, versus the American Women’s Suffrage Movement that believed women’s suffrage and black suffrage were equally important and guaranteed men leadership positions. You had the Quaker pacifist abolitionist versus the pike-wielding guerilla abolitionist tactics of John Brown.

Yesterday, Fathers-4-Justice, a British based fathers’ rights group, again made national headlines when an alleged plot to kidnap English Prime Minister Tony Blair’s son Leo was revealed. No doubt, if there was such a plan, poetic justice was in mind. Fathers’ rights activists believe the courts have kidnapped their children. In one Internet chat group I will not name, a father writes, “When the government takes our children, is it time to take THEIR children, one might ask?”

Fathers’ rights groups quickly denounced the kidnapping plot. Faced with the publicity, fathers-4-justice founder, Matt O’Connor, has disbanded the group, although from their website, it is not clear whether the move is permanent. Some note the stories source, “The Sun,” is a British Tabloid often strewn with shrill headlines, scantly clad women, and is not noted for quality journalism. There is the motive of the British police to exaggerate what appears to be stupid pub talk (if even that) after years of embarrassing tactics by Fathers-4-Justice, including stunts like climbing the walls of Buckingham Palace, scaling St. Paul’s Cathedral and the London Eye, climbing the clock tower at Westminster, and throwing purple flour at the Prime Minister while giving a speech in House of Commons.

On the website MensNewDaily.com, in an “Official Statement from an Alleged Blair Kidnapping Plotter,” Martin Mathews inculpates The Sun: “Late last night and early this morning I was approached by a 3rd party offering me £10,000 from the Sun Newspaper to lie and admit that the kidnapping plot was a Matt O’Conner idea and that he had asked me to look into it for the group.”

The Sun story troublingly lacked details, as did other news accounts, and no arrests were made. The story had suspicious timing—it came out the same day as the English announced they would be using notoriously strong-armed private debt collectors to collect child support.

The sad truth is that unspeakable deprivations are being visited upon fathers. Though they may be completely fit, they endure losing their children and their fortunes on attorney fees and mind-boggling child support orders. Children are being raised fatherless. Men are literally being sent to debtor’s prison unable to pay astronomical child support awards, some predicated on incomes that are not real but invented under a theory known as “attributed income.”

Restraining order abuse abounds, so that men cannot even be assured they can live in their own homes. The sad truth is that the while this so-called "kidnapping plot" was quickly—and rightly—condemned, the daily kidnapping of children by family court systems around the world has not.

Understandably, public support is with fathers. On a ballot question that was on over 30 state representative districts in Massachusetts, shared parenting won by an 86% margin. But the fathers’ rights movement has many problems turning this popular opinion into success.

Some of the fault lies with fathers themselves. Faced with wrongs far greater than say, to pluck one out of history, higher taxes and no representative in Parliament igniting a revolution, they sit docilely by instead of joining and helping a fathers’ rights group. Fiery orations prove awkward before small audiences.

Then there are the wealthy, who believe in our cause but refuse to provide the one-thing legislatures understand—lobbying money.

Why don’t fathers dress up in suits and ties and appear as intellectuals on Nightline or The Charlie Rose Show? No doubt they could, but they just aren’t invited. Larry Parnas, managing editor of the Daily Hampshire Gazette admits that fathers’ rights groups are unfairly shunned by the media. At best, this leaves you with Batman perched on a ledge at Buckingham Palace. At worst, you have those that are becoming increasingly disillusioned with a movement that has produced little change over the past 30 years despite widespread public support, and who are seething that politicians and judges do not change their ways.

Rinaldo Del Gallo, III, Esq.

Mr. Del Gallo is spokesman for the Berkshire Fatherhood Coalition.

Official Statement From Alleged Blair Kidnap Plotter

I, Martin Matthews, would like to make a few things clear about the Sun newspaper article about kidnapping Leo Blair.

1. At no time did anyone ever suggest anything of the sort.

2. The following people were present, Artur – a 58-year-old father who is ‘T –Total,’ Dyian, A photography teacher who also did not drink as he later went to work, Gary, Jolly, Graham, Eddie, and two women.

3. After speaking with the Daily Mail, Sun and Daily Mirror, I feel it necessary to point the following:-

On the 18th of December 2005, I was feeling unwell and only had two glasses of Coke in the pub. I do not have the slightest idea from where these roomers of a kidnapping came from. I have noted in the tabloids that Jolly Sainsbury and Graham Manson are quoted as saying, that I may have suggested this as a joke. However, after speaking with Jolly and Graham it must be made clear that they have been miss-quoted.

4. I found yesterday exhausting, as I had made it clear to the tabloids exactly what the position was. However, I find that in today’s papers have reported that a conversation had taken place with fact or evidence to support this.

5. Late last night and early this morning I was approached by a 3rd party offering me £10,000 from the Sun Newspaper to lie and admit that the kidnapping plot was a Matt O’Conner idea and that he had asked me to look into it for the group.

6. I would like to thank Matt O’Conner for everything he has done for us and suggest that he should be included in the next honours list.

7. I did meet with Police Officers in Epsom on the 27th of December 2005. However, I find it particularly strange that if I did in fact suggest or take part in any kidnap plot on the 18th last, the police have not ever questioned me about this. In fact when I telephoned the Police Officer who spoke to me on the 27th last, about the Sun Newspaper article, and asked him directly who was involved he could not give me any information.

8. I am of the opinion that the entire saga is a complete fabrication by someone in power and ask most loudly that proof or evidence should be made available for public scrutiny.

9. As I am not a politician and have no experience with such matters all I can say is the only Party to benefit from this saga would be the Labour Party, by taking the heat of Ruth Kelly and off the front page of the newspapers.

Regards,
Martin Matthews

Fathers 4 Justice Canada Denounces Kidnapping Talk

The media worldwide have been reporting that Security officials in the United Kingdom have reported discussions by “persons on the fringe of Fathers-4-Justice” in which the kidnapping of the son of British Prime Minister Tony BLAIR was the topic of the discussion. The reports we have seen indicate that this apparent discussion was merely “pub talk” and that no planning or actions taken to further this idea.

Fathers-4-Justice (Canada) in conjunction with Fathers-4-Justice organizations worldwide vehemently denounces even the thought that anyone would use a child as a tool for personal or political purposes.

The very existence of Fathers-4-Justice (Canada) and other like organizations worldwide is founded on the very principle of preventing the use of children as tools in any dispute or disagreement, whether by particular individuals, organizations or in fact state entities.

It is our belief that the existence of Fathers-4-Justice worldwide has created some hope for parents that the future holds some promise that the treatment of children as pawns in family disputes will soon be a footnote in history. We believe that it is in fact the existence of Fathers-4-Justice will give some desperate people hope and thus prevent the type of talk and or actions outlined in these reports.

Fathers-4-Justice (Canada) will take every action possible to ensure that no child is unnecessarily taken from his or her parents. We sincerely regret that the name of our organizations has been used in this unfortunate incident. We regret that any parents, including the parents of young Leo, would be subjected to the fear that their child might be taken from them.

Contact: Hal LEGERE
National Director
Fathers-4-Justice (Canada)

(778) 837-1224

Fathers-4-Justice (Canada) is a non-violent direct action organization committed to the establishment of a fair and balanced family rebuilding system based on equality for all, the true rule of law, and the obvious premise that in the vast majority of cases children should never have a parent removed from them by state action.

Double-standard treatment for child abusers

by Carey Roberts

Heather Thomas of Fairfax, VA was arrested last week in the shaking death of her 6-day-old granddaughter. On Christmas Day Valerie Kennedy held her son in a tub of scalding water as punishment, causing his death. A few days later Genevieve Silva was arrested in Oklahoma on child rape charges for luring a high school student to run away from home.

Chances are you didn't read about these incidents in your local newspaper. Because when a man commits abuse, it seems the story is splashed all over the front page. But when the perpetrator is a member of the fairer sex, the story is relegated to the bottom of the Police Report on page C9.

Each year the federal Administration for Children and Families surveys child protective service (CPS) agencies around the country to spot the latest trends in child abuse. And according to the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System, women are the most common abusers of children.

In 2003, females, usually mothers, represented 58% of perpetrators of child abuse and neglect, with men composing the remaining cases. In that same year an estimated 1,500 children died of abuse or neglect. In 31% of those cases, the perpetrator was the mother acting alone, compared to 18% of fathers acting alone.

Then there's the scandal of Dumpster babies. In 1998, 105 newborn infants were discovered abandoned in public places. One-third of those babies were found dead.

In a civilized society that makes adoption services widely-available, that practice should have been condemned as unconscionable and wrong. But instead of prosecuting the abandoners, we accommodated to the societal imperative to provide choices to women no matter the moral consequences. So we passed laws to establish "safe havens."

Under New York law, mothers can now anonymously drop off their infants up to five days old. But if she later has second thoughts, not to worry. She can come back and reclaim the child up to 15 months later.

That satisfaction-guaranteed-or-your-money-back offer might work at a Macy's handbag sale, but that's not how a moral society treats its most vulnerable members.

Patricia Pearson has written a blockbuster book called, When She Was Bad: Violent Women and the Myth of Innocence. Pearson documents repeated examples of violent women who draw their Get-Out-of-Jail-Free card by claiming PMS, battered woman's syndrome, or postpartum depression.

Remember Andrea Yates who admitted to drowning her five boys in a bathtub? Of course the National Organization for Women rushed to her defense, claiming that postpartum blues justified the serial murder. And two weeks ago Texas 1st Court of Appeals ruled that her conviction should be reversed.

Then there's the problem of women, usually female teachers, who seduce and deflower teenage boys. Look how the media sanitizes the issue. Reporters trivialize the incident using clinical phrases such as "sexual contact," or worse envelope the story in a snickering "didn't-he-get-lucky" tone.

I once knew a teenage boy who was raped by his older sister's girlfriend during a holiday visit to his parent's home. Ten years later, he was still devastated by the incident. Of course he never reported the assault, no one would have taken him seriously.

When these cases go to trial, the double standard persists. As CNN's Nancy Grace plaintively asks, "Why is it when a man rapes a little girl, he goes to jail, but when a woman rapes a boy, she had a breakdown?"

And shame on reporters who use limp clichés to excuse the inexcusable. Like the story about a New Orleans mom who stuffed her 3-month-old son in the clothes dryer and hit the On button. This was the feeble explanation that the Times-Picayune offered in its December 8 edition: "Murder Suspect 'Was Trying her Best.'" [www.nola.com/news/t-p/metro/index.ssf?/base/news-12/1134027521231650.xml]

That condescending headline brings to mind the Solomonic words of columnist Kathryn Jean Lopez: "There are mental-health issues in many of these cases, obviously, but regardless, a society can and must say loud and clear: 'That's wrong. That's evil. That can never happen again.'" [www.nationalreview.com/lopez/lopez200510170830.asp]

To which I say, "Amen."

In radio talk shows and internet bulletin boards around the nation, Americans' ire has reached the boiling point over female child abusers who are treated with reverential deference by the media and our legal system.

As long as we tolerate this gender double-standard, the problem will fester and grow. And our children will continue to be at risk.

Carey Roberts is an analyst and commentator on political correctness. His best-known work was an exposé on Marxism and radical feminism.

Mr. Roberts' work has been cited on the Rush Limbaugh show. Besides serving as a regular contributor to RenewAmerica.us, he has published in The Washington Times, LewRockwell.com, ifeminists.net, Men's News Daily, eco.freedom.org, The Federal Observer, Opinion Editorials, and The Right Report.

Previously, he served on active duty in the Army, was a professor of psychology, and was a citizen-lobbyist in the US Congress. In his spare time he admires Norman Rockwell paintings, collects antiques, and is an avid soccer fan. He now works as an independent researcher and consultant.

Carey Roberts

Carey Roberts is a researcher and consultant who tracks gender bias in the mainstream media.

After Innocence, the Machinery that Manufactures Wrongful Convictions Still Operates

by Ray Blumhorst

This past weekend in Los Angeles, a friend and I went to see the debut of a new movie entitled, After Innocence.

I estimate there were between 100 and 150 people in the audience. It would hardly be fair to say the event was a movie debut, without pointing out that the movie debut also appeared to be an event actively showcasing the cause of the wrongly convicted. The movie, in my opinion, was excellent and showed the lives of a number of men who had been wrongly convicted of crimes, most involving charges of rape. The men talked about:

# their lives before their convictions,

# what circumstances led to their convictions,

# what their lives were like in jail,

# their struggle to be freed by DNA evidence,

# what their lives were like after exoneration.

Many of the exonerated were struggling to receive compensation for their unjust treatment, and most were struggling to pick up the pieces of their l! ives after being devastated by the inhumanity of America’s legal system. The callousness of the system appeared frequently, while apologies for errors were few and far between. It was difficult to sit through the movie without feeling anger toward the cruelty and injustice our legal system created in these men’s lives. It was apparent from the reactions of others in the audience I was not alone in those feelings.

The movie was edited so that it also included the struggles of Barry Scheck, Peter Neufeld and others in the Innocence Project as they worked to free the wrongly convicted. Here is the official web site of the Innocence Project. At one point in the movie a volunteer showed bundle after bundle of letters (from prisoners), in filing cabinets that staff had not even had the resources to open yet. It was an a! ppalling site, considering the perilous existence of some DNA evidence in “official” storage.

After the movie, the writer/director Jessica Sanders conducted a Q & A with the audience. Along with her, were about half a dozen of the wrongly convicted men, some of whom were in the movie. An attorney who had assisted in the project was also on stage. In response to an audience question, the attorney’s stated it was his guess that between 1% and 5% of the current prison population was wrongly convicted. He went on to say, “That doesn’t sound like much, but given that our present prison population is 2,000,000, that works out to between 20,000 and 100,000 human beings. Although it was never mentioned in the Q & A, or the movie, 93% of those incarcerated are male.

On the way out of the theatre, we ! passed by tables that sold baseball caps, t-shirts, books, and CD’s. The book that was on sale was entitled Surviving Justice, and is also available through Amazon.com.

The profits of the sales, we were told, went to support the work of The Innocence Project and other efforts that restore the lives of the wrongly convicted. I bought a baseball cap and a book and picked up extra fliers off the table. The fliers had info about how to request After Innocence for showings to civic groups and other venues. Here is the relevant excerpt from that flier:

“Educate: Bring this film to a theatre or other venue near you by contacting New Yorker Films:”

rebeca.conget@newyorkerfilms.com

I paused momentarily at one of the tables, while my friend asked questions. In several subsequent discussions with audience members, and people at tables, I mentioned that I was a member of the National Coalition of Free Men Los Angeles, and that “We encounter a lot of men who are “falsely accused.” “You know,” I said, “the preliminary step leading to wrongful convictions.”

In the lobby, my friend asked one of the attorneys in the group what culpability the government had for those wrongly convicted. He was told, "Unless it can be shown that the government was malicious, there is none." Perhaps the government hasn’t learned yet that the American public is very angry about all the "witch hunting" of innocent men going on, but there is a growing effort underway to "educate" them of that fact.

I highly recommend the movie After Innocence for one and all. The stories of wrongly convicted men, who have regained their freedom, is a heroic effort worth knowing. The stories of wrongly convicted men, struggling to regain the shattered pieces of their lives, is an American tragedy worthy of every citizen’s help and support to make right.

Ray Blumhorst is member of the National Coalition of Free Men. He is retired, after working almost 31 years in California public schools. In addition to his day job, he worked for 8 years as a part time teacher in California public schools in the evenings. Ray is a Vietnam Vet. Ray is currently a litigant in a lawsuit against the State of California and the County of Los Angeles, regarding areas in which domestic violence laws discriminate against males.

Burying the Good Behind Hypocrisy

by George Rolph

London - As moving as it was to watch as the police honoured their dead police woman, I could not help thinking as I watched it and felt deeply for those who had lost a friend, work mate and member of the family, of the absence of such honour for the dead Brazilian man who was shot dead in an act of total savagery for the crime of running for a train. No army of uniformed officials lined the streets and no flock of uniformed officials queued up to speak words of great emotion and comfort. In fact, there was no one but a poor Brazilian family and a large group of the dead man's close friends to hold his memorial and to remember with affection, a life so brutally cut short. Yet, in both cases, innocent people had been brutally and pointlessly murdered. Yes! I said, murdered!

Another distinct difference between the two tragic events were the official reactions to the two deaths. For the Brazilian man, there was an endless stream of justifications, excuses and apologies. For the police woman, there was an endless stream of fury, and promises to hunt down her killers. The police, as usual, look after their own in more ways than one. When the killers of the innocent wear a police uniform, they are excused and painted as the real victims. When one of their own is gunned down, all the stops are pulled out in the search for the brutal gun toting lunatics.

What deeply worries many people is that the police want more power to do more of the same! People are right to be worried. Only a nut case or someone shallow enough to be a journalist called Richard or Judy and run a bad TV show, would not be.

There was a time in Britain when law and order were respected because the police were respected. Over the years since the rot began in the 1960's, the corruption of values in society has become enmeshed with the corruption of values in politicians and the police force. The difference, of course, is that the police are paid professionals called to have higher standards than the society they patrol and watch over. The same is true of grubby politicians grabbing for power and money and pretending not to be as infected by narcissism as badly as any African dictator because they are more skillful at hiding it.

Judges are another bunch of camouflaged hypocrites who do whatever they are told but protest constantly that they are independent.

Yeah right!

Tell that to the 80% of Legal Week’s survey respondents who, at the time of the Hutton report, branded it as a whitewash. A tissue of clever lies designed to distract from further awkward questions over the mysterious death of government scientist, Dr David Kelly.

The symptoms of what is wrong with the country are screaming at us wherever we look, yet all around, normally intelligent people are deliberately closing their eyes to the truth. They are like Jewish prisoners holding on to insane optimism in the face of the gates of Auchwitz and muttering, "Well, it could be worse."

Journalists, academics, stupid brainless celebrities -- only famous because they can smile and laugh a lot at childish jokes -- TV presenters and bimbo news readers, all chant the same repetitive mantra, "We have got to remain positive." They resemble a herd (or whatever the collective noun is) of laughing, happy, lemmings. All headed for the cliff edge, but all determined to die pointless deaths for the sake of being "happy." No doubt they will still be singing, "Things, can only get better," as their stupid bodies are smashed to bits on the rocks of reality below.

The thugs we should all wake up too are not just the gun wielding psychopaths on the streets, in or out of a police uniform. We need to wake to the thugs who wear expensive suits and dresses, talk politics all day, and frequent the halls of Westminster, the BBC and chief constables offices. The disguised loony is more dangerous than the blatant loony on the street corner.

Who is it that is supposed to watch and keep in check the dangerous ones in power? It is the press, of course. However, the run-of-the-mill average press hack is now so thoroughly indoctrinated with all things "positive," most of them have lead the lemmings in the chase for the cliff edge.

With more and more newspapers in fewer and fewer hands, the truth has been shelved in favour of personal political friendships that the likes of creepy Rupert Murdoch enjoy. By sucking up to politicians, the Murdoch's of this world can rule whole countries by proxy. The politicians love it, because by doing what old 'Rupy' wants, they get his backing, in his papers, at their elections.

What do the people get out of this? Well they get an uncritical press pack, most of whom are busy sucking on Tony Blair's political penis and who are so besotted they are, it seems (like all who are in love) blind to lies and slick cover-ups. They also get to watch Hutton cover up murder and have to listen to complete idiots like gyno-feminist Yasmin Alibhai-Brown acting like an attack dog on anyone who disagrees with, or tries to open a debate about, the lunacy of political correctness on any terms that are not hers. Talking, in other words, a constant vaginal monologue. The public also get government ministers and chief police officers screaming about youths carrying knives while they turn a blind eye to this piece of disgusting, hate-mongering.

In short, the power has gone to the nutters and the sane are forced to watch them running the asylum. The wierdest thing about all of this is, the loonies are busy accusing everyone who disagrees with their madness of being paranoid! Thus we have the amazing situation where those among us who think Dr David Kelly's death was more than a little suspicious are called paranoid and that includes 80% of the subscribers to an in-house legal publication read by some of the brightest minds in the country! The words, pot, kettle and black spring to mind.

Today we find that Education Secretary Ruth Kelly has allowed up to ten known paedophiles to go to work in Britain's schools. Now, you can call me a paranoid old cynic, but I have to wonder if the idea behind that little piece of political genius was to discredit the male teaching profession at the first sniff of kiddy fiddling. Who knows? But knowing the bunch of feminist man-hating crazies currently running this country, nothing would suprise me.

Until sanity returns to our officials, our press and our TV companies, there will be more deaths of innocents, more corruption and more loonies spouting total rubbish in our papers in a vain attempt to fool all of the people all of the time.

Give your support to the family and friends of Jean Charles de Menezes here: http://www.justice4jean.com/

Women Who Make Things Worse For Other Women

by Carey Roberts

Who is harmed more by the radical feminist creed: men or women? I have long believed that men are more victimized. But after reading Kate O’Beirne’s recent book, Women Who Make the World Worse, I’m beginning to reconsider.

As editor of National Review Online, O’Beirne showcases her formidable research and writing skills in exposing how the feminist movement has polarized relations between the sexes and made life worse for most American women.

In my town, billboards feature a newly-engaged woman showing off her sparkling diamond ring, nearly shouting the words, “Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes, YES!” Despite the fact that married women are healthier, happier, and more economically-secure than their single sisters, feminists are hell-bent on obliterating this bedrock institution.

Feminists want you to believe that the urge to conceive and nurture children is a patriarchal construction. Can you guess who came up with this gem? “Motherly love ain’t everything it has been cracked up to be. To some extent it’s a myth that men have created to make women think that they do this job to perfection.”

Yep, that comes to us by way Ruth Bader Ginsburg, member of the U.S. Supreme Court.

And shame on all those stay-at-home moms who are shirking their civic responsibility to “contribute as professionals and community activists,” according to University of Texas professor Gretchen Ritter. Worse, “Full-time mothering is also bad for children.” Why? Ritter explains, “It teaches them that the world is divided by gender.”

Child psychologist Sandra Scarr takes the argument farther, claiming a child’s desire to be with his mother is actually a psychiatric disorder. Scarr calls it EMA Syndrome – exclusive maternal attachment syndrome.

Ms. O’Beirne takes on the notion that women should delay childbearing until after their careers are established. She cites research that among women earning more than $100,000, nearly half -- 49% -- are childless.

So much for having it all.

But feminists are not satisfied to merely lay a guilt trip on women who are contemplating marriage, motherhood, and child-rearing. They patronize and insult the intelligence of women by making the most ludicrous of claims.

Like the old chestnut about the gender wage gap. Feminists go around cherry-picking wage statistics and then claim that society undervalues women’s work.

O’Beirne shows little patience for such loopy logic. “They sell women short. They hold that women aren’t smart enough and tough enough to flourish when given an equal chance to compete with men,” O’Beirne thunders.

Then there’s the bogus statistic that men commit 95% of all domestic violence. As a result, former women’s studies professor Daphne Patai notes that “years of exposure to feminist-promoted scare statistics have succeeded in imbuing many young women with a foreboding sense of living under the constant threat of predatory men.”

And that’s promoting female self-empowerment?

There’s retired Air Force brigadier general Wilma Vaught who argued for moving women into direct combat: “There’s been an acceptance of the fact that women…are in harms way and they are being killed.”� The families of the nearly 40 female soldiers killed in Iraq no doubt would find those words consoling.

The NRO editor goes on to quote this nihilistic statement by representative Maxine Waters (D-CA) at last year’s March for Women’s Lives: “I have to march because my mother could not have an abortion.” And Ms. Waters is supposed to be a role model for smart, ambitious women?

And sometimes rad-fems come across as vindictive shrews. A female dean at Vassar College who had this say about men falsely accused of rape: “They have of a lot of pain, but it is not a pain that I would necessarily have spared them. I think it ideally initiates a process of self-exploration.”

So after 30-plus years of liberation feminista-style, are American women better off? O’Beirne has serious doubts.

Now, thanks to the Sisterhood’s mantra that men are redundant, many of the nation’s most eligible bachelors – 22%, to be exact – have turned their back on marriage, leaving millions of women desperate to find a good man who’s willing to commit.

As a result of affirmative action programs, professional women have been put under suspicion that they owe their position to something other than merit.

And the very fabric of maternal virtue has been indelibly stained by the feminist message that “the only thing a woman can do with a child is abort.”

Throughout her 200-page expos�, Kate O’Beirne shows how feminists have used deception, manipulation, intimidation, and old-fashioned propaganda to victimize men and women alike.

Women Who Make the World Worse – it’s the gutsy and shocking must-read of the politically incorrect for 2006.

Carey Roberts

Carey Roberts is a researcher and consultant who tracks gender bias in the mainstream media.

Comic Relief from the World Health Organization

by Carey Roberts

Feeling a little bored, maybe suffering from after-the-holiday blues? The World Health Organization never fails to provide a moment of levity in our otherwise hum-drum lives.

Take the AIDS epidemic. After all these years of seeing the epidemic spread unchecked, I’m beginning to wonder if the world health body views AIDS as its stealth population control strategy.

If that statement seems a bit harsh, consider the WHO’s “safe sex” campaign which pushes this Russian-roulette message: “Go ahead and enjoy no-fault sex with multiple partners, just so long as you use a condom.” As we know, condoms fail 15% of the time.

And if you want a real belly laugh, check out the WHO Sex Work Toolkit, designed to make prostitutes feel good about themselves as they service their AIDS-infected clientele. Just in case you were worried, the Toolkit comes with this disclaimer: “In no event shall the World Health Organization be liable for damages arising from its use.”

Then there’s the malaria epidemic that claims the lives of millions each year. Spraying tiny amounts of DDT on the walls of houses is highly effective in killing malaria-infected mosquitoes. But the WHO won’t allow household spraying because – you guessed it -- that might offend the environmentalists.

And last July the WHO added two abortion-inducing drugs – RU-486 and Mifrepex – to its list of “essential medicines.” At least WHO won’t have to worry about providing so many vaccines and vitamin pills to little kids.

Here’s the most recent laugh-getter from the World Health Organization. Can you imagine the world body doing a study that cherry-picks its participants and relies on flawed methods in order to reach a pre-determined conclusion?

That’s exactly what the WHO did with its recent “Multi-Country Study on Women’s Health and Domestic Violence Against Women.”

Every study I’ve seen shows that domestic violence is an equal opportunity problem. Professor Murray Straus of the University of New Hampshire interviewed over 8,000 men and women in 16 countries around the world. He found high rates of assault “perpetrated by both male and female students.”

And recent reports from Canada and Australia likewise reveal that women are equally likely to assault their male partners.

But that rendition of gender equality didn’t sit too well with the lavender ladies at WHO’s department of Gender, Women, and Health. They solved that problem by designing a study that – you guessed right again – only interviewed females.

Then the WHO asked radical feminist organizations around the world to conduct the surveys. That’s like doing a study on persons’ opinions about wearing animal fur, and letting PETA run the show.

Since the interviewers knew nothing about how to do surveys, they were put through a 3-week indoctrination – er, training – program. The training was based on a manual called “Researching Violence Against Women”, which, not surprisingly, had very little to say about domestic violence against men.

Of course they ensured the survey not ask any questions whether the woman had ever injured her husband or boyfriend – that might get a little embarrassing. To top it off, they did a little definitional hocus-pocus, absurdly claiming that “abuse” is the same as “violence.

To no one’s great surprise, the survey found that there’s plenty domestic violence around the world, and of course it’s those brutish men who are at fault. Predictably the WHO apparatchiks blamed it on the all-powerful patriarchy: “Violence against women is both a consequence and a cause of gender inequality,” laments the report.

Then they got the boss to give a headline-grabbing endorsement. “This study shows that women are more at risk from violence at home than in the street and this has serious repercussions for women’s health,” according to WHO director Lee Jong-wook.

Of course Dr. Jong-wook never mentioned that men are twice as likely as women to die from violence-related causes. That fact didn’t quite fit into the punch-line.

As if that wasn’t enough, the WHO had the arrogance and chutzpah to bill the fraudulent survey as a “landmark study.”

It may be true that laughter is the best medicine, but this time the joke’s on us -- the U.S. taxpayer.

In order to support this misguided comedy routine, each year the United States sends the WHO $95 million for assessed dues, and another $45 million for so-called “extra-budgetary” contributions. That money is funneled through the Office for Global Health Affairs in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Eventually your hard-earned money winds up in the Swiss bank account of a UN bureaucracy that lacks fairness, accountability, or intellectual honesty.

Carey Roberts

Carey Roberts is a researcher and consultant who tracks gender bias in the mainstream media.

In Memoriam

by Richard L. Davis

In my end is my beginning. - Mary Stuart

Each year the Boston Globe lists the names of those who have died that year as a result of domestic violence. Why the Globe does not recognize those who die at their own hands are also victims of domestic violence is telling. Why are those lives lost, omitted from the final count? In 2005 the editorial staff begins the In Memoriam column by asking the following:

THE STORIES OF DEATHS caused by domestic violence [italics added] are always chilling. And they always drive home a single question: How could these fatal attacks have been prevented.

If Rosenfeld ignores the important role of homicide/suicides, as the Globe, Jane Doe and Peace at Home do, she will have allowed the ideological beliefs of these organizations to blind her to this tragic reality that must be explored. Each year homicide/suicides account for approximately one quarter to one third of the domestic violence homicides. The deaths of those who murder and then take their own lives are tragedies to those who love them.

The Jane Doe website documents that 1 in 5 female high school students report being physically and/or sexually abused by a dating partner. Jane Doe ignores the victimization of male high school students.

Jane Doe acknowledges the victimization of women while ignore the victimization of men. This Jane Doe Inc. ideological feminist position is a part of the problem. Ideological feminist are people who are more concerned with women’s rights than victim or civil rights

Rosenfeld also needs to look first at the gender agenda of Jane Doe Inc. Jane Doe Inc. is not been part of the solution for all victims. Just one small example is how Jane Doe expresses concerns about our daughters and ignores our sons. .

The majority of the members of Jane Doe Inc., similar to the majority of domestic violence agencies nationwide, believe that domestic violence is caused by sexism and the oppression of women by men. Jane Doe Inc. proffers that women are the passive victims of domestic violence and aggressive men are their offenders.

On December 19, 2005 the Boston Globe editorial staff column explored the results of a recent Harvard School of Public Health survey of 1,079 Boston students in grades 9-12. This study clearly documents that both boys and girls demonstrate aggressive and assaultive behavior against their peers. The Harvard study documents something else that Jane Doe Inc. perhaps would not acknowledge, both boys and girls are candidates for post-traumatic stress disorders.

Jane Doe Inc. and the National Domestic Violence Hotline (NDVH) [http://www.ndvh.org/] have, because of their ideological feminism, chosen to ignore reams of empirical studies and data, similar to the one above, that document girls can be just as coercive, assertive and aggressive as boys in a particular context and under certain circumstances. The Jane Doe Inc. websites clearly document their belief that male victimization and female offending are so rare that they need not waste their time exploring those issues.

A visit to either the Jane Doe Inc. or NDVH websites clearly documents they are far more concerned with the victimization of girls/women than they are boys/men. The vast majority of domestic agencies, as their websites document, agree with the philosophy of Jane Doe Inc.

''Men are sometimes victims of domestic violence,'' said Nancy Scannell, legislative director of Jane Doe Inc., a Massachusetts-based domestic violence coalition. ''But the attempt to be inclusive [of male victims] should never be interpreted to mean that the issue is gender-neutral. It does not change our mind about why [domestic violence] happens. It happens because of sexism and power and control of men over women in our society.''

Reality Ignored Once Again

In the year 2005 the Globe reports that there were 14 domestic violence deaths in Massachusetts, 8 women and 6 men. The reality is that 8 women and 10 men are now dead and the issue of domestic violence clearly, to the unbiased observer, presents and plays an important role in all those deaths.

Maria Hartogensis was murdered by her husband Richard. Her body was found in the woods wrapped in a tarp and a blanket. The police found Richard at home wearing blood-stained clothes.

Neil Olsen was short by his step son. Police also arrested Neil Olsen’s wife claiming that she had cajoled her son into killing Neil.

Ryan Curtis was allegedly shot to death by his partner, Stephen CampoBasso. CampoBasso then killed himself.

Andrea Harvey was strangled by her husband Damion Linton. Linton fled Massachusetts and was arrested by police in North Carolina.

Sylvie Desilets was shot to death by her husband Ajit Chordia. Chordia then committed suicide.

Janice Giovanelli Ruth was murdered by her husband Carl. He was found and arrested while at the Worchester Public Library.

Rocky Ham was murdered by his 16-year-old girlfriend who was pregnant with their child.

Lawrence Godin was murdered by Fernando Ribeiro. Godin and Ribeiro had been living together for a decade. There was a history of violent behavior between them.

Amy Vilkisius Correa and Chelsea Vilkisius were murdered by Correa’s husband Jose Correa.

Wendy Cox was allegedly suffocated by her boyfriend. Notified by a worried friend police responded to the home to find John MacKenzie sitting on a couch next to Cox’s body.

Myron Crapps was stabbed to death by his girlfriend Dawn Wheeler.

Zinaida Girdauskiene was shot to death by her husband Roaldas Baran. Baran then committed suicide.

Frederick Keough was allegedly shot to death by his girlfriend’s estranged husband Armando Pereira. Pereira then committed suicide.

This list, as it does each year, tragically documents that the complexities of domestic violence are far more complex than sexism and men oppressing women. How is it possible that the Globe, Jane Doe, Inc., and Peace at Home can not see, or worse still, year after year choose to ignore this heartbreaking reality?

The Lesson Ignored

It is hoped that Rosenfeld will very quickly recognize what the Globe, Jane Doe Inc., and Peace at Home have ignored for all these years of tracking domestic violence deaths. It should be obvious to any unbiased observer that the majority of these deaths are not simply or exclusively the result of sexism and power and control of men over women in our society.

An unbiased observer of domestic violence recognizes that the majority of domestic violence incidents regardless of severity are often multi-faceted and complex events. Hundreds of domestic violence studies clearly document that there is no single cause or cure. Unfortunately for the past and future victims of domestic violence in Massachusetts, the Globe, Jane Doe Inc., and Peace at Home are not unbiased organizations.

If society is to be convinced of the reality of domestic violence the contemporary “gender agenda” must be set aside and the truth be told. The Globe is just as guilty as Jane Doe Inc., and Peace at Home by continuing to misrepresent the enigma that is domestic violence. In the 2005 In Memoriam column Mary Lauby, the executive director of Jane Doe, envisions:

…a system of equal access to high-quality services in every part of the state. She would like to see a culture that protects people through awareness and, most of all, prevention. But achieving this will require financial stability and growth, as well as more attention to the grueling demands placed on staffers who spend their days responding to horrific cases of violence.

The day of “equal access” will not come until the Globe, Jane Doe Inc., and Peace at Home recognize that domestic violence is not caused by sexism and power and control of men over women in our society. The day of “equal access” will not come until domestic violence organizations, similar to the one Lauby leads, end minimizing, marginalizing, and ignoring the victimization of boys and men.

How does Lauby expect that are our sons will have “equal excess” if these organizations continue to paint them either invisible or the source of the problem? That day of “equal access” is delayed each time the reality of female offending and male victimization is ignored by these organizations. This setting aside of reality harms all victims, both male and female.

The vast majority of unbiased scholar, professionals and researchers understand that there are many complex factors that have been discovered and others yet to be discovered that contribute to domestic violence. Ideological organizations that continue to claim they have discovered the single correct answer – see above – hinder progress more than they help.

Their ideological feminist beliefs do not allow Jane Doe Inc., Peace at Home, and the Globe to understand that we do not have “a culture that protects people through awareness” because of their insistence on not becoming aware of the truth that lies in these yearly In Memoriam columns.

For the sake of all girls, women, boys and men let us hope that Rosenfeld can convince these organizations that they need to become the “human rights” agencies they claim to be rather than continuing to be “women’s rights” organizations. And once again, if you do not believe they are far more concerned with “women’s rights” than “human rights” you simply need to visit their websites.

As the Globe, Jane Doe Inc., and Peace at Home reveal each year, without the ability to understand it, lives depend on recognizing both the individuality and differences of these horrific events.

It is painfully obvious that the reasons for these deaths are far more complex than “the patriarchy makes them do it” theory that the vast majority of domestic violence organizations continue to proffer. Lives depend on Rosenfeld playing an important role in producing a new beginning of the exploration for the cause and consequences of domestic violence.

Domestic violence organizations must begin to provide more than simple “lip service,” concerning male victimization and they must begin to provide real “equal concern” for all victims regardless of age, gender, or sexual orientation. While these organizations claim they are unbiased, their philosophic beliefs and their websites paint a far different reality.

And perhaps if Rosenfeld studies homicide/suicides and analyzes their long-term trends, rather than ignore them as does the Globe, Jane Doe Inc., and Peace at Home, some violence might be prevented and some lives might be saved.

Richard L. Davis

Richard L. Davis is the author of Domestic Violence: Facts and Fallacies and the VP of www.Familynonviolence.org