Complaints are currently being filed against the owners and operators of the internet website known as allaboutcounseling.com

These events began as an almost routine story about a mental health advocacy website spreading disinformation about domestic violence that demonizes men, denies male victims and shields female perpetrators.

And while the disinformation is there in abundance, more digging behind the scenes at allaboutcounseling.com revealed what appears to be gross professional misconduct and an ongoing scheme involving psychological extortion, abuse and depraved indifference. Multiple sources have alleged that the site management is preying on and manipulating site users for cash with the finesse and brio reminiscent of a corrupt televangelist operation.

And they are reportedly heaping a plethora of emotional abuses and threats on site users who speak up against it.

All of this is being conducted under the auspices of mental health advocacy; with the professional blessings (and under the state license number) of a clinical psychologist.

The details of this story have the expected intricacies and complications of most scandals, especially with the efforts that the alleged perpetrators have made to disconnect their names from their actions. But the scam runs something like this:

Allaboutcounseling.com runs a members only on-line forum in which individuals are invited to join and participate for the benefit of “Confronting fears, honest feedback and active growth through the use and benefits of anonymity and healthy communication.”

Users are made to believe that there interactions there are completely anonymous and conducted in an environment where it is safe to be openly vulnerable and to disclose intimate details of problems in their lives.

For some this seems to be the case.

But many former site users are saying that frequently what happens there is markedly different. In fact, after a month long study of the site and several interviews with former ACC members, the reports have enough consistency to raise eyebrows.

In what appears to be a systematic pattern of significant abuses, the site management presents professional psychological qualifications, induces users to rely on the forum as a source of peer and arguably professional support, but subsequently acts toward many of the members with the following:

• Banning users without notice, reason and without a referral to other help.
• Redirecting banned users to pornography websites when they attempt to log on.
• Tacit email threats to expose users identities publicly for dissenting from site management
• Site management “diagnosing” members with personality disorders as a reaction to dissent.
• Regularly threatening members who depend on the site forum to close it unless money is donated.
• Encouraging the abuse of most male members and abusively targeting female members who had congenial communications with males.
• Fomenting conflict between forum members and encouraging some individuals to abuse others.

In fact, as I studied reports of the abuses from some of the sites former members, the picture that clearly emerged was that of tactics used by cult leaders to control and manipulated their followers. Or, as one member, who requested anonymity, put it, “I felt that it was abusive because of the way {they} chummed vulnerable, trusting people who came to the site, and drew them in to a charmer/abuser codependency cult.”

This same member, after posting that she felt the instigated conflict helped the hit count of the site was reportedly told publicly by site management that she was “delusional, sick and paranoid.”

Another member, again speaking on the condition of anonymity, reported being banned from the site without notification and then being redirected to a pornography site when he attempted to log on.

Part of his reaction to this, taken from a statement which is available in the comments section at avoiceformen.com, was unsettling. “I had always respected the site coordinator,” he said, “but after she did this to me I was sad to say the least. I was hurt. I felt deeply betrayed, humiliated and abused.”

Another former member reported that she too was redirected to a pornography site after being banned from the forum.

And yet another member reported getting an email from site management that repeatedly demeaned her, and made multiple references to her location, number of children and her profession. This was interpreted as a veiled threat to reveal her identity or worse. And it is of particular concern because there are many members who have joined the allaboutcounseling.com forum for support when escaping abusive relationships in which they were or are being stalked.

Such a breech of confidence in those situations could have disastrous results.

On the surface, some of this behavior may appear part and parcel to the internet. There is a lot of flaming going on, and capricious site administration is hardly rare. It happens on a lot of websites. But this isn’t just a lot of websites. It is a site that proffers, with professional credibility, to extend support to people at highly vulnerable moments in their lives. Indeed, it beckons them to participate throughout most pages on the site and assures them they are in a safe environment.

These actions not only reflect a moral deficit, but are likely in violation of the State of Ohio’s rules and regulations governing professional counselors, the American Psychological Associations Code of Conduct, and various other state laws. This is especially true as site management presents professional credentials, accepts money and has no disclaimer regarding participation in the forums.

“Site management” is most likely better identified as Heidi Raynor, M.Ed., who in her bio claims to be an experienced counselor with two years of individual counseling experience, but lists no license information or professional references.

She also apparently doubles in the site forum as “Site Coordinator or “SC” as users refer to her. Raynor herself never openly makes the admission that she is SC, but in several posts, SC claims ownership of the site and solicits for donations regularly. Those donations have to be made payable directly to Raynor and are to be mailed to 4227 W. 15^th, Cleveland, Ohio.

Raynor states in her solicitations that checks must be made out to her personally, and not to allaboutcounseling.com, leaving the speculation open to whether or not she is claiming the income when filing taxes.

Raynor is not acting alone. According to information provided on the site, the content on allaboutcounseling.com was authored by River Smith, Ph.D.. Further investigation revealed that Smith is an Ohio based clinical psychologist who practices under Ohio State license number 4658, at 11206 Clifton Blvd., Cleveland, Ohio tel. 216-651-1302

According to information received from a source at the State Board of Psychology of Ohio, Dr. Smith’s presence as one of the creators of that site, and the provision of his license number, inextricably ties him to the conduct and practices of it’s managers, whether that conduct comes directly from Dr. Smith or not.

And under those circumstances, that translates legally to the site and everyone who manages it being subject to all applicable statutes and codes of conduct for that profession.

Most of Smith’s role appears to be providing content related to mental health issues, making him the direct source of the misleading statistics and disinformation. But also by attaching his credentials to a site that is taking money, he puts his license on the line for any improprieties and ethical violations that transpire.

It also raises the significant question of whether the site is, in reality, an online psychology practice. Early information from the state of Ohio suggests that it is, though there will not be a final determination on this until complaints about the site have been investigated by officials in Ohio.

According to several of the former members of the site, Dr. Smith may be in direct violation of several statutes that govern the practice of psychology in that state. These include, but are not limited to the following:

• Failure to report sexual abuse of children to authorities (there were several posts by members that reported their children being abused)
• Failure to report physical abuse of children
• Failure to report suicide threats by members
• Children being allowed to log on and read detailed and sexually explicit accounts of other members lives.
• Domestic abuse reports ignored by site management
• Questionable solicitations for money
• Presentation of misleading information
• Proffering false counseling qualifications

Regarding the child molestations, according to a source at the Ohio State Board of Psychology, psychologists are mandated to report knowledge of child abuse to authorities and it makes no difference that the reports were received online, nor does it matter that the reports came from anonymous sources. Discovery of the sources is a police matter, not one for the psychologist to undertake or even be concerned with. Their mandate under state law is to report these incidents immediately.

There is no evidence that any reports with police were filed, meaning that a licensed psychologist and another individual claiming to be a professional counselor knew or should have known that children were being abused and did nothing– but ask for more money.

At the time this article goes live, at least two and perhaps more individuals are compiling complaints against allaboutcounseling.com which will be filed with The Ohio State Board of Psychology and The American Psychological Association. This summary and a copy of the complaints will also be forwarded to the Ohio State Attorney General’s Office for consideration.  Other former members have indicated they are considering complaints or other actions against the site’s ownership and management.

When I first brought this story to avoiceformen.com and mensnewsdaily.com, I also forwarded it to about two hundred psychotherapists that supported the site by listing their services there and by purchasing an enhanced presence in the site directory.

To their credit, several of those clinicians directed allaboutcounseling.com to remove their listings. Most did not, however, and did not respond to my emails. Their practice information is listed below.

Once the complaints with the named agencies and the State Attorney General have been filed, an update will be provided regarding this matter. And in the update, I will begin exploring how the practice of “feminist therapy” has naturally led to such abuses of ethics and hopefully what can be done to stop it.

I ask your pardon for the lengthy list of professionals included here, but it is necessary to the process to get the information disseminated through the internet.  This list is just a fraction of the counseling professionals that list their services on ACC.

Evelyn Goodman, Psy.D., MFT

12313 Havelock Avenue,

Culver City

310-391-3853

drevelyn@anxietyrecovery.com

http://www.anxietyrecovery.com/

No License FOund.

Dr. Aaron Berger

1821 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 411,

Culver city

No E-mail Found.

http://www.draaronberger.com/

Lic.# PSY21079

Sue Shepard MFT

2900 Bristol St., Suite G-201,

Costa Mesa

714-751-0888

No E-mail found.

http://therapybysue.com/

License #MFC37470

Help Talking

2900 Bristol A207,

Costa Mesa

714-969-9691

http://www.helptalking.com/contact/

http://www.helptalking.com

No License found.

Cheryl Chase

219 N. Indian Hill Suite 203,

Claremont

909-982-5095

No E-mail found

http://www.cherylchase.com/  (coming soon)

No License Found.

Rosanna Reyes Feet, MFT

2521 Windward Way

Chula Vista CA 91914

6196184529

rosannamft@gmail.com

http://www.rosannamft.org/

MFC 44002

Fall Creek Counseling Associates

5900 Coyle Avenue & 775 Sunrise Avenue,

Carmichael & Roseville (greater Sacramento)

916-344-0900

drdmoore@mac.com

http://www.sacramentopsychology.com/

No License Found.

Sara Darnley, Ph.D.

621 E. Campbell Ave., Suite 7,

Campbell

(408) 267-4702

No E-mail Found.

http://saradarnleyphd.com

PSY 15742

A Place To Grow

P. O. Box 1641,

Big Bear Lake

909-585-7228

info@aplacetogrow.com

http://www.aplacetogrow.com/medicinewheel.html

No License Found.

Personal Communication Solutions (Karen Wulfson, LMFT)

420 South Beverly Drive; Suite 100,

Beverly HIlls, CA

310 475-1759

karen@karenwulfson.com

http://www.karenwulfson.com/

No License Found.

Leslie Davis Therapy

9171 Wilshire Blvd. Penthouse 7,

Beverly Hills, CA

310-582-5890

info@lesliedavistherapy.com

http://lesliedavistherapy.com

No License Found.

Beverly Hills Family Counseling

204 S. Beverly Drive, #116,

Beverly Hills, CA

310-271-3784

BHCounseling@aol.com

http://www.shrinkg.com/

Jim Gordon, Ph.D, license M.F.T. #12651,

Nectar & Flame Consulting

3179 College Avenue, #4,

Berkeley, CA

510-277-0440

dr.amymarshsexologist@gmail.com

http://dramymarshsexologist.tripod.com/

No License Found

Laura Gardner

2025 Lincoln St.

Berkeley, CA

510-594-4300

http://www.holisticgardner.com/contact.html

http://www.holisticgardner.com/

No License Found.

Inner Child Healing

147 Alameda deLas Pulgas

Belmont, CA

415-337-9474

lila@innerchildhealing.com

http://www.innerchildhealing.com

No License Found.

Sandra M. Wolf, MFT

3855 E. La Palma

Anaheim, CA

714-747-6959

Sandy@SandyMWolf.com

http://www.sandymwolf.com/

#MFC43774

Cort Curtis, Ph.D.

28202 Cabot Road, Suite 253,

Laguna Niguel

877-372-8784

cortcurtis@achangeinthinking.com

http://www.achangeinthinking.com/

No license found.

Relationship Cafe

23161 Mill Creek Dr. #335,

Laguna Hills

(949)5536100

michelle@relationshipcafe.net

http://www.relationshipcafe.net

No License found.

Partnership For Growth

25283 Cabot Road Suite 107,

Laguna Hills

949-233-3362

beverly@lagunacounseling.com

http://www.lagunacounseling.com/

No License found.

Jondra Pennington, MS, MFT

78150 Calle Tampico Suite 207C,

La Quinta

760-777-9939

jondra@desertstreamscounseling.com

http://www.desertstreamscounseling.com/

License #: MFC36372

Cathy Roys Therapy MFT

8356 Allison Suite B2,

La Mesa

518-1323

Cathy@CathyRoysTherapy.com

http://www.cathyroyscounselor.com

Lic.#42762

Peter Lambrou, Ph.D.

9834 Genesee Ave. Suite 321,

La Jolla

858-457-3900

No E-mail found.  but: http://www.peterlambrou.com/contactus.php

http://www.peterlambrou.com

Clinical Psychologist, CA License #PSY14435

La Jolla Holistic Center

Address changed:

2870 Fourth Avenue. Suite #101

San Diego, California 92103

858-459-1273

Info@NancyDeAndrade.com

http://nancydeandrade.com

Nancy De Andrade, MA, Doctoral Candidate PSB #33475

Psychological Assistant to Deisy Boscán, Ph.D. PSY # 18873

Christian Soul Care

4000 Barranca Pkwy, Suite 250,

Irvine

949-262-3699

Same as Dr. Kristi Below

Dr. Kristi Gaultiere

4000 Barranca Parkway, Suite 250,

Irvine

949-262-3699

Kristi@ChristianSoulCare.com

http://www.christiansoulcare.com

#MFT29887

Amy Greenberg – MFT

1260 B Street Suite 240,

Hayward

925 989-9826

amy@enrichmentcounseling.com

http://www.enrichmentcounseling.com

(MFC 36752).

Cris Walker Roskelley, MFT

350 Bon Air Rd. Suite 140,

Greenbrae

415-289-2111

cris@MFTHandbook.com

http://www.mfthandbook.com

No License Found

Glendale Counseling Center

1521 W. Glenoaks Blvd. #2B,

Glendale

818-547-2865

mail@counselingfamily.net

http://counselingfamily.net

No License Found.

OCChristianCounseling.com

12792 Valley View Street, Suite 209,

Garden Grove

714-865-2164

No E-mail but: http://www.mcssl.com/app/contact.asp?id=151309&afid=&formid=&preview=

http://occhristiancounseling.com/

No License found – Multiple Staff

Dr. Heather M. Browne

9851 Bixby Ave.,

Garden Grove

714/334-4026

Dr.Heather@TheHealingHeart.net

http://www.thehealingheart.net/

LMFT #34523

Jodi Blackley, M.S., M.F.T.

711 E. Imperial Hwy.

Brea, CA 92821

(714) 212-1160

jodi@jodiblackley.com

http://www.jodiblackley.com/

Lic#: MFC41465

Lindsey Plumer, LMFT

13405 Folsom Blvd #220,

Folsom

916-952-7187

lsplumer@yahoo.com

http://www.lindseyplumer.com/

(MFC #43983)

Susanne M. Dillmann, Psy.D.

210 South Juniper St., Suite 213,

Escondido

760-743-7789

No E-mail but: http://www.drdillmann.com/contact_dr_dillmann

http://www.drdillmann.com/

PSY21969

Dr. Celina Marciano

5535 Balboa Blvd., Suite 217,

Encino

818-388-0102

info@healingcrossroads.com

http://www.healingcrossroads.com/

No License found.

Bill Martin, MFT

1337 Camino Del Mar,

Del Mar

858-755-2407

billm@counseling-connection.com

http://www.counseling-connection.com

No License Found

Dr. Gaye Wein Shepard

275 E. California Blvd.,

Pasadena

626-585-1618

gayewein@mac.com

http://www.shepardphd.com/

No License Found.

Jill Tan-Gatue, M.S., MFT

462 S. Marengo Ave.,

Pasadena

626-432-4022

ptan-gatue@juno.com

http://www.pasadenatherapytan-gatue.com/

Lic. #43059

Therapy Pasadena

1055 East Colorado Blvd.,

Pasadena

949 648 1109

klbechtol@sbcglobal.net

http://therapypasadena.com

License# 38689

Donald Wallach, Licensed Marriage & Family Therapist

7 Fourth Street #19,

Petaluma

707-583-2305

don@donwallach.com

http://www.donwallach.com/

No License Found.

Will Joel Friedman, Ph.D., Psychologist, A Prof. Corp.

275 Rose Avenue, Suite 212,

Pleasanton

(925) 600-9966

drwilljoel@comcast.net

http://www.willjoelfriedman.com/

PSY 10092

Bailey Counseling

8300 Utica Avenue, Third Floor,

Rancho Cucamonga 909/920-1814

cebaileyco@att.net

No WebSite Found

LCS 19539

Santa Margarita Solutions Center

22362 Gilberto, Suite 205,

Rancho Santa Margarita

949-589-5700

drjulieolson@cox.net

http://www.santamargaritasolutions.com/

#PSY14768

A Peaceful Way

Ave I,

Redondo Beach

310-540-6768

(310) 760-2244

kristin@apeacefulway.com

http://www.apeacefulway.com/

No License Found

Lynn Seely Counseling

115 N. Balsam suite E,

Ridgecrest

760-384-8037

lynn@lynnseelycounseling.com

http://www.lynnseelycounseling.com/

Business licence – City of Ridgecrest 07 00009219

Sylma Fine

555 Middlefield Road, Ste 102-C,

Palo Alto

650-838-9552

sylma@sylmafine.com

http://www.sylmafine.com/

License# MFC41633

Laurie J. Linscheid, MFT

555 Middlefield Rd,

Palo Alto

650-773-3131

laurie@family-therapist.com

http://www.family-therapist.com

No License Found.

Hoai-Thu Truong, Ph.D.

366 S. California Avenue  Suite 6

Palo Alto, CA 94306

650.361.0356

contact@drhttruong.com

http://www.paloaltocounseling.com/

No License Found

Ernest Schmidt Therapy

407 Sherman Ave,

Palo Alto

650-384-0342

No E-mail but http://www.paloaltotherapy.com/contact/

http://www.paloaltotherapy.com/

No License Found.

Pauline Wakeham, LCSW

6239 College Ave.,#303,

Oakland

510-377-1082

peacefulresolution@gmail.com

http://www.eastbaycounselor.com/

CA license: LCS #19528

Kristen Platt, PsyD, LMFT

1151 Dove Street, Ste. 200,

Newport Beach

949 422-5334

DrPlatt@OrangeCountyTherapy.org

http://www.orangecountytherapy.org/

License Number 30372

Allison Mupas, MFT

248 E Foothill Blvd,

Monrovia

626-802-7383

changeseekers@yahoo.com

http://www.changeseeker.org/

License Number MFT 46004

Windows of Opportunity Counseling Services

39899 Balentine Dr, Suite 310,

Newark

510-979-0200

eschmechtigco@sbcglobal.net

http://www.windowsofopportunitycounseling.org/

No License Found.

Miranda Palmer

1311 E Street,

Modesto, CA 95354

209 343-2771

209 602-1513

No E-mail Given – http://counselingmodesto.com/contact/

http://counselingmodesto.com/

MFC #42393

Monte Nido Eating Disorder Treatment Center

27162 Sea Vista Dr,

Malibu

310-457-9958

info@edcca.com

http://www.edcca.com/

Carolyn Costin  No License Found

Carol Boulware, Ph.D.

3130 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 550,

Los Angeles, California

310-395-3351

Carolphd@psychotherapist.net

http://www.psychotherapist.net/sex-therapy.html

Licensed Marriage, Family Therapist – #MFT11632

ABS Certified Sex Therapist #1466

Regina Petterson, Psy.D.

11980 San Vicente Blvd., Suite 701,

Los Angeles

3106694422

drpetterson@aol.com

http://psychotherapylosangeles.com/

PSY 18490

Catherine Auman, MFT

2566 Overland Ave., Suite 500 B,

Los Angeles

310-460-9399

info@catherineauman.com.

http://www.catherineauman.com/

Her license as a Marriage and Family Therapist in 1993 (30784),

Beth Tunis

6399 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 312,

Los Angeles

310-779-9698

beth@bethtunistherapy.com

http://www.bethtunistherapy.com/

No License Found

Aaron Buckwalter, MFT

205 1/2 N. Larchmont Blvd,

Los Angeles

323-799-4130

aaron@changethrutherapy.com

http://www.changethrutherapy.com/

License mfc43099

Jeannie Wolitzer MFT

1340 Concannon Blvd Sunset Office Plaza, Bldg J

Livermore, CA 94550

925 201 3414

jwolitzer@gmail.com

http://www.jeanniewolitzer.com/

MFC 45633

Mending My Marriage

1848 Holmes Street, Bldg. E,

Livermore, CA 94550

925-922-2775

Laura@MFTLaura.com

http://www.mendingmymarriage.com

Laura Melgosa, M.S., MFT MFC 34899

San Diego Therapy

2333 First Avenue,

San Diego

619 218 5363

lily@sandiegotherapy.org

http://www.sandiegotherapy.org/

MFT intern #51125

Kristin Zeising, Psy.D.

12625 High Bluff Dr. Suite 101,

San Diego

858-414-0097

info@sandiegotherapydoctor.com

http://www.sandiegotherapydoctor.com/

PSY19164

Kim Jones

9330 Carmel Mountain Rd. Ste C,

San Diego

858-204-2599

kim@kimjonescounseling.com

http://www.kimjonescounseling.com/

MFC 37708

JAMES WILLIAM PARKER

2650 Camino Del Rio North, Suite 211,

San Diego, CA 92108

858-952-8196

No E-mail found.

http://www.jameswilliamparker.com/

MFC 47548

Helping People Navigate Changes In Life

North County Inland off I-15 & I-56 (Please call for address),

San Diego

619-687-9013

ecaetano@san.rr.com

http://www.navigatechanges.com/

MFT License #37010

Healthy Within

Divya Kakaiya, Ph.D

5665 Oberlin Drive Suite 206

San Diego CA 92121

858-622-0221

kakaiya@cox.net

http://www.healthywithin.com/

No License Found.

Couples Counseling (SAME AS ESTES THERAPY BELOW – NOTE THE PHONE NUMBER)

2333 1st Avenue, Suite 204,

San Diego

619-471-7104

Estes Therapy

2835 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 120C,

San Diego

619-471-7104

jestes@estestherapy.com

http://www.estestherapy.com/

MFC #47653

Counseling Connection

2207 Garnet Ave Suite A,

San Diego

619-857-1355

858-586-1355

julie@juliemorrell.com

http://www.juliemorrell.com/

No License Found.

Bobbie J Paul, Ph.D., MFT

3505 Camino del Rio South, Suite 212,

San Diego

619 7231802

No E-Mail – but this Link http://www.bobbiejpaul.com/ContactMe.en.html

http://www.bobbiejpaul.com

MFC29201

Barbara Cunningham, Psy.D., LMFT

2835 Camino Del Rio South, Ste. 120-C,

San Diego

619-990-6203

barbara@cunninghamtherapy.com

http://www.cunninghamtherapy.com/

I am a Licensed Marriage and Family Therapist in the state of California (#44053)

Sue Goetz, LCSW

1731 I Street,

Sacramento

9167648360

sue@hopeintherapy.com

http://www.hopeintherapy.com/

No License Found.

Self Awareness Institute

5777 Madison Avenue, Suite 307,

Sacramento

8662046384

alambert@12promises.com

http://www.12promises.com/

No License Found

Ray Brown, PhD, LMFT

418 Alhambra Blvd.,

Sacramento

916-492-8530

lmft@surewest.net

http://www.lmft.info/

No License Found.

Jacqueline Dotson, LCSW

4825 J Street Suite 223,

Sacramento

916-454-1021

jackie@jackiedotson.com

http://www.jackiedotson.com

No License Found.

Michele Dickey, LCSW

1002 River Rock Drive, Suite 221 ,

Roseville

916-206-0054

No E-Mail Found.

http://www.folsomfamilycounseling.com/FolsomCounseling/Welcome.html

LCS 21696

Steve McCready, Marriage & Family Therapist

1891 E. Roseville Pkwy, #120,

Roseville

916-781-0606

steve@counselingsacramento.com

http://www.counselingsacramento.com/

No License Found

Renée Spencer, MFT

3236 Sacramento Street,

San Francisco

415-771-5671

reneespencer@mac.com

http://www.reneespencer.com/

Licensed Marriage & Family Therapist (License MFC #40511)

Board Certified Psychiatric Pharmacist (License RPh #43623)

Private Practice Psychotherapy (Daniel McCracken)

870 Market Street, Suite 441,

San Francisco

415-846-6557

daniel9723@sbcglobal.net

http://www.therapyinsanfrancisco.com/Daniel_McCracken_contact.html

Marriage and Family Therapist (MFC42824)

Nick Parsons, LMFT

999 Sutter Street,

San Francisco

415 778-5500

No E-mail Found.

http://www.sf-therapist.com/

My license number is: MFC 35484

Marina Counseling Center

2137 Lombard Street,

San Francisco

415-563-2137

Jennifer@marinacounseling.com

http://www.marinacounseling.com/

No License Found

Ken Martin LMFT

564 Market Street, Suite 410,

San Francisco, California 94104

415/395-9367

kenmartinmft@earthlink.net

http://www.kenmartintherapy.com/

No License Found.

JENNIFER FEELEY, MFT

4831 GEARY BLVD.,

San Francisco

415 244-7850

feeleyj@pacbell.net

http://www.jenniferfeeley.com/

License #MFC35307

Jeffrey S. Kaye, Ph.D.

844 California Street,

San Francisco

415-362-8262

sfpsych@gmail.com

http://www.drjeffkaye.com/

PSY #15476

Geri Weitzman, PhD

1100 Sanchez Street (corner of 24th),

San Francisco

415-517-7965

bap@bizone.org

http://www.bizone.org/bap/joining.html

CA License # PSY17963

Erica Mainshine Psychotherapy

3236 Sacramento Street,

San Francisco

415-820-3203

erica@therapysf.org

http://www.therapysf.org/

Registered Marriage and Family Therapist Intern, #IMF52423, practicing under the supervision of Jim Meyers, MFT, #MFC30215

Dennis Thatcher, MFT

1637 Irving Street

San Francisco

415-995-2916

denniscthatcher@yahoo.com

http://www.dennisthatchermft.com/

Lic.#MFC25186

Center for Family Issues

1801 Bush St., Suite 110,

San Francisco

(415) 215-4796

DrM@DrMelindaDouglass.com

http://www.drmelindadouglass.com/Welcome.html

PSB 34300

Cathy Hanville, LCSW

3884 24th Street,

San Francisco, CA 94114

(415) 643-3890

cathyhanville@att.net

http://www.cathyhanville.com/

No License Found

Carol Jaron, Classic and Creative Psychotherapy

801 Portola Drive,

San Francisco

415-541-5004

caroljtherapist@yahoo.com

http://www.caroljguidingstar.com

No License Found.

Ace, Tricia, MFT – Psychotherapy, San Francisco & Berkeley

115 Sansome (@Bush, Financial District),

San Francisco

415/536-9406

AceMFT@aol.com

http://www.triciaace.com/

License Number: MFC34714

Susannah Muller, M.A.

2333 1st Avenue, #204,

San Diego

619-787-2743

susannah@therapy-sandiego.com

http://www.therapy-sandiego.com/

Internship with Aimee Zakrewski Licensed Marriage and Family Therapist #43736, who has over 6 years of experience.

Internship with Daniel Carr Licensed Marriage and Family Therapist #31037, who has over 25 years of experience

Sian Marie Hassell, Inc.

Christine Hassell MA, LMFT

5905 Soquel Dr. Suite 550,

Soquel, CA

831-429-2253

No E-mail found.

http://www.turningpointpsychotherapy.com

LMFT #39288

David L. Christopher, A Psychotherapy Corporation

141 N. Acacia Ave. Ste. A,

Solana Beach, CA

858 792-0777

DChristopher@SanDiegoTherapist.com

http://www.sandiegotherapist.com/

MFC 30632

Kelly Tobey, MSW, LCSW

3695 Alamo St. Suite 200,

Simi Valley, CA

805-501-6630

kelly@kellytobeylcsw.com

http://www.kellytobeylcsw.com/

State License: LCS#17999

Harmony & Families Counseling Centers

1633 Erringer Rd. Ste’s 204 & 207,

Simi Valley, CA

805-428-6655

Kristy Schadt

kristyschadtmft@sbcglobal.net

Cary Steven Schwartz

carschwrtz@aol.com

Patricia VanBuskirk, MA

pvbFUTURE@adelphia.net

Maureen Kaye, MA, MFT

California License # MFC 44834

MKayeMFT@aol.com

Diane Turini Mize, MFT

California License, MFC# 38366

ginitsiselu@yahoo.com

http://www.harmonycounselingcenter.org

LifeHealingHeart

Ms. Keri Zwerner

5535 Balboa Blvd. Suite 217

Encino, CA 91316

818.206.4006

keri@lifehealingheart.com

http://www.lifehealingheart.com/

Donald Wallach, Licensed Marriage & Family Therapist

1023 College Avenue,

Santa Rosa, CA

707-583-2305

don@donwallach.com

http://www.donwallach.com/

Open Door Psychotherapy

Dana Blumrosen, MA, LMFT

303 Potrero Street, #45-202,

Santa Cruz, CA

831-454-8270

dana@opendoorpsychotherapy.com

dblumrosen@yahoo.com

http://www.opendoorpsychotherapy.com/

My license number is: 44056.

Reginald Veurink, Psy.D.

26889 Bouquet Canyon Road, Suite C,

Santa Clarita, CA

661-297-5728

No E-mail Given – but – webmaster@drveurink.com

http://www.drveurink.com/

Clinical Psychologist, California License #PSY 14007

Certificate of Professional Qualification in Psychology, ASPPB, #743

Marriage, Family, Child Counselor, California License #MFC 14374

East Bay Couples Counseling

Jay Slupesky, M.A., MFT

2 Crow Canyon Ct. Suite 110,

San Ramon, CA

925-351-8447

jay@eastbaycouples.com

http://eastbaycouples.com

Licensed Marriage & Family Therapist #45969

Mark Edwards, MFT

711 D Street, Suite 203,

San Rafael, CA

415-456-6523

MarkEdwardsMFT@Hotmail.com

http://www.markedwardsmft.com/

No License found.

San Pedro Counseling: Diana Dowds, MFT – The Help Shop

461 West Sixth Street, Suite 214,

San Pedro, CA

310.833.9300

diana@thehelpshop.org

http://www.thehelpshop.org

Diana – MFC45294

Josette Ciolino, licensed clinical psychologist (PSY18122)

Licensed Marriage Family Therapist

1210 South Bascom Avenue Ste 122,

San Jose, CA

408-535-0435

No E-mail found.

http://www.michellewambach.com/

MFC #41571

Claire Adalyn Wright, MFT

S. Bascom Avenue,

San Jose, CA

408-998-7098

cawmft@yahoo.com

http://www.scv-camft.org

License No. MFC 44491

Psychotherapy By Melyssa Nelson

1726 Fillmore Street,

San Francsico

415-255-3209

melyssa@melyssanelson.com

http://www.melyssanelson.com/

MFT Lic# 41632

Women’s Therapy Services

2918 Webster Street,

San Francisco

415 281 0828

staff@womenstherapyservices.com

http://www.womenstherapyservices.com/

Phyllis Klein, LCSW License number LCS11342

Marlena Kushner, MFT License number MFT14058

Karen Ryan, MFTI (Registered Intern) Registration Number: IMF #44599

Therapy With a Difference

Donna May, MA,MFT

625 Butte Street,

Yreka, CA

530-841-0911

donna@donnamaymft.com

http://www.donnamaymft.com/

MFC 40621

Rod Louden, M.A., MFT

21243 Ventura Blvd., #203,

Woodland Hills, CA

818-348-7081

rodlouden@aol.com

http://www.monsterrelationships.com/

MFC 39259. Issued 2001.

Heather Cozen, MS MFTI

8235 Santa Monica Blvd, Penthouse Suite ,

West Hollywood, CA

310-869-1003

heathercozen@gmail.com

http://www.heathercozen.com/

Currently I am being supervised by Mou Wilson, LMFT MFC # 44134.

Alla Litvin

8961 Sunset Blvd.

Los Angeles, CA 90069

310-652-9030

therapy@drlitvin.com

http://www.drlitvin.com/

No License Found.

Counseling Center for Spiritual Growth

7515 Sugar Pine Rd,

Weed/Mt. Shasta, CA

530-938-2930

RevEleanor@AwakePath.com

RevEleanor7@snowcrest.net

http://www.awakepath.com/

No License Found.

Dr. Summer Schleif

380 S Melrose Drive Suite 315,

Vista, CA

760-806-4315

drsummer@dr-summer.com

http://www.dr-summer.com/

License # PSY 21826

Alysha Sardella, LMFT

27951 Smyth Drive 3103,

ValenciA, CA

(818) 434-4034

http://www.alyshasardellatherapist.com/

alyshasardella@yahoo.com

434-4034alyshasardella@yahoo.com

License # MFC 38049

Leslie D. Gustafson, MFT

14751 Plaza Drive, Unit F,

Tustin, CA 92780

Doug Gustafson   Ph: (714) 515-3042

Leslie Gustafson Ph: (714) 855-4530

http://www.authenticandtrue.com/

Leslie@AuthenticandTrue.com

Doug@AuthenticandTrue.com

Lauren Wolff, MA, LMFT

468 Pennsfield Place Suite 204,

Thousand Oaks, CA

310-402-7775

No Email Found

http://www.fertilitytherapist.com/

MFT #46274

Healing Crossroads

509 Marin Street, Suite 236,

Thousand Oaks, CA

818-388-0102

info@healingcrossroads.com

http://www.healingcrossroads.com/

No License Found.

Emotional Reframing

Paul Rieker

27715 Jefferson Ave, Suite 113F

Temecula, CA 92590

951 970 5641

PAUL@blessyourthoughts.com

http://www.blessyourthoughts.com

Felita W. Fox, MFT

690 W. Fremont Ave. #9D,

Sunnyvale, CA

408-739-4377

felita@felitafox.com

http://www.felitafox.com/

No License Found.

Lighthouse of Hope Counseling Center

Gloria J Baxter

1515 Partridge Avenue,

Sunnyvale, CA

408-716-8101

No E-mail Found.

http://lighthouseofhope.info/

No License Found.

Agoura Hills

Laura M. Smith, MFT Intern

30423 Canwood St. ste.#129,

Agoura Hills, CA

(805) 217-76

Benicia

Anne Courtney, MA, LMFT

821 E. 2nd Street, Suite 203,

Benicia, CA

925-210-9226

Berkeley

Ace, Tricia, MFT – Psychotherapy, San Francisco & Berkeley

1760 Solano Avenue,

Berkeley, CA

415-536-9406

Center for Creative Growth

1221 Marin Avenue,

Berkeley, CA

510-527-2100

http://www.creativegrowth.com/

Telling Life Stories

2711 Alcatraz Ave,

Berkeley, CA

510 286-7615

Bolinas

A Therapy Line

P.O. Box 100,

Bolinas

888-844-8255

Brentwood

Leslie St. Louis, MA, MFT, CAMFT

11911 San Vicente Blvd, Ste 270,

Brentwood

310-990-9930

Corona

EMC

777 S. Temescal St.,#129,

Corona

909-808-9610

Corte Madera

Marriage and Family Therapist

21 Tamal Vista, Suite 160,

Corte Madera

415-272-4472

Costa Mesa

Addiction Institute

3151 Airway Avenue Suite C-1,

Costa Mesa

714-545-7114

Mark Pines MA MFTI

2900 Bristol Street Suite G-202,

Costa Mesa

714-855-2232

Cupertino

Susan Cohn, LCSW & LMFT

10060 Pasadena Ave.,

Cupertino

408-257-5772

Del Mar  (29)

1-800-THERAPIST

2923 Sandy Pointe Ste 6,

Del Mar

858-481-1515

Eating Disorder Referral and Information Center

2923 SAndy Pointe #6,

Del Mar

858-792-7463

Encinitas

Individual, Couple and Group Psychotherapy

336 Encinitas Blvd. #100,

Encinitas

760 944-7772

Counseling Associates of Encino

Sandra S. Kagan

12400 Ventura Blvd. #641

Studio City, CA 91604

818-789-7575

No E-mail but: http://www.therapistlocator.net/asp-bin/contacttherapist.asp?TCode=56150

License # MFC 6773

Laurel Canyon Recovery Center & Beau Monde Programs

3718 Hayvenhurst Ave.,

Encino

888-300-5080

Fair Oaks (37)

New Beginnings Counseling Center

11622 Fair Oaks Blvd, Ste 103,

Fair Oaks

916-863-7096

Strategies For Success

12900B Garden Grove Blvd,

Garden Grove

714-803-6907

Hansen Hills

Counseling That Works

12661 Gain St.,

Hansen Hills

818 277-1616

Irvine

California Graduate Insitute Counseling Center

4199 Campus Drive #E,

Irvine

949-737-5464

Center for Human Development

19742 MacArthur Blvd., #125,

Irvine

714-647-6670

CGI Counseling Center

4199 Campus Dr. #E,

Irvine

949-737-5460

http://counseling.tcscenters.org/

La Jola

Jeffrey Thomas LCSW

9850 Genesee Ave, Suite 910,

La Jola

619-221-5607

jefftthomaslcsw@hotmail.com

No Web-site found.

No License Found.

Kentfield

Donald Wallach, Licensed Marriage & Family Therapist

1010 Sir Francis Drake Bl,

Kentfield

415-339-7890

La Canada

Marriage and Family Therapist

4529 Angeles Crest Hwy, #319,

La Canada

626-243 3771

Lawndale

Donna El-Armale, LMFT

15342 Hawthorne Blvd. Suite 407,

Lawndale

323.692.8290

info@youturnproject.org (not sure if this is hers – the address is the same)

http://www.youturnproject.org

La Jolla

Cognitive Therapy Institute, Inc.

3262 Holiday Court, #220,

La Jolla

(858) 450-1101

http://www.cognitivetherapysandiego.com

La Palma

New Beginnings

30 Centerpointe Dr. Suite 9A,

La Palma

714-523-3846

Lafayette

Andrea Watson, MFT Intern

3468 Mt. Diablo Blvd. Suite B301,

Lafayette

925-210-7475

Laguna Woods 40

Alfred E. Marlowe

751-A Avenida Majorca,

Laguna Woods

949-770-2851

Lake Forest

Live Now Association

24922 Muirlands,

Lake Forest

949-581-3486

Larkspur

Katie Glassman, M.F.T.

119 Ward Street,

Larkspur

415-480-1331

Long Beach

Carole Harris, LCSW

5848 Naples Plaza, Suite 204,

Long Beach

562-434-0617

Loomis

Alternatives Counseling

7860 King Road,

Loomis

916 247 6059

mmutozee@yahoo.com

Los Altos

Deb Burgard, Ph.D.

5050 El Camino Real, Suite 202

Los Altos

650-321-2606

http://www.bodypositive.com/

Andrew Jen, Ph.D.

179-B Barrington Place,

Los Angeles

310 453-2772

Lauren Howard Licensed Psychotherapist, MFT

1416 Westwood Boulevard #208,

Los Angeles

310 364 0440

Love-Sessions

www.love-sessions.com,

Los Angeles

OCD Center of Los Angeles

10921 Wilshire Blvd. #502,

Los Angeles

310-335-5443

Psychotherapy

914 S. Robertson Boulevard – #104,

Los Angeles

310-226-2988

Lotus

Rational Recovery

P.O.Box 800 ,

Lotus

530-621-2667

http://www.rational.org/

Los Angeles

Sabah Akmal, LCSW

10780 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 250,

Los Angeles

310-913-5034

Menlo Park

Sliding Scale therapy and counseling

125 Willow Rd. #125 ,

Menlo Park

650-303-0074

Mill Valley

Transpersonal Psychotherapy

3 Madrona Street, suite B,

Mill Valley

415-419-3570

SOULTENDERS

41 East Foothill Boulevard, Suite 102

Arcadia, California 91006

888-889-3639

wendy@soultenders.com

http://www.soultenders.com

Mission Hills

Dr. Reginald L. Veurink, Clinial Psychologist in Mission Hills, CA

Holy Cross Medical Plaza, 11550 Indian Hills Road, Suite #370,

Mission Hills

818-361-8616

http://www.drveurink.com/

Moraga

Moraga Psychotherapy

1001 Country Club Drive, Suite B,

Moraga

925-247-0805

Beau Monde: Programs of Distinction

3101 W. Pacific Coast Hwy, Ste 310,

Newport Beach

800-866-2948

Transformational Living

1000 Quail St., Ste. 175,

Newport Beach

949.922.8548

Affordable Therapy

5835 College Avenue Suite 2A,

Oakland

510-433-2959

Beth Bernstein, MFT

445 Bellevue Avenue,

Oakland

510-628-0877

Green Gate Therapy

445 Bellevue Ave Ste 202,

Oakland

510-452-2820

private practice

6239 College Ave. (Suite#302),

Oakland

510 548-6241

Counseling Solutions

2585 Park Blvd Z-100 ,

Palo Alto

650-327-8620

Jeffrey M. Kisling, LMFT

701 Welch Road, Suite 324,

Palo Alto

650-325-6632

Private Practice

555 Middlefield Rd.,

Palo Alto

650 473-9331

Placerville / Elk Grove

Carla L. Wills

5036 Sunrey Rd / 8920 Emerald Park Dr. Ste A,

Placerville / Elk Grove

530-644-8226

Pleasant Hill

Counseling & Psychotherapy

140 Mayhew Way, Suite 202,

Pleasant Hill

510 986-9836

Michael F. Thaden, M.S., M.F.T., A.T.R.

3550 Watt Avenue,

Sacramento

916-505-5092

private practice

4452 Park Blvd. #214,

San Diego

858-610-1460

San Diego Family Services

3750 Convoy Street Suite 185,

San Diego

858-277-7800

San Jose

Child and Family Therapist

2020 Forest Avenue,

San Jose, CA

408 287-7471

San Marcos

Hope Christian Counseling Inc.

PO Box 1718,

San Marcos

760-727-7240

Santa Cruz

Angst-Net of Therapists

127 Jewell Street,

Santa Cruz, CA

831-426-1778

Santa Monica

Psychology

3130 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 550,

Santa Monica, CA

310.208.1144

Vinca Health

Vinca von Muhlenberg

13951 Moorpark Street #310,

Sherman Oaks, CA

800-544-7793

http://www.vincahealth.com/

South Pasadena

HEART Alcohol & Drug Counseling Services

1815 Meridian Avenue 202,

South Pasadena, CA

626-862-8255

Studio City

Counseling-Online.com

3959 Laurel Canyon Blvd. – #C,

Studio City, CA

323-225-2228

Temecula

Transformations Counseling, Inc

Mr. Ronald James Ryan

31905 Corte Mendoza,

Temecula, CA

951-741-4229

Torrance

Center for Counseling and Recovery

2780 Skypark Drive, Suite 205,

Torrance, CA

310-530-7750

Gentle Support Counseling Services

2430 Torrance Boulevard,

Torrance, CA

310-787-1886

Visalia

AER Associates

720 West Center St., Suite A,

Visalia, CA

559-265-3998

Woodland Hills

New Beginnings

22122 Erwin Street, Apt. 201,

Woodland Hills, CA

(619) 840-9779

Paul Elam is Editor-in-Chief for Mens News Daily and publisher of A Voice for Men

Apparently, Moore thinks that capitalism is a system where the government bails out and controls the financial sector, or one whereby a few rich people dominate the entire structure and keep everyone else poor. Both are leftist caricatures that have nothing in common with capitalism properly construed, as best described by its first and best exponent, Adam Smith.

So Moore’s film needs a new title. Perhaps something like, “Corporatism: What the Left Thinks Capitalism Is.”

Watching Michael Moore rail against corporate bailouts in the early scenes of his latest movie, a free marketeer might wonder if perhaps the film maker has inadvertently blundered into the truth. Among other things, he rips apart the notion that government and big business partnering up is good for the little guy. About half-way through the movie, I actually caught myself thinking: Do Michael Moore and disciples of Adam Smith actually agree?

Eventually the film predictably drifts leftward, criticizing “excesses” such as high foreclosure rates, individuals hurt by (downward) stock-market swings, problems with a privatized jail and, of course, the fact that rich people are, well, rich (this from a guy worth millions himself). Moore also makes a faux-religious argument, asking some priests, “What would Jesus do?”

Many on the left similarly cite such “excesses of capitalism” as their reasons for opposing a free-market system. The reality, of course, is that most of these excesses have nothing to do with capitalism. Indeed, things like high foreclosure rates are the result of government policies that subsidized and virtually forced banks to give mortgage loans to people who couldn’t afford the home. The financial and stock-market crashes of one year ago were byproducts of the inevitable collapse of that house of cards.

But alas, excesses and villains are what sell movie tickets. Perhaps Moore will expand on the theme with films on the excesses of non-capitalist systems? How about these?: The Khmer Rouge in Cambodia (two million murdered), the Soviet Union (65 million dead), Communist China (70 million dead), and so on. Now, those are some excesses, and gripping ones at that.

Michael Moore incoherently argues that we need to replace “capitalism” with a true American system: “Democracy.”

Ironically, a true capitalist system is the best and most pure system of the democratic ideal: individual consumers and producers engaging in purely voluntary and mutually beneficial exchanges. This could not be more different from government and politics, the hallmarks of which are coercion and dishonesty.

Here’s how economist Walter Williams defines capitalism and the proper role of government in such a system:

“Capitalism is an economic system characterized by private ownership and control over the means of production. The distribution of goods and services and their prices are mainly determined by competition in a free market. Under such a system the primary job of government is to protect private property, enforce contracts, and ensure rule of law.”

Capitalism is a system that has pulled millions upon millions of people out of poverty, but Michael Moore is profoundly ignorant of that. When pressed in an interview, he said he “doesn’t want to get caught up in titles.” He apparently doesn’t want to get caught up in truth either. Yet, condemning a system without understanding its basic principles sells movie tickets—i.e., it makes money—and earns the praise of others who share Moore’s ignorance.

Before this film was released, Moore wrote, “The time has arrived for, as Time magazine called it, my ‘magnum opus.’ I only had a year of Latin when I was in high school, so I’m not quite sure what that means, but I think it’s good.”

Michael Moore may have had one year of Latin, but he either skipped or flunked Econ 101.

— Jarrett Skorup is a 2009 graduate of Grove City College and former student fellow at The Center for Vision & Values. He is a research intern at the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, a research and educational institute headquartered in Midland, Mich. Mr. Skorup can be reached at Skorup@mackinac.org.

*CHOOSE bright, flame-retardant costumes or add reflective tape to costumes and candy bags so children are easily seen in the dark. In addition, carry a glow stick or flashlight.

*PLAN a trick-or-treating route in familiar neighborhoods with well-lit streets. Avoid unfamiliar neighborhoods, streets that are isolated, or homes that are poorly lit inside or outside.

*NEVER send young children out alone. They should always be accompanied by a parent or another trusted adult. Older children should always travel in groups.

*ALWAYS walk younger children to the door to receive treats and don’t let children enter a home unless you are with them.

*BE SURE children do not approach any vehicle, occupied or not, unless you are with them.

*DISCUSS basic pedestrian safety rules that children should use when walking to and from houses.

*CONSIDER organizing a home or community party as an alternative to “trick-or-treating.”

*MAKE sure children know their home phone number and address in case you get separated. Teach children how to call 911 in an emergency.

*TEACH children to say “NO!” or “this is not my mother/father” in a loud voice if someone tries to get them to go somewhere, accept anything other than a treat, or leave with them. And teach them that they should make every effort to get away by kicking, screaming and resisting.

*REMIND children to remain alert and report suspicious incidents to parents and/or law enforcement.

“Child safety is important year round, but Halloween is an especially important time for parents and children to pay extra attention to their surroundings and not let their guard down,” said Nancy McBride, National Safety Director of NCMEC. “It is important that parents exercise a few basic safety precautions to help ensure that Halloween is both fun and safe.”

This year the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children observes its 25th anniversary. NCMEC has played a role in the recovery of more than 138,500 children. Today more children come home safely than ever before. In 2008, NCMEC helped recover more children than any other year in the organization’s 25-year history, raising the recovery rate from 62 percent in 1990 to 97 percent today. And more of those who prey on children are being identified and prosecuted. Yet too many children are still missing and too many children are still the victims of sexual exploitation. There is much more that needs to be done.

NCMEC: www.missingkids.com
NACOP: www.aphf.org

The first question will likely be: how could we let it go so far? How could men be seen as the oppressors and sole winners in the gender role system when:

• The vast majority of homeless people and prison inmates are men
• The vast majority of people who die in work related accidents are men
• The only group of people forced to fight in wars are men

What kind of patriarchy protects its men in such a lousy way? Well, it’s certainly not a patriarchy designed to give men all the perks while leaving women empty-handed (women are the only oppressed class in history who had their oppressors go out and work in the fields for them, as Warren Farrell says).

The second question would likely be how feminism could ever have been looked upon as revolutionary, when it simply perpetuates the view that men are responsible for society while women are seen as not affecting society at all through their lives and choices. That’s a weird way of looking at things once you start thinking about it, but it is one of the root assumptions of contemporary feminism.

Feminism’s belief that women do not have agency and are constant victims of “structures”, while men have nothing but agency and cannot be the victim of structures, is so simplistic that it wouldn’t have been believable if it didn’t play into our deepest instincts. These deep instincts tell us to protect women and children at all costs, and in turn make us listen without demanding proof when a group of women (i.e. feminists) say that they are victims and need more protection.

Anyone who’s interested in truly revolutionizing gender roles (I’m not, by the way), would have passed a law forbidding men to enter combat while forcing women into combat through an exclusively female draft or military service. However, such a proposal–though truly revolutionary in the very spirit that feminism claims to be representing–will never see the light of day since it violates the most basic principle of our gender roles: protect women, let men take the risks.

Feminists have demanded more freedom and better protection for women, but they have never demanded that women take more risks and that men be better protected. There is no outcry about men dying or being injured at dangerous jobs. There’s no lobbying to have women be better represented in the “death professions” that men dominate.

When looking back at feminism 50 years from now, people will likely say that feminism did get one thing right; it opened up our eyes to gender roles, and that there is a lot of room for improvement in both gender roles. We need movements that work with gender issues, and most of all we need men and women who truly care about these issues. However, feminism is not the movement that can make change happen in a constructive way, being far too polarizing and one-sided to be able to see the full spectrum of gender dynamics.

In fact, as long as feminism is seen as the one-stop shop for discussing gender issues, we run the risk of creating more tension and more of a gender war than was ever needed. But if we can let go of feminism sooner rather than later, we will be judged more favorably in the future, and I won’t have to change the title of this post to Looking Back at Feminism, 150 Years From Now.

Pelle Billing is an M.D. who writes and lectures about men’s issues and gender liberation beyond feminism.

Arpaio’s deputies attended the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Center in order to be trained for immigration enforcement as part of their regular law enforcement and jail management duties. In addition to the DHS attempting to curtail Sheriff Arpaio’s immigration enforcement activities — he states he will not stop arresting illegal aliens — Obama’s Attorney General, Eric Holder, is threatening to investigate Sheriff Arpaio and his department.

Sadly, at the same time the Department of Homeland Security estimates that the total unauthorized immigrant population residing in the United States is 10 million. Their total includes those who entered the United States illegally and those who entered legally but overstayed their authorized period of stay. Critics dispute the federal statistics saying that the number of illegal aliens is closer to 20 million.

Another recent study by the GAO estimates that there are about 15 million illegal aliens living in the United States. The study estimates that nearly 700,000 aliens enter the United States illegally or overstay their authorized period of stay each year.

Some illegal aliens in the United States have been arrested and incarcerated in federal and state prisons as well as local jails, adding to already dangerously overcrowded prisons and jails, the Government Accountability Office reported to the US Congress’ Homeland Security Subcommittee on criminal aliens that were incarcerated in federal and state prisons and local jails.

Their report contained information on the number of criminal aliens incarcerated, their country of citizenship or country of birth, and the cost to incarcerate them. Congress also requested that the GAO provide information on the criminal history of aliens incarcerated in federal and state prisons or local jails who had entered the country illegally.

For a population of aliens that entered the country illegally and were incarcerated in federal or state prisons or local jails, the GAO report addressed the following questions: How many times have they been arrested? How many and what type of criminal offenses have they been arrested for? What states were they arrested in?

In the GAO study of a population sample of 55,322 illegal aliens, analysts found that they were arrested at a total of 459,614 times, averaging about 8 arrests per illegal alien.

Nearly all of the illegal aliens in the study sample had more than 1 arrest. Thirty-eight percent (about 21,000) had between 2 and 5 arrests, 32 percent (about 18,000) had between 6 and 10 arrests, and 26 percent (about 15,000) had 11 or more arrests. They were arrested for a total of about 700,000 criminal offenses, averaging about 13 offenses per illegal alien.

One arrest incident may include multiple offenses, a fact that explains why there are nearly one and half times more offenses than arrests.

Almost all of these illegal aliens were arrested for more than 1 offense. Slightly more than half of the 55,322 illegal aliens had between 2 and 10 offenses. About 45 percent of all offenses were drug or immigration offenses. About 15 percent were property-related offenses such as burglary, larceny-theft, motor vehicle theft, and property damage. About 12 percent were for violent offenses such as murder, robbery, assault, and sex-related crimes. The balance was for such other offenses as traffic violations, including driving under the influence; fraud–including forgery and counterfeiting; weapons violations; and obstruction of justice.

Eighty percent of all arrests occurred in three states — California, Texas, and Arizona. Specifically, about 58 percent of all arrests occurred in California, 14 percent in Texas, and 8 percent in Arizona. In addition, the FBI estimates that there are upwards of 50,000 illegal aliens who are members of crime gangs such as MS-13, the Mexican Mafia and the Latin Kings.

“If the US Attorney General and his boss President Obama are concerned with investigating criminal activity, perhaps they should focus on criminal aliens and gangs rather than persecuting an effective law enforcement commander such as Joe Arpaio,” said former NYPD detective and Marine Sid Frances.

Jim Kouri, CPP is currently fifth vice-president of the National Association of Chiefs of Police and he’s a staff writer for the New Media Alliance (thenma.org). In addition, he’s the former editor for the House Conservatives Fund’s weblog. Kouri also serves as political advisor for Emmy and Golden Globe winning actor Michael Moriarty.

He’s former chief at a New York City housing project in Washington Heights nicknamed “Crack City” by reporters covering the drug war in the 1980s. In addition, he served as director of public safety at a New Jersey university and director of security for several major organizations. He’s also served on the National Drug Task Force and trained police and security officers throughout the country. Kouri writes for many police and security magazines including Chief of Police, Police Times, The Narc Officer and others. He’s a news writer for TheConservativeVoice.Com and PHXnews.com. He’s also a columnist for AmericanDaily.Com, MensNewsDaily.Com, MichNews.Com, and he’s syndicated by AXcessNews.Com. He’s appeared as on-air commentator for over 100 TV and radio news and talk shows including Oprah, McLaughlin Report, CNN Headline News, MTV, Fox News, etc.

To subscribe to Kouri’s newsletter write to COPmagazine@aol.com and write “Subscription” on the subject line.

It’s a sympathetic and unfortunate reality, and one that society imposed on women, despite their complaints, at the behest and literal insistence of women themselves. At least enough of them to effect sweeping change.

Modern feminism is the feminism of choices, is it not? And haven’t women by and large demanded compliance with that agenda? Women, most of them, understandably want the freedom to choose their path in life, whether that path is of financial pursuit or the path of family or some frequently complicated combination of both. And society, as it always does with women, accommodates these demands. But while we succeeded in opening doors, we cannot and never will be able to provide an out for the responsibilities and pressures that come with such a menu of options.

Indeed, the only way to reduce the pressure on women is to reduce the number of options they have, and we aren’t going to squeeze that particular glob of toothpaste back into the tube.

The great writer/philosopher Kahlil Gibran wrote:

Much of your pain is self-chosen. It is the bitter potion by which the physician within you heals your sick self. Therefore trust the physician and drink his remedy in silence and tranquility.

A hundred million other people put it even more succinctly.

Be careful what you ask for, you just might get it.

And so now women have gotten what they wanted, or claimed to want. And as in so many other areas it brings them a step closer to the world of men, but only in the abstract; only on the surface.

Men, too, are becoming like stressed rope in the tug-o-war of gender identity, though they never collectively asked for it. Today’s man is called on to be, as much as any woman, all things at once. He is expected to be the warrior standing in harms way, ready to kill and die for our protection and often for less noble causes. He’s also the empathetic counselor with the unending patience to listen and accept; the provider for a home but not it’s leader; the teacher of ideas and ideals, but only those that pass feminine muster.

He is the savior, the pin cushion, the straining back of labor and the sponge for our social scorn. He is the powerless servant reviled for having too much power; the identified problem and the secret solution. And he is always, always the one we induce to act when the Ultimate Sacrifice is required.

These splintered expectations of men were not a result of choices, but of obligations; not an escape from their gender role, but proof of men being inextricably chained to it.

And as laudable as are any efforts toward equalitarianism, the seemingly mirrored struggle of men and women with identity is not evidence of progress to that end, but an indicator that we are going in the wrong direction.

For in the final analysis, women are complaining about the stresses that come with freedom and men are remaining silent about the burdens that come with servitude and expectation.

Equality is an impossible yet noble objective. It is something we strive for knowing it can’t be accomplished. It would behoove us to pursue such unobtainable objectives with at least some measure of thoughtfulness. To date, we haven’t done so well in that department.

But we will come perhaps a small step closer to that unreachable finish line when men are routinely encouraged to voice their frustrations with the twisting, often clashing demands of social pressure.

Or, when women are routinely encouraged to stop.

Paul Elam is the Editor-in-Chief of Men’s news Daily and the publisher of A Voice for Men.

Surely, America could only succeed if Obama succeeds. This is the heart and soul of liberalism. But, like the rest of the liberal philosophy, it is fundamentally wrong. From the welfare state to the public school system to the various “family service” agencies that consistently peddle their poisonous anti-family agenda, it is liberalism itself that fails America on every occasion that it gains any new toehold in society.

In short, Limbaugh’s assertion was that he hoped Obama’s far-left radicalism would not succeed in doing still more damage to the country than has already been done by past liberal endeavors at state sponsored “compassion.” Nor does he, or any other sincere American patriot, want to see a continuation of the international disasters that ensue as predictable repercussions of naive, morally and spiritually rudderless leftist dabbling in international affairs.

Unfortunately for the radio talk-show giant, as well as the rest of heartland America, that is precisely what Barack Obama, with his twisted philosophies and his ineptitude, has in store for this nation. The Olympic sight selection fiasco at Copenhagen was only the beginning.

To the hopelessly dull-witted, it may seem contradictory that European nations, who loudly claim to be so much happier with Barack Obama than they ever were with George W. Bush, would nonetheless rule against Obama’s wishes on an issue in which he invested so much of his credibility. The “slap in the face” that they delivered to him on the world stage will not soon be forgotten. Yet to expect otherwise, based on the presumption of universal international adulation for the Obamas, is to ascribe to a worldview that is completely devoid of the realities of modern international relations.

When dealing with the America of George W. Bush, foreign leaders were compelled to respect the intentions and desires of America, whether they liked it or not. In the wake of 9-11, Bush’s assessment of the world as “either with us or against us,” imputed a requirement on all countries to take a side in the Terror War, and expect to be held accountable to it.

Of course this generated much backlash against President Bush, since so many of America’s “allies,” had frittered away the decade of the 1990s, when they should have been shoring up their defenses against the dangerous rise of militant Islam. But while the Islamist threat grew and metastasized, several European nations were making underhanded deals with middle-eastern leaders. The infamous “oil for food” program, by which Saddam Hussein exploited the corruption of so many prominent Europeans, was the most egregious example. That sort of international game playing, which lined the pockets of crooked officials while yielding the insidious side effect of empowering terrorist states, could not continue unchecked without eventually reaching a day of reckoning.

President Bush was indeed despised for standing firm and effectively shutting down the scam. So of course the countries that had benefited from the laxities of Clinton-era international relations were not happy that their lucrative game was ending. Now they once again see increased opportunities to wheel and deal as they had done, unhampered by an American executive branch that is too weak and ideologically disjointed to call them to account.

The problem for Barack Obama is that, prior to the Copenhagen decision, he had perceived the international reaction to him as supportive and sincere. Only under such a muddled premise could he or his wife have hoped, by their sophomoric and self-absorbed lobbying, to garner victory in their bid to have Chicago host the 2016 Olympics. Make no mistake about it, this was no mere decision on the location of a sporting event. By his presence in Copenhagen, Obama had elevated its significance to that of a major international accord. In the end, the other participating nations viewed it as no less significant.

Now, the brutal reality of his real international standing is hitting him directly in the face, though he may still be too self-aggrandizing and shallow to comprehend it. The other nations of the world do not “like” him personally, but they like the detrimental effect he is having on a nation that they have long viewed as too powerful and too competitive with their own interests.

America, in their view, needs to be cut down to size. And Barack Obama, with his abhorrent and counterproductive economic and domestic policies, is just the person to do it. If the American economic engine can be sufficiently weakened, then the rest of the world can move past it. Ditto on the diplomatic front. As the sole world “superpower,” America has historically been the defining force in the direction of international affairs in which it became involved. But if it can be mired down in failed social and diplomatic policy, its international role can likewise be significantly reduced.

This is the America that Europe, and much of the rest of the world wants to see. This is the “change” for which America’s competitors on the world scene had so fervently hoped. And if the “useful idiot” leading the country eventually becomes a victim of the collapsing international standing that he has so diligently championed, such “collateral damage” is of little or no consequence to them.

Christopher G. Adamo has been active in Wyoming politics for many years and is a managing partner in Best American Buy (www.bestamericanbuy.com), an e-commerce business that markets American made products including the incomparable Abigail Adams Bedspread Set from Bates Mills. Contact information for Chris Adamo, and his archives, can be found at www.chrisadamo.com

And with a flourish, that MRA disappears from the scene.  Sometimes even for good.
What that person is typically missing is the viral nature of the men’s rights movement. We do not lead.  We do not tell the “masses” what to think…  This is not a top down organization, if “organization” as a term even remotely applies.

We are not a shaper, a mover, a shaker, or any other kind of “power” in the sense that we can effect real change ourselves.
It is the failure to recognize this blunt fact that some MRA’s have trouble coming to grips with.

…What we do is refuse to allow people to be silenced…
In a relatively well known essay, another prominent MRA has described us as people who are simply “telling [society] what time it is”.  I personally agree, with a caveat.  In knowing the time before others, we can shape the “message”…the spin, as it were, on the issue.

I know, it’s crass.  But it’s the truth.  We have naught but the ability to frame an argument, in the hopes of public support.  We cannot effect direct change without massive expenditures for minimum return.

But, like the rocket scientists we all wanted to be until we found out how mind-numbingly boring it would be, we can effect change in the long term.  Small course changes amount to big corrections over time.  We can frame the debate on OUR terms, if we start now, and persist.

In fact, we should press that agenda at every turn.

Want proof this is necessary, and effective?

Look at Feminism.  What did they do?  Effect change directly?  No, they manipulated public opinion through various channels, until the changes they desired could be supported through public sentiment (however manufactured).  It must also be noted that they shut down opposition vehemently, and continue to try to do so to this day…at the expense of actual equality it seems…

These lessons are not meant to be lost, but modified.  We have no need to lie, or cruelly manipulate, like feminists have done for decades.  But we need to frame the debate in terms of men, and maleness, as being essentially, and inherently, valuable.

The “worst” part about a false accusation of rape is NOT, for instance, any supposed “chilling effect” on “real victims”…that detracts from (hell, completely ignores) the REAL victim of false accusation…namely, the guy.  Not allowing ANYONE, be it a “friendly” person or not, to frame this type of issue in this way without first and foremost acknowledging the hell it puts a man through is, I think, the first thing MRA’s should have in mind.

By that, I mean that denigrating men, even through omission or inference, cannot, and should not, be tolerated.

Again, for proof look to feminist behaviour.

“Oppression Olympics” ring a bell?  How about shaming language meant to shut men up mid-complaint?  “Poor white male” comments ever get thrown your way?

Simultaneously controlling both the debate and the language, while suppressing dissenting voices, was the formula Feminism followed for success.  Our job as MRA’s is merely the job of publicizing that fact, and exposing the government, certainly various swaths thereof at best, as the massive cynical man-hating parasite it really is, feeding from such a hateful ideology…

It really is that simple.  And that complicated.
Getting heard is not easy these days, and lack of credibility will lose you a ton of public respect…hey, just ask me, I’ll tell you.

It takes diligence, and a focused effort..but really, only sporadically.

Want to be an effective MRA?  Want to effect real change?  In a hurry?  Here’s how.  Go to www.standyourground.com (for simplicity’s sake), post on a thread in the introductions section, and list your skills.  What do you do for a job, what do you like to do for a hobby.  What city you live in.  Make yourself available for some small labour projects.  I understand about the protesting and the embarrassment thing…if you’re not into it, no one’s going to twist your arm.

Write articles, if you can write.  I do a magazine…send an article in for consideration.  Do research for someone if he can write, but can’t research.  Put yourself on a mailing list (try SYG again…why not?) and offer to email your representatives with questions.  Are you an artist?  Make some art…we can always use cultural pieces regarding men’s issues…hell, it’sactually a glaring deficiency, so if you can, please do!  Know how to crunch numbers?  Compile data for the poor souls like me whose eyes cross immediately upon laying them on a multi page spreadsheet…

Many of you do this already.  Keep doing it, or if you get bored, move on to something else for a while…come back when you feel ready for it again.

This is a grassroots movement here people.  Try not to forget that.  All we need do, is let the most men know as we possibly can, that it’s OK to feel however they feel, that it’s OK to think certain aspects of society are bull, that men deserve equal rights, and that anyone who takes issue with this idea is the jerk, not the person advocating for it.  The important thing is, to do the absolute best job of it we can, and put our best argument as far forward as we can.

When the term “mens rights advocate/activist” no longer confuses, we will have won.  And the best part is, to arrive there, all we need do is tell the truth. And no, it doesn’t have to be a full time job…as long as the job gets done…you know?

Thanks for Listening

He had never been married to or even cohabiting with the boy’s mother. The two had a brief affair and when the mother had the baby in 1987, she told Hatley that the baby was his.

A couple of years later, the mother applied for and received public assistance. The state demanded reimbursement from Hatley who agreed to make those payments believing the boy was in fact his son. In 2000, DNA tests showed that Hatley was not the biological father. A court ordered that Hatley be relieved of any obligations for future support of the boy. However, this order did not relieve him of the back payments owed when it had been assumed he was the father so Hatley continued making those payments from the money he earned at his job of unloading charcoal grills from shipping containers.

In 2007, Hatley was laid off from his job. Unable to afford housing, he lived out of his car. Nevertheless, he continued to make child support payments to the state out of his unemployment benefits.

However, he fell behind in his payments, was found in contempt of court and jailed. He was recently released because he is indigent. Soon after his release, a judge relieved him from any obligation to pay the support on which he was in arrears – but which he never should have owed in the first place.

It is good that Hatley is free and relieved of any future financial obligations in the case. However, this does not rectify the injustice that he has suffered. It does not return the money he already paid out of his extremely limited funds nor does it make up for the thirteen months he spent in jail.

The Hatley case illustrates a crying need for an overhaul of the child support system. Firstly, there is the fact that poverty is not a defense against the failure to pay child support. Even if the child had been his, the facts are that Hatley was unable to adequately support himself and did not have the money to support the child. However, the law took a jobless, penniless man living out of his car to jail for not making child support payments. This is a modern day version of the old Victorian horror of debtor’s prison.

People should not go to jail in 21st Century America just for being poor – but Frank Hatley did and so have many others.

Of course, the case began because of a misidentification in paternity. Many observers would criticize the mother as a liar and see her as someone who should be prosecuted for what is often called “paternity fraud.” I do not. The mother was there at the time of the conception but it is unlikely that she was taking notes. Human memory is extremely fallible and this fallibility is exacerbated by the emotionality of questions involving sex and reproduction. Given these truths, a DNA test should be routinely taken before paternity is assigned. If the DNA test is negative, a man could still voluntarily agree to assume the role of the father – with the financial responsibilities incurred as a result – but it would be his free and informed choice.

That we need to fix this system is obvious when a man has been treated as a criminal and jailed for failing to provide money he does not have for a child who is not his.

In what has become a more or less common turn of events, the female Hofstra University student that accused five men, including one classmate, of gang raping her in a school dormitory bathroom has recanted the charges. That’s legal and media speak for admitting she cheapened herself by taking on five men willingly on a men’s room floor and lied about it later out of what little capacity for shame she had.

I suppose, I say yawning, that this is the time for outrage.  And there are plenty of reasons for it, starting with Nassau Police Detective John Allen, commander of the special victims squad.  Allen announced in a press conference that the men had tricked the 18 year old woman into coming to a dorm by taking her cell phone.

“Clearly,” he said, “I think the cell phone was taken to lure her away from the crowd to do her harm.”

And of course, in the Nassau Police Department as in so many others, “Clearly” means she said so.

And next we have Nassau County District Attorney Kathleen Rice. After releasing four of the men from jail (the fifth was still being hunted down), Rice issued a statement that a criminal investigation would be conducted but that no decision had been made as to whether to file charges against the woman.

Rice already has more evidence of an actual crime committed by the woman than she did against the four men that were incarcerated. Which is to say that she didn’t have any evidence against them at all save a single allegation.  And she is waiting now for what, the fair application of justice? Due process?  Her next hair appointment?

I guess we can also save some indignation for when, over the next few days, stories of the woman’s mental health issues and other reasons emerge to soften her treatment.  This will happen, regardless of the DA’s decision on whether to prosecute, and it will be used to lessen the consequences, if any, for what the woman did.

After all, we shouldn’t imperil the future of a woman simply for committing a possible felony that lead to the false imprisonment and public humiliation of four innocent men.

And I suppose that there should be some ire directed at the media, who continue to print the names of the men but not their disgraced accuser, hiding the name of the only real criminal in the story.  Her name will come out now, but only after the search engines bring back a few thousand returns on the names of the men.

There should be too, I assume, and yawning again, a fair amount of finger pointing at feminists who pushed for and got these insane rape shield laws, resulting in so many travesties of justice, so many lives ruined.

Truth tell, though, when I read what one of the accused had to say about the matter, I’d rather focus all my anger at him.  In fact, I want to put him back in jail myself and throw away the key.

Upon being released, accused Stalin Felipe had this to say:

“Basically, I have no hard feelings toward her.  I don’t know why she did it.  I don’t know her so I don’t want to say anything bad about her.”

Bottom line is, if this guy wants to give her a pass, why should anyone else give a damn?

And the truth is that this guy is not unlike most men.  Even with their neck planted squarely on the guillotine, if a woman’s hand is on the lever, the last words of men will likely as not be, “I’m sorry if I get your blade bloody.”

Men are, it seems, the greatest masochists of all time.  Whatever you do, don’t get between a man and an opportunity to excuse a woman for whatever harm she causes to others.

You’ll be road kill in a nanosecond.

And that is precisely what men are becoming.  They are like dumb animals that wander onto the super highway of gender politics, unable to grasp the concept of speed and Mac Trucks.  After getting hit, the ones who don’t get squashed flat simply limp off to the shoulder, covering their pain with a smile and saying, “Please, ma’am, may I have another?”

Is this blaming the victim?  You better believe it.  And it is blame they have coming.  Truckloads of it.

I am not going to bother asking. ‘where is the outrage?’  It’s like asking ‘where is the free health care?’  There isn’t much point in pursuing fantasies.  I’ll leave that to police departments and DA’s.  They have become experts at it.

I know that in the minds of many I am supposed to point to the nobility of men’s desires to protect women at all costs.  That is why men continue to remain silent while they are destroyed before each other’s eyes.  Yeah, that’s the ticket, it’s the nobility.

Normally, I’d expect feminists to find a way to mistake cowardice for nobility.  Such delusions seem more their forte. It’s disgusting to see so many men do it.  But such behavior has become part of the modern masculine repertoire.  And frankly I am growing weary of men, myself included, protesting modern affairs as long as we are leaving jails and courtrooms like grinning weasels, wearing our disgraces like badges of honor.

Where are the Duke three?  Why are they not all over this story?  Why aren’t they doing anything to help prevent what happened to them from happening to others?

I’ll tell you where they are.  They are busy being men.  Which is to say that they are doing nothing at best, doing more damage at worst.  It is the same place the Hofstra five will be by early next week.  And with that they will join the legions of men wrongfully accused, falsely imprisoned, publicly humiliated and shamefully silent.

The only way that this is going to change is if some shepherds emerge to protect a flock that is incapable of, and unwilling to, protect itself.

It is going to be a hard job.  Not only do the sheep need to be protected from the wolves now stalking them, they have the unfortunate tendency to collude with the wolves themselves, to seek their approval and attention, and to extend to them blanket exonerations, even as the wolves size them up and make dinner plans.

The same sheep also have the insane habit of pushing each other into the line of fire whenever they get the chance.  They then stare at the carnage of their dead brothers in front of them, in the words of Don Henley, “uncomprehendingly, like cows at a passing train.”

It reveals a bitter truth that advocating for men is like trying to extend the lifespan of lemmings.

And so it isn’t just standing guard for the shepherds, it’s remaining on suicide watch the whole time.  And it explains why so many efforts for men to organize and make things happen result in exactly squat.  It’s easier to heard snakes with a stick.

Better that a few shepherds go wolf hunting on their own than to take the sheep with them, keeping in mind the whole time that the sheep themselves could be sneaking up behind them.

Paul Elam is the Editor-in-Chief of Men’s News Daily and the Publisher of A Voice for Men

Dispensing with morality is the trademark modus of feminists, yet they still insist on spreading the belief that they have the high moral ground. It is all false of course and holding the two opposing stances leads inexorably to neurosis; another Feminist trademark.

Such neurosis marked feminism up to the 60’s; after which it turned psychotic.

The psychosis evidences as the full-blown anti-life stances of feminism which graduates up from the ‘pill’ to abortion to infanticide. Stopping life is one thing, killing it before or after birth is another. But women have taken the God-kept right to themselves.

Dr Jennifer Roeback Morse puts the matter of abortion in clear and incontrvertible terms:- Human existence contains only two defining instants, which are conception and death. And this is not a matter of “religion” or ‘Feminist religion’ but of biology.

All other milestones, no matter how dramatically recognized in society, amount to transitional phases in the human life cycle.  So despite all of the grandiose but empty oratory, any individual who does not advocate the defense of all innocent human life between those two landmarks is an individual who holds no regard for the sanctity of human life on the whole.

Feminists demand abortion. On their demand. On their whim. No questions asked. No interference – especially from a father – countenanced. Any reason will do to assuage whatever conscience they have.

But that still, small voice will not be silenced by Legislation or mendacity or the shrill Hilary. Even shouting loudly in just her one ear, it talks, for women of course. But it opens the door for all of feminism to be aborted.

http://spectator.org/archives/2009/09/04/killing-girls-is-bad-killing-b

Special Report

Killing Girls Is Bad, Killing Boys Is Okay.

By Doug Bandow on 9.4.09 @ 6:09AM

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is upset about abortion. Well, not abortion per se. But some abortions. Of girls. Apparently killing boys is okay.

Abortion is one issue never likely to disappear. It sets protection of life and liberty in apparent conflict and raises challenging issues such as responsibility and privacy. Abortion isn’t amenable to easy political compromise and any resolution is apt to leave a lot of people feeling uncomfortable.

But the issue can’t be avoided. The bottom line of abortion is a dead baby.

No amount of obfuscation and euphemism can hide the obvious. And if abortion is a legal right, beyond regulation by government, then motivation is irrelevant.

If you have a right to kill all babies, you have a right to kill girl babies.

However, Secretary Clinton, a supporter of unrestricted abortion, appears disturbed by the logical outcome of her policy preferences.

In commenting on her international agenda for women, she observed that in some nations “girl babies are still being put out to die.” Moreover, she explained: “Obviously, there’s work to be done in both India and China, because the infanticide rate of girl babies is still overwhelmingly high, and unfortunately with technology, parents are able to use sonograms to determine the sex of a baby, and to abort girl children simply because they’d rather have a boy. And those are deeply set attitudes.”

Secretary Clinton’s remarks received surprisingly little comment from those she should have most offended — other advocates of abortion “rights.”

Pro-lifers suggested that Secretary Clinton was a traitor to the abortion cause, but Laurie Carlsson defended the secretary’s “nuanced view” on an issue that is “neither simple, nor clean-cut along lines of political beliefs or moral values.”

Yet Secretary Clinton challenged two fundamental precepts of the case for legalized abortion.

First, she tied the “infanticide rate of girl babies” to sex selection abortions.

If sex-based infanticide and abortion are morally equivalent, then non-discriminatory infanticide and abortion should be morally equivalent as well.

Secretary Clinton has raised the core moral challenge of abortion: once we enter the continuum of life, our essential humanity has been established. The moment of birth has no obvious moral distinction.

Else why would Secretary Clinton be as upset with those who abort baby girls as with those who put newborn girls out to die?

Second, Secretary Clinton undercuts the essential argument of abortion activists: there is a right to unrestricted abortion (or abortion “on demand”).

That means for any reason.

However, the secretary has identified, to her, at least, one illegitimate reason.

If there is one, might there not be others?

There are obvious social consequences of sex selection via abortion: for instance, a lot of men who can’t find wives. But that doesn’t seem to be Secretary Clinton’s point. Rather, she is concerned, rightly, about the moral implications of this practice.

It is almost an axiom on the Left that there is no worse offense than to “discriminate,” which makes sex selection abortion so odious to some.

National Post writer Barbara Kay says “sex selection is a form of bias — arguably even a form of hatred — against an identifiable group.” But surely sex selection is not the only form of inappropriate discrimination. How about abortion of the handicapped, whether physical or mental?

Writer George Neumayr has warned: “Without much scrutiny or debate, a eugenics designed to weed out the disabled has become commonplace.”

This also is discrimination. But discrimination, or even “hatred,” doesn’t necessarily stop there.

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg recently discussed Roe v. Wade and noted the “concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.”

Presumably she was referring to racial minorities, though there could be other disfavored groups. Cannot abortion be considered a form of society-wide discrimination?

And if we can judge the motives of those who choose abortion, then should we not critically assess other purported justifications? Why is it worse to decide that the baby’s sex is “wrong” than to decide that the pregnancy’s timing is “wrong.”

Secretary Clinton’s apparent position, that people are free to choose abortion for any reason, except the one reason she finds most offensive, is intellectually unsustainable.

Perhaps the secretary still believes the procedure should be legal, and that the “work to be done” is persuading people not to abort their baby girls. Yet she mentions infanticide in the same sentence as abortion, and presumably she believes that more than persuasion is necessary in the former case.

Again, there is no clear line between infanticide and abortion.

The females are killed: the only question is when?

In any case, the law is never going to be able to control motives. If other abortions are legal, then anyone desiring one for the purpose of sex selection merely need state anything else — or nothing — and the law would not stand in the way.

Australia, Canada, China, and India all formally ban the practice. Oklahoma has legislated against sex-selection abortions. Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.) has introduced a bill imposing a federal prohibition. However, these measures are wasted effort so long as abortion is largely unrestricted.

Secretary Clinton has grasped an essential truth: It is wrong to kill baby girls. But it also is wrong to kill baby boys.

The problem is not sex selection abortion.

The problem is abortion.

Many politicians desperately hope that the issue will just go away. But it won’t. Abortion remains one of today’s most profound moral challenges.

Whether the act was good legislation or just good politics might be a matter of debate.  What is not at debate, however, is that activism toward equal pay legislation is on the rise.

The AFL-CIO is one of many organizations pushing for such a law, even postulating that an equal pay act for women would have the net result of raising pay for men.  In what might be described at best as dangling a carrot, at worst as a bribe to gain men’s support, the union has taken on one of the contemporary causes of feminism and is giving it the hard sell on their website.  In fact they have other articles as well, and have even proclaimed April 28th of this year as Equal Pay Day.  All their work on this is saturated with the same disinformation and and misleading statistics that have emanated from feminist organizations for decades.  How the AFL-CIO became a gender feminist mouthpiece might be quite a story in and of itself.

More to the point though, the movement is getting traction, and it does so by posing a simple question to people across western culture.

Should we enact a law to ensure that women are paid the same as men?  And as long as the question is allowed to be framed in that way, the outcome is all but certain.  I wouldn’t make bets on enough politicians to answer that one in the negative.

Perhaps it will help to state  the question more accurately and honestly. The real question is this:

Should we force companies to pay based on sex rather than performance?

Of course the correct answer is “no,” at least for people who want to live in a culture free of sexism, especially when that sexism is mandated by the state. Governmentally enforced sexual discrimination is exactly what this type of legislation offers.  It is not the proverbial slippery slope, it is the hard landing at the end of a great fall.

We live in a culture that is quick to rush into things that appear egalitarian, especially if they are perceived as ameliorating a problem suffered by groups already associated, factually or not,  with some historical wrongs. This is a prime example of something that might appear promote progress while it actually serves to undermine it. The trick is to place reason over reactionism, which is quite a trick these days indeed.

To make a point, let’s examine a hypothetical.

John and Mary work at the XYZ Corporation doing the same job. John is to work early, completes his assignments on time and turns in work that is at or above the expectations of his job description. Mary is also at work early, completes most of her assignments on time, but for whatever reason only completes about 85% of the work that John does.

Under the guidelines proposed by an Equal Pay Act,  XYZ will have a hard time giving John a raise or promoting him unless they do the same for Mary. They will also be subject to litigation and bad publicity if they do the right thing by rewarding John. Companies usually make very quick decisions when choosing between fairness and cold cash. The latter wins every time.

Under the threat of such an invasive law, the company will be hamstrung in any efforts to recognize and reward top producers. Unless, of course, those producers happen to be women.

Sexist to the very core. And illegal by our current laws.

They tried this in Ontario, Canada, where every employer must rate every job to make sure women are getting paid as much as men. The law resulted in cumbersome and complicated sets of rules from the Canadian Pay Equity Commission.

Sheldon Kaplan, of a large Canadian company that sows and sells sofa cushions lamented in an ABC News 20/20 interview, “We spent months and tens of thousands of dollars to do a 3-cent adjustment that may not have even been necessary.”

A follow-up study by the Canadian Bureau of Economics concluded the law “had no effect on aggregate wages in female jobs or the gender wage gap,”

It shouldn’t be surprising. It’s hard to have an impact on something that doesn’t exist. That supposed gender wage gap, like the one reported in America by the American Association of University Women (AAUW), is predicated on faulty methodology resulting in very misleading conclusions.

The statistics are based on a raw average of men’s and women’s income. Thus a female file clerk who works forty hours a week is averaged in with a male chemical engineer who works fifty-five hours a week.

Pay difference, yes. Gender based discrimination, no. And it is convincing of why the legislation failed to impact the alleged gap in pay.

Until we make laws that force women to pursue different career choices, they will never earn what men do. And calling the results of women’s choices discrimination is a duck and fade on the real issue, and an attempt to further marginalize men by creating an environment where they won’t be able to compete for advancement based on performance.  We should not forget that even as the main stream media and activist unions continue to spread gross inaccuracies regarding pay equity, it is men that have suffered the lions share of job losses in the current recession.

Not that it would pay any company to practice such discrimination in the first place. If women were really paid only .69-cents for every dollar paid to men for the same work, as the AAUW have been claiming since 2007, the wise entrepreneur would only hire women.

“I hope my competitors discriminate,” says Kaplan. “I want my competitors to discriminate because they will go out of business.”

For companies fighting for the competitive edge, the only bottom line is the bottom line. The reality is that pay discrimination adds to the cost of doing business. Whether that happens as a result of gender bias or federal coercion doesn’t make any difference.

If some companies are still foolish enough to pay women less for the same work, their increased costs and legal vulnerabilities already in place will hinder their ability to compete. Mimicking that same foolishness at the level of government is not an answer.

And speaking of answers, they tend to make a lot more sense when we are asking the right questions.

Paul Elam is the Editor-in-Chief for Men’s News Daily and the publisher of A Voice for Men

Concinnity.

For those of you that this fine word has eluded in the past, as it has me, it means:

Harmony in the arrangement or interarrangement of parts with respect to a whole.

And it would seem to be a word apropos of the times where it involves the men’s rights movement,  and a concept direly needed.

There seems to be a rift in the movement between proponents of gay marriage and advocates for family values.  And I say seems most intentionally, because from the outset this is an erroneous and misleading definition in terms.

Searching high and low, I have found no MRA’s that have taken on the cause of promoting gay marriage.  They don’t exist that I know of, though I could have easily missed something in a movement so comprised of scattered voices.

There are some, like myself, that view it as a non issue and a waste of time.  Most of these are MGTOW (Men Going Their Own Way) minded fellows who are much more worried about the personal and legal hazards of heterosexual marriage than they are the supposed dangers of gay marriage to the culture.

So perhaps we can jump start the walk toward concinnity with a more accurate and honest description of the problem, keeping in mind that there is no absolute and monolithic mindset on either side of the fence.

The rift, if we have one, is between some MGTOW’s and some family values advocates.  Or to be shorter, and more succinct, those that promote traditional marriage and those who think it should be avoided.  In my mind, it is a rift that has been largely manufactured from within our ranks and is purely unnecessary.

Indeed, with some balanced perspective it is easy to see where these two camps complement each other and have the possibility for productive synergy, via concinnity.

First, the very reason that family advocates in the men’s rights movement exist is because the institution of marriage has been crippled and reduced to a hazard zone for men and  children, and to a lesser degree, for women.  The efforts of activists to change this is important and laudable. We will have marriage for some time, and growing numbers of people are losing their freedom, property and family bonds to the state enforced intrusions we now allow.

These would be the same intrusions, by the way, that drive many MRA’s to speak out against involvement in the institution in the first place.

Being motivated by the same factors would seem to be a motivation toward concinnity as well, but for reasons beyond my grasp we are in a movement that never seems to miss an opportunity to divide and implode.

I hope eternal it is just growing pains, and in fact believe it is.

And part of the pain of that growth is born from facing honest assessments and taking appropriate action, regardless of how we wish things were, or how we think they ought to be.  Advising men to invest in marriage because we are trying to make changes in the laws is like telling people to keep smoking because we are working on a cure for cancer.

The very idea is as unsound as blindfolding men and pointing them toward the mine field with marching orders and an “atta boy,“ and it sadly reflects an abject indifference to their mangled bodies when inevitable explosions come.

Such are the results when we forget that being a men’s rights activist means advocacy for the men themselves, not necessarily the institutions that they have historically served.

And in taking this unfortunate stance we take from the movement what could be the one-two punch against the current paradigm by boycotting marriage and simultaneously pushing for reforms in family law.  Instead, in the folly of this divide, we turn that flurry of punches inward, and suffer the self inflicted wounds of infighting.

We rob the movement of the concinnity that could actually result in inertia and momentum, breeding destructive divisions; taking the move out of a movement that has still not found its initial stride.

I will always support work to change family law and to lessen the stranglehold the legal system now has over our parents and children.  I consider the men and women who pursue these changes an indispensable asset to the men’s rights movement.

I also support men and women who warn of the pitfalls of modern marriage, and caution men in the strongest possible terms to avoid it.

I am one of those with such a message and I won’t do much in the future but turn up the volume.

When marriage has been made safe again, the dynamics and the message, at least my message,  will change.

Till then, I hope we can see the wisdom in supporting efforts toward change on all fronts, in keeping our fingers off each others throats, and in helping children and men avoid the gallows till some badly needed changes occur.

Paul Elam is Editor-in-Chief for Men’s News Daily and publisher of A Voice for Men.

The current, unelected encumbent is Quentin Bryce, a pleasant lady with inpeccable Feminist credentials who smiles a lot in public, for a handsome stipend.

Prior to her exalted position she was the Discrimination Commisioner given to railing against men gathering together and excluding women from talk of the finer points of car engines, beer labels and Labour Party political chicanery.

Never having encountered a glass-ceiling in her life, she made it her life’s mission to make sure every other woman reported finding one. The ‘Men’s Club’, being the manufacturer of glass and ceilings, was a favoured target of her wrath, along with insistence that chaps clean toilets and pick up socks.

Now, in a massive display of hypocricy, the explanations for which will no doubt be forthcoming and rival the next Harry Potter book, she has joined a  Power-Women-only club.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25996025-5006785,00.html

Quentin Bryce joins Lyceum Club in Melbourne

GOVERNOR-GENERAL Quentin Bryce, a former sex discrimination commissioner, has joined an exclusive women-only club in Melbourne at a time when the legality of single-sex clubs in Victoria is under review.

Ms Bryce’s decision to accept honorary membership of the Lyceum Club coincides with a Victorian parliamentary review of whether such single-sex clubs deserve to remain exempt from the state’s equal opportunity laws, The Weekend Australian reports.

The review follows recent controversy over Melbourne’s single-sex clubs, with the city’s exclusive men-only institutions such as the Melbourne Club and the Athenaeum Club being denounced as anachronistic by Deputy Prime Minister Julia Gillard and Victorian Attorney-General Rob Hulls.

Federal Sex Discrimination Commissioner Elizabeth Broderick, who holds the position Ms Bryce occupied in the early 1990s, has also weighed into the debate, declaring it is “not smart” for any institution that claims to reflect a city’s elite to lock out half of the population.

A spokeswoman for Ms Bryce yesterday defended her decision to join the Lyceum Club.

“The Governor-General has no issue with men or women-only clubs or organisations,” the spokeswoman said.

“She is patron of numerous organisations specifically for women, such as the CWA, the Girls Brigade, Business and Professional Women Australia and the National Rural Women’s Coalition.”

The spokeswoman declined to comment on the “political” issue of the parliamentary review of single-sex clubs in Victoria except to note that such clubs were legal under equal opportunity laws.

Lyceum Club president Annie James said it was open to members to “invite people who are like-minded and can contribute to what the club stands for and can enjoy what the club offers”.

The century-old Lyceum Club has almost 1200 members and is aimed at women “who are interested in the arts, literature, sciences and social concerns”.

The Lyceum’s August newsletter boasted about its glamour recruit.

“I am very pleased to announce that the Governor-General, Her Excellency Ms Quentin Bryce, has accepted honorary membership of our Club,” Ms James wrote.

“Hopefully she will be able to take advantage of our membership occasionally and see what treasures hide in Ridgway Place (the club’s headquarters).”

In the next sentence, Ms James talks about the club’s fight to defend its right to remain a single-sex institution under the exemptions to the Equal Opportunity Act.

The governor-general has traditionally been granted honorary membership of men’s clubs such as the Athenaeum, however Ms Bryce has been shunned by such clubs because she is a woman.

Melbourne’s men-only clubs have been criticised in recent months by Ms Gillard, who has taunted them for not accepting Ms Bryce as a member.

Read more on this story at The Weekend Australian.

With a sigh he lumbers to the garage and wedges the box in a corner, feeling the sides buckle a little as he forces it between his fishing gear and some power tools. Back inside, something starts to claw at him somewhere in the pit of his stomach, like talons sinking into a small animal. It was the trip to the garage. It was a little too…familiar.

There were two things that all his closets had in common. One, as you know, they were all full. Two, almost none of that stuff was Joe Bob’s. Between wife and kids his home was fully occupied. And it wasn’t just the closets. Everything from bathroom counters to bookshelves to basement was the terrain of others. What remained for him was trying to squeeze in what little he had around the property of those considered to actually live there.

Joe Bob’s heart sank with an intractable sense of the walls closing in around him. It was as though he had become the baseball cards, stuffed into a cardboard coffin and shoved in the corner with no room to breathe. It wasn’t just a shortage of square feet. It was something much more personal; more important.

He thought about the fishing gear. If he were to actually use it again he’d have to replace all the line. By now it was brittle with age and neglect. Somewhere along the way, exactly when long forgotten, the fishing trips just ended. They had been shelved with other childish things that interfered with his duties to provide for a family. His wife was instrumental in helping this along. Any mention he made of fishing, or any personal enjoyment, was met with cold disapproval and not so subtle questioning of his priorities. The few times he didn’t cave in to that he paid for with guilt being tied around his neck like a noose. Eventually he got the point. He might go fishing, but he wasn’t going to be allowed to enjoy it.

As time passed by, so did life in a way. Friends slipped away, personal interests and hobbies became memories. The lack of personal space became a lack of personal identity. Somewhere between the early days and where he stood now his life had morphed into something defined only by automated compliance with the needs, and frequently whims, of others. Eventually he reached a place where he could barely remember that he liked fishing to begin with. He wasn’t sure he could remember liking anything at all.

Not that there wasn’t an abundance of rewards from taking care of his family. He loved his family; would lay down in traffic for them. In the end, though, robotic care taking leaves a lot to be desired. Ask any woman. Rebelling from it is inviting a firestorm into your home. Ask any man.

As you probably know, Joe Bob is an imaginary friend. Rather he is a composite of a lot of men I have known. And while the character is fictional, his story is not. It’s a story not often told, much less in mixed company.

Contrary to popular worldview, men feel. They feel as deeply and profoundly as any woman. If you peel back a mans skin, you find flesh and blood, not gears and wires. Men have wants, needs, desires and dreams outside their role as protectors and providers. They are not whole without these things and yet they all too often surrender them without so much as a struggle. And in that, so many become machines; appliances for the use of others.

Many men are Joe Bob; working to provide, complaining little about their lot in life and sacrificing much for the sake of those they love. But sooner or later something gives. It always does.

Joe Bob is average as far as men go. Likely as not he can’t really identify and articulate why the world seems like it is closing in around him. It just is. He doesn’t know that standing up to his wife and insisting she support his taking time for his own interests might solve the problem, or at least lessen it. If he thinks of it at all, he knows such an effort would only result in heated conflict and fishing gear gathering more dust in the corner of his garage.

So he reaches for stuff. He does it without exactly knowing why. A bottle, drugs, violence, even another woman. Anything to feel alive again. He is reaching for the wrong things for the right reasons.

I am not excusing Joe Bob, or trying to say that this explains the worst to be found in some men. I am saying is that it might indeed explain some of it. And it surely needs explanation. For when all the things Joe Bob reaches for ultimately fail him, he sometimes reaches for a gun. This isn’t a blanket explanation of suicide. Nor would any one thing explain it so simply. But I do know this: People who take their own lives often feel like they are alone.

Joe Bob doesn’t feel like he is alone, he is unshakably certain of it.

Paul Elam is the Editor-in-Chief of MensNewsDaily.com and  publisher of A Voice for Men

With the ‘officials’ managing the system living in the next street along one might imagine that a chat over a cup of tea would resolve most issues. But no. There is a vast government machine numbering, oh, say, 10 people, determined to add to the Global Financial Crisis by bumping up debt to employ an army-company sized bunch of zozhial verkers mitt batons.

A chap in NZ writes…….

$1.5b owed in child support

This mornings Dominion Post : Almost a third of liable parents are shunning child support obligations, the highest rate in five years. At June 30, the child support hole totalled $1.5 billion. Inland Revenue is chasing more than $527 million owed by parents, with more than $1 billion owed in penalties. Fathers in Manukau and Gisborne and mothers in Invercargill and Dunedin were the worst offenders. A third of all debt is from Kiwi parents living overseas.

This article is a skewed spin doctoring of child tax debt, he says.

1) Only $527m in child tax is “owed”, the rest is penalties that go to the tax-womans coffers.

2) Dunne has had 9 years to resolve the “debt crises”, but has only managed to continue to grow the debt.

His actions and his officals advice, which is implemented in Law to fix the problems always makes it worse. If any other group where treated like this it would not be tolerated.

Children’s Commissioner John Angus said parents had a moral and legal obligation to pay. Parents were not meeting their responsibilities to their child when they elected not to pay. “Children can get a message the non-custodial parent doesn’t care about them and how they are getting on, because they don’t care enough to make a financial contribution for them,” Dr Angus said.

I would suggest, says my Kiwi correspondent,  that this is reflective of the level of understanding of the Familes Commission on the subject of Child Tax – they dont have a clue what they are talking about.

Angus reduces the support of children to some English poor law notion from the 19th Century . Children never see any of the Child Tax paid, and in many cases don’t see the paying parent but that has no relationship at all to weather a parent cares about his child or not.

His statement is filled with bias and assumption,  not reality and fact.

Mr Dunne said a Government review of the child support system was under way and would assess the actual cost of raising a child, how payments were measured and whether the system was fair, and would propose changes

The review is by people whose type of thinking created the current mess – Officials and The Families Commission – The reality is that new thinking is required.

Putting a human face shoved into the coal-face to it , yet another Kiwi writes:-

Funny thing….I went off the DPB in January when I started a full time job, and because both parents worked full time, niether of us paid child support. Then 5 months later the organisation I worked for got into financial difficulties and went into recievership.

I worked for 6 weeks without pay before I finally went to WINZ and applied to go back on the DPB. Because my son stays with me ONLY 50% of the time (week about), I get aprox. $100 per week less than the full DPB… $332 per week to be exact.

My weekly costs are; rent $225, Genesis power $40 (I can’t change this) and $61 per week for a bedroom suite for my son. Thankfully I have $6 left per week to pay for groceries, transport, medical, clothing etc. Or at least I thought so…

IRD have started charging child support again since I applied for the DPB, and in two months it has already accumulated to $144 and they are now adding on penalties.

Peter Dunne should be forced live on $332 per week with one child and give his child’s food money to IRD to pay for child support. What a circus you run Mr Dunne.

See all at:-

http://menz.org.nz/2009/1-5b-owed-in-child-support/#comment-283945

Amfortas

Ask who the Grail Serves.

In fact, ask who has nicked the Grail and ran off with it.

In one particular module, I used a portable grease board in a room in front of my waiting audience. Without introducing myself or saying anything else, I used a grease pen to write the words “Men are…” at the top of the board, and then silently invited the audience to finish the sentence.

Almost invariably, “pigs” or “dogs” was the first offering, accompanied by a room full of good-natured chuckles. I would nod my head and write it down on the board and return to the audience, still silent, for more.

“Controlling,” says one. “Afraid of commitment,” says another. “Aggressive.” “Macho“ “Afraid of intimacy.” “Violent.” “Sexist,” and “Power hungry.” More of the pejoratives, and almost only pejoratives, would come from the audience till the board was full.

I then flipped the board to the other side.

“Women are…” was the cue, and the answers were even more rapid fire than they were with men.

“Strong.” “Capable” “Empowered” “Sensitive.” “Nurturing,” and the like would fly from the audience to the grease board like a barrage of arrows, till that side too was full.

“What do you imagine,” I would ask, taking a strategic pause for a sip of water, “that these answers tell us about the real nature of sexism in the way we view men and women?”

Asking them a question with actual spoken words must have thrown them for a loop, because the stock response to that question was almost invariably a room full of nonplussed, cognitively dissonant faces. And that confusion usually gave way to irritation, clearly at me, though every answer on both sides of that board had come from them.

And by the way, the participants in the crowd? They weren’t accountants or nurses or teachers or financial advisors.

They were mental health professionals.

Counselors, psychotherapists, social workers and the lot. The very people we love to imagine possess the objectivity to rise above the mindset of bigotry and sexism. And the people, despite our want of faith in their work, least likely to actually do it.

I wanted a little more pressure so I asked more questions. “How could this affect our therapeutic alliance with clients?- Could it make our relationships with females enabling?- Punitive with men?” And always, the final question I asked was “Do we carry sexism, against men, unconscious or conscious, into our work with each and every client?”

With that question the anger usually intensified.

In one talk, a female participant, a social worker, jumped out of her chair and threw her papers everywhere. “You’re the sexist!” she hissed at me, and stormed out of the room. She later wrote letters of complaint both about my topic and the fact I would not sign off on her attendance.

Welcome to the wacky world of mental health.

It is a telling study in the psychology of hate. Indeed, as we peel back the layers of fantasy from the profession, we are forced into a most disturbing conclusion.

Psychology is hate. At least as it is practiced in western culture.

It’s most evident in the junk psychology market. Since the mid-eighties, get-rich-quick psychology gurus have often made their way to bestseller lists. Books like Robin Norwood’s Women Who Love Too Much, Susan Forwards, Men Who Hate Women and the Women Who Love Them and others have been runaway hits, all predicated on rigid stereotypes of men who hate and women who love; all just more additions to the already crowded grease board.

Recently, MRA Mark Rudov appeared on Fox News in a brief debate with Karen Salmansohn on women executives. She was given a nice plug for her new book, Bounce Back. They could have, and probably should have in the interest of balance, given her credit for her previous publication, How to Make Your Man Behave in 21 Days or Less Using the Secrets of Professional Dog Trainers.

I don’t make this stuff up. Unfortunately, I don’t have to.

Currently, male bashing monarch Phil McGraw reigns in the ratings, and it won’t be long before another emerges, fighting to be top dog in dogging men. All you need is a warped worldview and a nod from Oprah.

And these are just the media hucksters. At least we can say that the men and women who embrace their misandry-for-profit schemes are just another dumbed-down group in a dumbed-down media culture.

The more culpable and dangerous are the ones with the air of legitimacy. These folks don’t write, or don’t just write. They teach, do research, and most dreadfully, hang out their shingles and help infect the world, one gullible client at a time.

The world of psychology in academics and practice has become a weapon in the realm of gender politics. Almost all pretense to objectivity and academic integrity has been forced aside by ideologues with an ax to grind against men and who are using the loathsome disguise of helping professionals to further their agenda.

If you think that is extreme, read on.

Allaboutcounseling.com is purportedly an information and referral resource for people seeking mental health services. What it is in reality is a portal, a conduit that induces women into the mentality that it is the vile scourge of manhood at the root of their problems.

And they offer feminism as the solution before the first session is booked.

Some tidbits from their site include some detailed hype about the fundamentals of feminism and some reassurances that not all feminists are lesbians.

I suppose they figure heterosexual women need such basics. And it’s good pre-sell to overcome objections before they are raised. Ask any used car salesman.

They even have a nifty section promoting a new masculinity. These Freudettes have the key to re-engineering men for the better, with the implication, of course, that the way men are now is defective and in need of an overhaul.

Part of that overhaul is a gag. This is just one of the standouts, as it appears word for word on the site.

Openness- To others (especially to women) criticism of our behaviors and attitudes, listen, listen some more, and only speak if the critic wants feedback.

This isn’t even speak when spoken to. It is shut up and take it. Speak with permission only, from whichever woman is attacking you at the moment.

Ah, the finer aspects of mental health.

They have much more there. Enough bogus stats on domestic violence, rape and sexual abuse for a N.O.W. convention, and staunch defenses of feminism tied in directly with the counseling message. Their ultimate point is clearly that sound mental health for women depends on embracing feminism, and with it the hatred for men.

Sound advice for those seeking love and intimacy if I ever saw it.

At this point, the grease board is showing more grease than board.

I wish I could say that this was the bottom of the pit; that the infection stopped there, but we are still dealing more with the symptoms than the actual disease.

Enter the American Psychological Association, and it’s Division 51 group The Society for the Psychological Study of Men and Masculinity. (SPSMM) You can pronounce the acronym spasm if you want to. I do. And it fits.

Here are two of the bullet points from the Mission Statement on their home page, out there for the world to see.

Aye, there‘s the rub, and with it goes the last remaining bit of room on the grease board. Men are defective, pernicious banes to civilized society. And feminism is the answer.

Even our most revered experts in human nature are saying as much.

And this is how it worked in the old Soviet Union. It is wise to consider that in the Solzhenitsyn era of gulags and iron fisted reaction to political dissent, that most of the dissidents were imprisoned in “mental health facilities,” the logic being that if you disagreed with the state, there must be something wrong with your mind.

It was also a strategy of, and yes, I will say it without reservation, the Hitler regime, to poison the minds of the populace with disinformation about Jews, prepping the people to look the other way while they were dispatched in the name of a master race.

The plans for men may be less extreme and of longer duration, but it is happening nonetheless. Men are being marginalized year after year. Their numbers in college graduating classes are waning; 42% at last count. They have lost over 80% of the jobs in the current recession. They are dying by suicide and all other manners of death at rates that make women’s lives look like vacations in Fiji.

It’s hell having all this power. It is a wonder how we find time to oppress the world with it, much less twirl our moustaches and snicker while we do it.

But the anti-male hate machine keeps grinding away. Spasm would no doubt classify the MRM as a mass shared psychosis, and MRA’s individually as antithetical to humanity.

I used to remember that social worker who threw the tantrum in my class with a smile. It was a funny image. But that was some years ago. At the time, I knew the sexism was there, but it was not entrenched as deeply as it is today. And I naively thought it would go away.

I am not smiling about it any more.

Paul Elam is the publisher of A Voice for Men

 A network of misandric, biased, criminal  ‘Shelters’ has covered the land with a new and vicious corruption at grass-roots level, purportedly to ‘assist’ women but in fact act as a conduit for corruption and criminality.

I only have to mention Professor  Stephen Baskerville’s ‘Taken into Custody’  work for many at MND to understand. Or Professor Carey Roberts’ exposes.

 But little gets written about other Anglophile countries. How much is known in MRM circles and outside in the MSM about the corruption in the UK, for instance.

 I would like to set some facts down about another, Australia, a huge, continental nation with a very modest population where leftist governments have dominated the various States and now are in control Federally.  This wonderful land has been infected with the virus of feminist corruption to the detriment of government, law, Institutions and families, men and women.

 The rationale for all of the pertinent Law, the hysteria, the draconian legislations is Domestic Violence.

 The most horrendous lies are told about DV. And people seem to believe them. They have been persuaded.

Deliberately Lying about Domestic Violence in Australia.

I am indebted to a Senior Australian Public Servant who must remain anonymous, for some crucial parts of this long and detailed blog entry.

Pick up almost any newspaper on any given day and you will most likely find a by-line claiming: “Statistics show …”;   “new survey finds …”; or, “new study proves …”. Often accompanied by embellishments such as “shocking”, “appalling”, and so on.

Nowhere is this more prevalent than on the subject of gender relations and in particular the emotionally charged subject of domestic violence, or it’s substitute “family violence”.

It is about neither of course.

It is all about women.

Hysteria is carefully stage-managed.

Only lip service is paid to the idea that males might be victims, and then, we are told, they deserve it anyway.

Let me be clear from the start. I do not like domestic violence, just as I do not like muggings, murders, rapes, armed robberies, cats and dogs lying together etc.  But rarely is there any need for muggings to be blown out of proportion by including in their statistics the asking for an ice-cream, even when a tantrum follows a ‘no’.

The panic and hysteria generated by falsified and invented Domestic Violence statistics does far more damage to society and to men and women’s relations, than the very small amount of Domestic violence that exists and which is blown completely out of proportion.

Australia does not collect unified data on Domestic Violence. Not directly. Figures get lifted out of context from a variety of ‘official’ documents.

Where do you think they come from?

The most widely cited statistics on the subject in Australia is the Women’s Safety Survey, published in 1996 , that repeats American claims, “One in four women experience domestic violence, within their lifetime”.

There was no Men’s Safety Survey.

The bias was there even before the survey was designed.

It was another ten years, 2006, before a further more inclusive Safety survey was conducted.

This article looks at this biased, anti-male 1996 Survey and other sources which have driven Public Policy in Australia.

I will also show the 2006 survey in some depth and reveal the government’s response.

One in Four Women Abused.

This American claim of  ‘One in Four’ ubiquitously applied to most female claims of outrage, first surfaced in the left-wing Feminist Ms Magazine in the 1970’s after a deliberately doctored survey about rape using a self-selected sample of its anti-male readers.

One in Four is a ‘super-term’. It is akin to an hypnotic chant that robs people of control over their thoughts. It is applied to almost anything to do with women.

Being given a glass of wine before sex constituted rape according to that travesty of a survey, commissioned by Ms and conducted by a misandric feminazi ‘Professor’, Mary Koss.

A considerable broadening of what constitutes domestic violence and sexual assault was demanded by feminists in America to access the gravy train of the Violence Against Women Act, (VAWA) and the left-wing President Clinton, the well known sexual assaulter of young women employees, complied.

Clinton sought to make reparation to his feminist harridan of a wife for his own sexual incontinence by punishing every man in America.

He was assisted in this by the then Senator Joe Biden, now the Vice President, an aptly named position for such a twisted mind  – who explained how he used to be beaten-up by his sister when he was young, and was making his own Kow-Tow to her continued ‘advice’.  Which no doubt was ‘Do it MY way, or ELSE’. 

Biden was an architect of VAWA. He cared not for violence against men and may well be a masochist by nature.

VAWA opened the door to a widespread and mendacious catalogue of innocuous behaviours being classified as ‘assault’ and DV in a flood of Advocacy Research.

People in other western countries will recognise the same dirty fingers in the pie-charts of their own bogus and mendacious advocacy research underpinning their own Government Policies.

The “Women’s Safety Survey” (WSS) findings, which uses this sleight of hand, underpins Australian Government policy and legislation in every Australian state jurisdiction – with the exception of Victoria, which now evidently claims that “one in five women are victims of domestic violence”.

This apparently suggests that women would be much safer if they all moved to Victoria. Maybe it is something in the Victorian air.

No “study” is of much value until it has been subjected to peer review. This hasn’t occurred in relation to the Women’s Safety Survey. For a number of reasons, there is an urgent need for independent and thorough research and review.

The WSS study was released under the imprimatur of the Australian Bureau of Statistics  but was in fact a creature of the  bureaucratically powerful Office of Status of Women which commissioned and directed the survey.

There was significant consternation reported at that time in relation to complaints,  by ABS officers – that they were being “bullied” into undertaking unprofessional, and methodologically flawed “advocacy research” – research which is designed to prove the existence of something, whether it exists or not.

Several Executive level officers of the ABS were later ‘re-located’ to ‘re-education’ roles

The notion that one in four women are suffering from domestic violence is alarming  and conjures images, at the very least, of black eyes and bruises occurring on an appalling scale.

But it is a lie.

How many Australian’s would know that the survey included such largely irrelevant questions as “Have you ever received an obscene phone call?”  .

A phone rings and no one is there. Bogus fear is  conveniently generated from a neurotic mind.

Tick the box.

Another sexual assault.

Yeh. Pig’s arse !

It beggars belief that questions like this formed the bulk of the survey.

It has barley any relevance to domestic violence at all.

But…. It’s another male-damning statistic.

But the Office for the Status of Women did not stop there. The determined harridans were intent on spin to beat all spin.

How many would know that the survey report blurred the fact that some 27 per cent of respondents were actually reporting violence caused by other women?

Heck, that’s just over One in Four !

It must have been men that made them do it.

Believe me, you can be convinced.

In fact, you have been.

There were many other seriously disturbing aspects to this survey. For example, it also involved only voluntary participation, which is a key source of survey bias – just as in the Ms magazine survey – as it attracts participants who may have a vested interest the subject matter, a factor that can dramatically skew the results.

In the desired direction, of course.

And, it was a “life incidence” survey, thus inviting the recitation of some event far off in both time and in memory.

The failings of human memory with the passage of time is well recognised by our legal system, which, with very few exceptions, refuses to admit evidence that has been muddied by time and with no corroboration.

Forty years and a bitter divorce can change a memory from someone merely “pushing away” into “he threw me down the stairs”.

Who is there to contradict?

No evidence was even sought.

The law recognises the frailty of old memories but our ever -increasing victim culture does not.

Society would not entertain the concept that someone is currently considered to be a “road accident victim” based on a minor bruise they had incurred in a vehicle accident 20 years ago.

Nor would we necessarily put much faith in a 20-year-old version of how the accident occurred.

Yet this is precisely what such surveys on domestic violence increasingly attempt to encourage for society to accept as reality, current and relevant for domestic violence and assault.

When citing the “one in four” statistic, some domestic violence literature conveniently leaves out the phrase “within their lifetime”, giving a false impression of immediacy; that one in four women are victims, right now, on this very day.

Think about that.

Every shout-at, telling-off, even smack on the legs when we were five years old being counted so that everyone has been the ‘victim’ of abuse.

Moreover, the Women’s Safety Survey did not overtly and clearly say that one in four women were victims of “physical” domestic violence, but included a range of other non-physical and both potentially and actually non-violent behaviours that were then re-classified as “domestic violence”.

It covertly implies it is all physical violence.

A man not handing over his pay-packet to his wife is ‘economic DV’.

No mention that it demanding his wages is extortion.

Him answering that ‘Yes’ her bum does look fat in those jeans, is ‘verbal DV’.

It ‘demeans” and is therefore ‘violent’.

An argument between a couple with both shouting is HIM being violent.

She is simply defending herself by ‘communicating’.

Advocacy research has taken over much of what passes for academic and ‘official’ date collection.

It sets out to provide ‘proof’ for a conclusion already held. It supports a Prejudice.

Why do you think that anyone would want to go to the time and effort to do that?

 Show me the Money.

Domestic violence literature, when citing such advocacy research survey findings characterise the one in four statistic as referring to physical violence.

The leaflets handed out by the self-declared socially-conscious commercial retail chain, “The Body Shop”, being a case in point.

 It manipulates. It attracts. It drew wannabee socially conscious women customers in to buy fragrant soaps and candles, to ‘support victims of domestic violence’.

Domestic Violence lies sells women’s products.

“After you have been beaten by an unappreciative man, you poor victimized woman, you need to pamper yourself. You deserve it.”

“Oooh, let me have some of those candles, you poor thing, I am a victim, too. Honest.”

“Is that right. Could you take a minute to fill out this survey while I wrap these for you”.

Such ‘women’s goods’ shop chains have no shame in ripping off women by appealing to ‘support for victims’.

Even refugees from Torture and Trauma are roped in. The Refugee resettlement organisations in Australia get Government funds which are then siphoned off to run ‘joint’ appeals with such women’s goodies retail outlets for ‘raising consciousness’. And getting women to fill in surveys.

 They only mention women refugees of course. The maimed men do not get to take part. It makes for a fine week’s boost to turnover and the private company ‘bottom line’.

It gets women’s votes too.

Domestic violence literature across the board not only blurs the past with the present but blends quite different and sometimes relatively innocuous behaviours with the abjectly violent, in order to incite a widespread impression that physical domestic violence against women is currently running rampant and unchecked in our community.

The survey gives an Australian flavour to the increasingly Internationalised American charade of a law, the Violence Against Women Act, brought in by the American Cultural-Marxist group, the National Organisation of Women, and pushed through by the efforts of the current American Vice President, Joe Biden.

Such a gender biased law has gobbled up Billions of dollars of American taxpayers money funneled to women’s groups; with nothing at all to male ‘victims’.

Australia is behind with the Dollars but then it is a much smaller tax-base. It is just Hundreds of Millions. With the Global Economic Crisis upon us, it will catch up with some Stimulus Packages for the girls, be sure. Kevin Rudd’s ‘working families’ have had their day and the non-working, single-mother families are on the increase.

No prizes for guessing why.

Right now in 2009 our Great leader, Chairman Mousey Kev is announcing a massive increase in Grants to women. More to the Violence against Women mantra. Our Equality Chairwoman (!) was doing the Press round appearing on TV in July 2009 to rally the media at the weekly Press Club broadcast.

Here we are in the middle of the worst recession, supposedly, since the demise of the Mickey Mouse Club and the girls want what is left of the money.

But, no worry. Chairman Kev will sell the children’s future to pay today’s women.

It buys votes.

 Women’s votes.

The Office for the Status of Women is a vast black hole into which taxpayer’s money is poured. It exists soley to benefit Government and the powerful female bureaucrats that run the show, none of which has ever seen a glass ceiling.

 The Office channels Policy like Shirley MacLain channels 5000 year old Egyptian Gurus.

A beneficiary has been the Health Departments both Federal and State that have had billions of dollars funneled into ‘Women’s Health’ while dregs are given to men.

 But I digress.

 The mendacious nature of the now ubiquitous term domestic violence, which brings under its one heading a range of non-physical behaviours is of primary concern. The nuances of context and intensity are increasingly lost in a determined re-interpretation of any kind of marital disagreement, into a paradigm of male “perpetrator” and a female “victim”.

 It breaks traditional families apart.

 We see a lot of street behaviour that we might regard as offensive or verbally aggressive but in the absence of a physical assault (whether major or minor) we don’t classify it as violence per se.

 Yet domestic violence researchers seem to almost salivate over a positive response to, “Has your partner ever yelled at you?”

 Tick!

 Another female domestic violence victim.

 Another man-damning statistic.

 Although, “Did you yell back?”, is conveniently never asked.

 No one asks the chap of course.

 Do you feel like yelling yet?

 The WSS surveyed 6000 odd carefully selected women and no men at all.

 Gross, dishonest, Gender-biased sampling marks this survey.

 Ambiguous and irrelevant questions litter it.

 Subterfuge and bribery marks its collection.

 Bias runs throughout the findings.

 It drives a biased, anti-male Un-Australian Industry that expropriates Public Monies and supports commercial interests.

It drives prejudiced and bigoted Government Policy.

 The survey does not like to stand out like a sore thumb as the only data. Let’s look at the other common sources of dodgy data misrepresented by our feminist-driven Government, to convince the Australian public that we have an epidemic of Family Violence which is attributed solely to evil Australian men.

Lies build upon lies.

More lies convince better than just one.

Let us take a look at intervention orders issued by the lower courts as a source of  bogus “statistical evidence” of the “magnitude” of domestic  or ‘family’ violence.

Let us also will look at Police records of DV ‘Incidents’ and how they are not at all what they seem. Or what the general public is told.

Let us look at the Supported Accommodation Assistance Program which is also misrepresented to the detriment of men and the advantage of the DV Industry.

Wrong and often bogus statistics are deployed, with an apparent intention to deliberately mislead.

Add Wing of Bat and Eye of Lizard  to the Pot

Having looked at the uncorroborated, biased and manipulated Women’s Safety Survey let us look now at Intervention Orders and how they are manipulated too.

Most “finalised” intervention orders are finalised simply because they are uncontested. That is, the male “respondent” is persuaded (often bullied) by court officials, such as Deputy Court Registrars, into signing up for a “final” or “permanent” order rather than contest the allegations in court.

The lower courts don’t want any more congestion if it can be avoided.

Men are manipulated. The Bat’s-wing.

Convincing a bewildered “respondent” to sign up for the permanent order on the basis of a “By Consent, Without Admissions“, is not particularly difficult, especially if a solicitor  has already advised him that it could cost up to $10,000 if he goes to court.

And further, that he will most likely lose.

The Burden of Proof is laid on the defendant, not the accuser. Proving a negative is plain impossible. 

The legal test is not “beyond reasonable doubt” but merely the “balance of probabilities”. This is a very weak civil law test in the context of penalties that could ultimately imprison a respondent, and certainly dispossess him of his assets.

This happens in Tasmania where the ironically misnamed ‘Safe at Home Act’ ensures that male arrest is automatic with no bail on simple female accusation.

He loses access to his home and children and even loses his job because he cannot prove he didn’t do what he didn’t do.  Magistrates are badgered by the Safe at Home Act and are increasingly fearful of bad publicity if a violent act should possibly subsequently occur.

As it is quite possible. The catalyst for possible subsequent violence, ironically, is often the faked restraining order allegations in the first place and the trauma of being hauled into court often for the first time in his life. The magistrates are as aware as anyone of the adage, “Might as well be hanged for a sheep as a lamb’.

In this instance is ‘hang him just in case he has his eye on a lamb’.

When you are convicted of something you didn’t do, on a false allegation you cannot disprove, you may well want to earn your punishment.

So much for “justice” and the fading jurisprudential notion of the “presumption of innocence”.

Whether a female complainant was ever genuinely fearful or merely a perjurer and liar is more often than not un-explored. And if it is questioned at all, with due compassion and concern for the ‘victim’, the diluted “balance of probabilities” test still renders such findings questionable.

Domestic violence literature increasingly proclaims that domestic violence is a crime. Quite so. Therefore, in any legal action, the criminal law test of “beyond reasonable doubt” should be applied.

It never is.

Given the growing understanding that intervention orders are regularly used as a tactical weapon in achieving favourable custody and property outcomes in subsequent Family Court proceedings, a count of intervention orders as a measure of “violence against women” is virtually meaningless.

Yet such statistics are used for precisely that.

I sat in the Hobart, Tasmania, Family Court and listened as a ‘fearful’ 27 y/o ex-wife of four years marriage accused her poor sod of a ex-husband of  62 from whom she had taken three quarters of his lifetime’s assets, of murdering her previous boyfriend – who in fact had been deported as an illegal immigrant – and of being an International Terrorist. He had been in the Israeli army on National Service 30 years before.

The Judge said she was being ‘fanciful’. No charges of perjury were laid and no investigations ordered for such heinous crimes, And she was awarded the children. Of course. ‘Just in case’.

Over the course of the following three years that man was arrested seven times and spent four nights in jail. He was hospitalized twice. He was arrested on one occasion after she accused him of assault. He had leaned on her car.

Another domestic violence statistic.

Always added, never subtracted when disproven. No one tries to seek truth. It was disregarded at his Court case that he has been run over by a horse and buggy and has a damaged back. He leaned because he was in pain.

Tough.

Which brings us onto the Eye of Lizard.

Another statistic commonly cited by an increasingly frenzied domestic violence Industry is the number of POLICE CALL-OUTS to domestic or family violence ‘Incidents’. 

Whether the “incident” involved verbal disagreement between husband and wife or an act of actual violence, we would never know. It is merely noted as an “incident”.

In fact, if the protagonists were two 14 year old brothers arguing on the front lawn that too, would be noted on the official records as a domestic or family violence incident.

These records of “incidents” are then inevitably fed into the ever-swelling “conduit” of statistics that ultimately produces headlines that purport, “alarming new data shows domestic violence against women running out of control”.

The police in any region know who the violent families are. They attend the same people time and time again. The vast majority of citizens are not violent and do not have ‘domestic violence’ in their homes and families.

But when one family chalks up 25 ‘Incidents’ in three months, and 200 families account for 2000 Incidents, it is made to appear that ten times as many men are guilty than are.

The women never are guilty of course. They are made out to be 2000 victims.

The end result is then ever-increasing public funding to combat the ever burgeoning horror of violence against women. Nobody ever delves deep enough to examine how many of these police reported “incidents” actually involved a physical violence or threat of violence or indeed whether a woman was even present at the time.

Leg of Cane-Toad too.

Few if any newspapers or TV ‘expose’ shows ever investigate the amount of public funding to any organisation that puts itself under the “domestic violence umbrella” or else you will instantly understand why this has become a publicly funded “industry” of vast size.

The Supported Accommodation Assistance Program  (SAAP) is yet another supportive source of statistics on so-called “family violence”.

The SAAP gives priority to ‘battered women’.

Love that phrase.

What the SAAP data does not show however, is how many women were encouraged to falsely claim that they were fleeing family violence, or indeed what the nature of the “violence” was, so that they could receive the priority treatment gravy train.

A recent Canberra Times article, lamenting the lack of affordable low cost public housing for poor families, featured a couple with young children who were forced to live in a caravan. A “housing worker” was quoted as suggesting to the mother, “If there was family violence, you could get a house straight away”: i.e. claim you are a female victim and the “world is your oyster”.

Male victims need not apply.

He would not be allowed in her ‘priority’ house.

Using SAAP data as a measure of violence against women is badly flawed because it can be and is misconstrued – again with an apparent deliberate intent – to reflect a statistic illustrating the number of women and children fleeing family violence.

In fact, at this point you might care to watch a short video on just where so much ‘family violence’ actually originates -

Everyday Family Terrorism

http://soundcloud.com/christian-j/everyday-family-terrorism

And while you are in the mood to consider if woman are perfect and blameless and do not ‘do’ anything that could be called domestic violence, try this, from just days ago -

From the Associated Press’ Official: Wedding Fire Was Criminal Act–Kuwaiti Newspaper Says Groom’s Angry Ex-Wife Started Deadly Blaze:

Kuwaiti authorities have apprehended the person suspected of setting fire to a wedding tent and killing 41 people and said Monday the motive was personal. Local newspapers reported the groom’s ex-wife was the arsonist.

Whoops, sorry. Not an Australian statistic there. Unless she seeks refugee status and pops into the Body Shop for some scented candles. Back to Aussie homeless.

SAAP data, in fact, often reflects the large number of homeless men who being so frequently dispossessed by individual chicanery, destructive, psychotic women and Family Court excoriation, are seeking emergency accommodation. They do not get priority of course.

By both omission and commission, Australia is being sold a very gross and socially dangerous statistical lie -  one that is serving only the interests of its creators, and those legions who have so readily signed up to the fictional notion that every fourth female face we see each day is secretly living in stark terror and fear of “family violence”.

So, What is the Truth.

Some women unfortunately are victims of ‘family violence’, let’s admit as evidence and acknowledge the fact.

1.2% are according to a rare example of independent University research by Bruce Headly and Dorothy Scott of Melbourne University and David De Vaus of La Trobe.

But that was a non-self-selected, random sample.

1.2%. This tiny percentage, well below the oft cited 25%, needed first aid, so bad was the violence they had experienced at the hands of a domestic partner.

And so did some men.

The same research shows 1.8%  for men needing first aid.

 A full 50% higher.

Even smaller percentages of both needed a doctor’s attention. But again more men than women. 1.5% men vs 1.1% women.

Moreover, the Headly, Scott and De Vaus  summary measure of experiencing a range of forms of assault fails to reveal any preponderance of assaults on women:

4.7% of the sample reported being assaulted ‘in some way’ during the last 12 months; 5.7% of men and 3.7% of women. Not needing any attention to damage though.

They had had a shouting match and called each other naughty names.

Again, that is over half as many men more than women. And so far below the mythical 25%, the 1:4, terribly, awfully suffering women, as to make a total rejection of feminist lies.

What must be untangled – so that effective measures can be put into place – is the real incidence of such violence from the bogus statistical misrepresentations that are serving an entirely different agenda.

The critical issue about DV is all too often overlooked completely; it’s low experience in the community.

• · 94.4% of people reported in Headly et al, being neither perpetrators nor victims of violence.

• · 2.5% report both assaulting and being assaulted.

• · 2.1% report being assaulted but not committing assault.

• · 1.0% report assaulting their partner but not being assaulted.

 No signs at all of  1:4 or 25% anywhere.

This Independent research showed clearly that DV affects a miniscule proportion of the population, and on every measure but one men suffered greater domestic violence from women than women did from men and in greater percentage numbers.

The one measure?

She calls the police far more often.

The mantle of mass victimhood casts a long and very dark shadow that too often conceals the very location of the destruction of truth and where propaganda is given the oxygen for its blowtorch.

The Federal Government spent $73 million on television adverts showing only male perpetrators and only female victims.

Sheer AgitProp.

THAT is domestic violence.

You paid for it with expropriated taxes.

The  advertising camapign was labeled  “propaganda against men” with many men criticising its negative and blatantly false “stereotypical portrayals”.

One notable Australian commentator described it as ‘the worst piece of deliberate Government black propaganda against a biologically distinguishable group ever seen outside of Nazi Germany”.

Almost all political tyrannies have their origin in segregating societies into the conceptual equivalent of “good and evil”, “angels and demons”, “victims and perpetrators”. “Four legs good, two legs bad”. There is never a middle ground

“Male equals perpetrator”, “female equals victim”.

When liars are afoot in society, in power, their first weapon of choice is statistical “proof” to provide convincing lies.

One has to wonder why intelligent, moral men and women in Australia put up with this. Men are demonized but say little to protect their Reputations and their legitimate interests.

Women’s legitimate interests have been hi-jacked by a clique of destructive, Marxist-Feminist women who spread blatant lies on their behalf, expropriate public monies and claim a bogus high moral ground.

It would be generous to think that this manipulation and bias was just the result of incompetence. But as we can see there is something far darker behind it. It is corruption. It is deliberate.

It is statistical corruption; fiscal corruption; political corruption.

As a result of that bogus 1996 survey, and with the ongoing manipulation and misrepresentation of the three other ‘Official’ statistics discussed above, women fear walking in the street, especially at night. Every husband is regarded as a potential wife-beater. Funds flow to women’s groups. 

Domestic Violence advocacy was the fastest growing Industry of the decade following, employing thousands in ‘jobs for the girls, paid from  taxpayer expropriations

 The Truth is out there  -  somewhere.

I mentioned before that an Official but Independent and reliable survey needs to be done to establish valid figures for Policy determination.

Following the row between the Women’s Office and the Australian Bureau of Statistics, over Feminist manipulation and bullying, the ABS conducted it’s own survey.

It took ten years to get around to it, mind you.

The results were very different to the bogus ones of the Office for the Status of Women, despite their continued attempts to interfere and manipulate.

The Australian Government has ignored the more relevant ABS findings  under pressure from those same feminists who continue to exercise undemocratic control.

 The ABS to manage to do a more reliable examination in 2006 which tried to show the truth. At least it didn’t leave out an entire gender this time.

Once again, however, the Feminists managed to interfere and manipulate, and I will show you how. I also show how you can delve into the data collected to bring the Truth into the light of day.

The ABS Personal Safety Survey finally emerged in 2006 and sampled BOTH genders – for a change.

Have a good look at it.

And along with its appearance, the statistical myths and fabrications of feminist’s victimhood, and women’s class oppression , and claims of an epidemic of violence against women -  were able to be  immediately exposed and contradicted

But the silence was deafening.

Have you heard of the Personal Safety Survey or its findings?

No?

What a surprise. !

Have you heard of 1 in 4 women are victims of domestic violence?

Of course you have.

The silence didn’t last of course as it was soon replaced with a $73 million Government advertising campaign based on the old false results appearing on TV sets nation-wide.

It was like sticking fingers in women’s ears and having them chant “lalalalalala; Men, bad; Women, victims”.

The survey reveals a picture of what any rational person should have assumed about life simply by observation of the world around them and their day to day existence in it.

The survey reveals what most people should have known or should have suspected about the facts of social violence -

it is men rather than women who have the most to fear regarding their personal safety.

It further reveals that the perpetrators of violence, in all their ugly forms and diversity, are not just men, and that the domain of perpetrators includes a significant percentage of women.

There are few surprises in this survey other than it seems to have been conducted with appropriate propriety and adherence to statistical principles.

Almost. 

A refreshing breath of almost-fresh air given the lies and spin of so many preceding studies and surveys conducted on this subject.

But before delving into some its facts and figures, there are a couple of points that should be clarified about the survey itself.

As surveys go, it seems to have been done fairly responsibly but with some clear prior interference. It encompassed a sizeable sample of the population – 16,300 adults in total, about 0.1% of the Australian adult population – so its findings could be seen to be a reasonable reflection of what’s really going on in Australia today.

That’s 2 and a ½ times the sample size of the feminist’s survey.

However, for some reason you will instantly recognise, nearly three times as many women were surveyed than men – 11,800 women compared to only 4,500 men.

What a surprise !

The feminists just cannot help themselves, can they?

Ask yourselves; there are 50% women and 50% men in our society. There are usually one man and one woman in a domestic couple.

OK. There are sometimes two men together, and two women together, but rare.

So why a sample that is 75% women and 25% men?

It is better than 100% women and 0% men, as in the 1996 survey, but still only a little better. Half a loaf.

Men’s experiences of personal safety are not deemed as valid as those of women. Did they expect that women’s experiences of violence would be more valid, diverse or significant?

Or was it simply a matter of funding as is implied in the survey’s notes?

Funding controlled by feminists in the bureaucracy?

You get the Report; read it carefully and make your own mind up. Read the notes.

Whatever the reason for it, and there is no fair or justifiable stance that could possibly be taken for this glaring discrepancy, the question remains, why were men relegated to being less than second class respondents?

No one has provided an answer.

You can go figure it for yourself, but perhaps we can hope this imbalance will be addressed in any further surveys where the sex of the respondents is relevant.

For now though, when digesting the results, it must be understood that sample distribution bias still exists .

In fact, in some cases, reflected in the ABS tables, annotations have been made by the statisticians indicating that the data may be of questionable reliability.

Why would that be?

Why would the ABS warn about its own data?

I will tell you in a moment.

Given the importance and far reaching social implications of this survey, this restriction of men’s experiences is a travesty of their rights as taxpayers and citizens of the nation.

Especially as it turns out from the survey results that men are the most severely affected members of society where personal safety and violence are concerned.

This treatment of men is a clear statement by the Government that they see Australian men as being second class and less important than the women of the nation.

Yet, in the Liberal’s defense, – they had achieved Government by then – it must be argued that they are the first and so far only government in Australia to include men in such a survey at all.

Previous Labor governments, which had presided over the totally bogus Women’s Safety Survey, simply didn’t care about the safety of men and only ever conducted safety surveys for women.

This development in itself is at least some consolation for Australian men and was a positive step forward.

Now, the reason for the annotated questioning of the reliability of the data, especially about the men.

You see, the other glaring concern about the production of this ABS survey was the sexist exclusion of men as interviewers.

100% of the interviews were conducted by women.

Only women were employed as interviewers.

No men.

By order of the Feminist bureaucracy.

It is important to realise that by using ONLY female interviewers, it is likely to have led to an underreporting of spousal and partner violence against men by females and an over-reporting of men’s violence against women.

In a national survey of this significance, one could have at least expected squeaky-clean adherence to equal-sex political correctness. 

Hah!

Pig’s Arse !

Despite these sexist anomalies the survey reveals for the first time, much important information about personal safety, and the victims and perpetrators of personal violence. 

It is a subject, which has long been obscured by the murky fog of feminist  advocacy. Prejudice and proving prior expectations have ruled such research. 

But against the odds, this survey has revealed and has exposed the feminist lies.

The following statements, derived directly from the ABS survey, are just the initial findings and a fuller investigation by YOU, yourself, of the finer detail is encouraged.

Do not simply take my word.

I will compare the freshly published data to the often-quoted rhetorical statistics of feminist propaganda – and remember this, these are official Australian government research figures and not some trumped up, biased, ideologically prejudiced University Women’s Studies data or those of some politically or gender- biased NGO.

Those rhetorical stats use the 1:4 comparison device, or the ‘per second’ and per day and per week device to hide the real numbers which would look as small as they actually are.

It sounds so much better to say that two women a week are killed by husbands – as the Deputy Prime Minister of the UK is fond of spouting – than to say that 102 women out of a population of 30 million are killed annually by nutters.

Two per week generates more hysteria than 0.00034%

And of course the feminists never tell you that 94 UK men per annum, nearly but not quite two men per week are killed by female spouses.

Facts - the ABS survey has revealed that -

In Australia, men are more than twice as likely as women to be the victims of violence and are being physically or sexually assaulted or threatened, at the rate of up to 2 incidents per second

Women are not the victims of family (domestic) violence  anywhere near as often as the quoted  25%, 1 in 4, – nor even 1 in 10, – nor even 1 in 20, but actually 1 in 50

That is to say, 2%

2%

Women are not being raped and sexually assaulted every 26 seconds, as claimed by the Feminists of the Office for the Status of Women, nor even every 90 seconds, as other feminists frequently claim, but are in fact experiencing rape hardly at all. 

And even when combined with the lesser sexual assaults, it is at a rate 91% less than that which feminists have previously claimed.

Look at that another way. Feminist claims are exaggerated by at least 10 times.

And this includes both reported and all unreported incidents ‘discovered’ by the survey interviewers.

The ratio of female vs male family (domestic) violence victims in a home is not 99:1, with men very rarely assaulted and women bashed daily, nor 95:5,  nor 75:1, nor even 50:1, but is actually ……   2:1

And some of the women are being assaulted in the ‘domestic’ sphere by other women.

These statements above are all calculated from the ABS survey data without corruption. Look at the figures.

Of course there will be some deviation from the survey compared to real life figures, just as in all studies  – always read the fine print of surveys – but, remember, nearly three women were interviewed for every one man.

The data for men may have been tainted by the use of only female interviewers, some of whom may even have been staunch feminists, – show me a woman who claims she isn’t and I will show you a lonely one -  and together with the sample number bias, resulting in underreporting of men’s experience of family violence as victims.

Let us look closely at some other interesting statistics -

During the previous 12 months in Australia, that is, in 2005,

6.5% of males were physically assaulted.

And 3.1% of females

That is 1 in 15 men compared to 1 in 32 women.

Conclusion: Women are safer.

Attempted or threatened physical assaults were against 5.3% of males and just 2.1% of females.

Conclusion: Women are 2.5 times safer from threats and attempts than men are.

Women can expect greater safety than men can.

There isn’’t a bogeyman down every dark street looking for a woman to assault.

The bogeyman is too busy assaulting men.

In the sexual assault area beloved of feminists and the source of fright, alarm and horror – and endless expropriated taxes for agitprop -  the survey indeed finds the figures swing to women being more likely to be sexually assaulted than men are.

But the figures are lower still.

Not 1 in 4 women. 

Not 25%, as reported in the bogus Women’s Safety Survey.

It is just 1.6%

1 – point – 6 – per cent reported being sexually assaulted.

Did you hear that? 1.6 %

That’s 1 in 62. Not 1 in 4.

And MEN are sexually assaulted too. 0.6 %.

Threats and attempts at sexual assault are even lower.

0.5% for women and 0.1% for men.

98% of women are perfectly safe and not even under threat of sexual assault.

Sexual assault on women, and even on men, is very low.

Not that such a  F.A.C.T. fact makes headlines in the newspapers.

It doesn’t sell.

It doesn’t sell ‘stuff’ like scented candles and soap in the Body Shop.

Why are women being deliberately frightened by the Government?

YOU have to ask your MP.

Deliberately Frightening Women: Neglecting Men.

In conclusion, what does all this mean?

It means that Australia as a nation is the first in the Western world to undertake a survey of adult personal safety and violence based on the sex of the community.

It has both massive and broad implications for social scrutiny and the politics of sex and violence. It stands as a precedent for further world development and application.

It also has immediate application to other Western societies. Australia, being a contemporary Western nation has been subjected, more or less, to the same political influences over the last half century that have been experienced by the USA, UK, Canada, New Zealand and arguably most other European nations.

The data recorded would be directly applicable to other Western societies, more or less and may be quoted as a being from a highly reputable source.

The results of this survey should be seen as the first authoritative sample of non-advocacy research on the issues of Western social violence and in particular, inter-gender personal violence.

The results are both revealing and deeply informative.

Revealing about the incorrectness of previously published feminist advocacy research – and subsequent government information too – and informative about the dire state of violence perpetrated against men in modern civilised Western societies.

The data also provide the basis for a requirement for Western governments to become focused on the safety standards of its men as a top priority and to begin to recognise that there are serious deficiencies in its treatment of men in society.

The survey also amplifies the ludicrous state of Western government’s pursuit of highly expensive anti-violence campaigns and legislation for the least affected victims of personal violence – women – whilst a much more serious problem of violence exists and is being waged against its men.

It also establishes facts that require governments and anti-male NGOs in Australia to immediately rewrite their literature and websites which state false and misleading statistics about personal violence, and in particular, men as overwhelmingly family violence perpetrators. They are not.

The data shows clearly that in the home, in the family, 98.5% of men are safe, law abiding, indeed loving, protective and caring husbands and fathers.

It should also lead to an immediate nation-wide reassessment of family relationship management and Family Law values.

But don’t hold your breath.

It’s no wonder that feminists, the government and the mainstream media in Australia have been so quiet about the release of this new survey.

It exposes a huge raft of feminist baloney, lies and deceptions.

The silence also shows that the Government is deliberately frightening women.

The Government wants women to be frightened of men.

And the media is in the Government’s pocket.

Yes, the truth is out – and out there -  somewhere.

But have YOU seen it? Have YOU heard it?

You have now.

This is amfortas.

Ask, Who does the Grail Serve.

This is a written adaptation of three podcasts that I made recently with my colleague, Christian J. Perhaps you might listen to them and send them to others.

Do not waste this long post.

Copy it. Send it on.

Deliberately Lying about Domestic Violence in Australia. Pt.1.

http://soundcloud.com/amfortas1/amfortas-christian-j-lying-about-domestic-violence-part-1

 The ‘women’s Safety Survey’  was “uncorroborated, biased and manipulated”  ‘Advocacy research’ orchestrated by the Office for the Status of Women and passed off as Bureau of Statistics report. It caused an enormous row, says MRA  Amfortas. Manipulated definitions and hysterical claims copied from America made innocuous behaviour criminal. DV sells commercial products to women and expropriates public funds for the fastest growing ‘Industry in Australia.

 Deliberately Lying about Domestic Violence in Australia. Pt.2.

http://soundcloud.com/amfortas1/amfortas-christian-j-lying-about-domestic-violence-part-2

 Three other sources of ‘official’ data which  are routinely manipulated and presented to support DV lies are analysed by Amfortas and compared to Independent University research which completely contradicts the ‘official message’.” It would be generous to think that this manipulation and bias was just the result of incompetence. But as we can see there is something far darker behind it. It is corruption. It is deliberate.”

Deliberately Lying about DV in Australia. Pt.3. The Truth is out there – Somewhere.

http://soundcloud.com/amfortas1/amfortas-christian-j-the-truth-is-out-there-somewhere

Christian J narrates how the 2006 Australian Bureau of Statistics Personal Safety Survey completely contradicted the Government’s 1996 survey. He also points to the attempts by feminist bureaucrats to manipulate by having ONLY female interviewers  to bias the results. Results show women twice as safe as men. The Government has thrown a blanket of silence over it. Feminists maintain an undemocratic stranglehold, expropriating public monies for their anti-male ‘Industry’.

Try also.-

Everyday Family Terrorism

http://soundcloud.com/christian-j/everyday-family-terrorism

“When Momma ain’t Happy, Nobody’s Happy”. Amfortas and Paul Elam show how domestic violence and a lot worse are often caused by ‘controlling’ women who are willing to destroy their families to have their own way. Dr Eric Berne’s ‘Games’ are described including the major cause of broken families, the “Let’s you and Him Fight” strategy which uses the Police and Family Courts.

Notes

http://www.mensrights.com.au/page13y.htm

http://www.australian-news.com.au/domestic_violence_statistics.htm

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IN AUSTRALIA:  ARE WOMEN AND MEN EQUALLY VIOLENT?

Headly, Scott and De Vaus 

 http://www.kittennews.com/mag/2006/maxponti_06_01_abs_personal_safety_study.htm

Australian safety survey kills feminist distortions
Max Ponti

The song begins by telling of a rather commonplace activity: a couple who meet in secret, in a hotel or motel room, to engage in sexual activity. Both of them are secretive because both are married to someone else.

The narrator speaks of himself and his lover as being “like thieves and beggars when we meet.” These stigmatized terms are appropriate. Each is stealing the comfort and pleasure that has been sworn to another and stealing from their own spouse’s. They feel like beggars because their relationship has the “low,” embarrassing quality attached to begging.

Despite their guilt and sense of shame, they continue the affair because their feelings together are so very “sweet.”

However, the narrator ends by singing, “If he should want your love tonight, don’t turn away, don’t hurt his pride. Close your eyes and think of me in some room above a street.”

What is striking in the above passage is the narrator’s concern and empathy for the man he is cuckolding. This might not be as strange as it seems. Both the narrator and his lover take care to keep their illicit activities secret and probably believe – or at least hope – that what his wife and her husband don’t know won’t hurt them.

The narrator knows that his lover may be tempted to turn away from her husband out of a feeling, however irrational, that she should be faithful to the man whom she really loves or at least really desires. But the man singing also knows that while the husband may not be hurt by an affair he doesn’t know about, he will inevitably be wounded by a wife’s rejection. The narrator does not want their affair to cause another man such a psychic injury. Our singer feels for the husband as a human being, since humans of both sexes are hurt by rejection, and specifically as a man since men are usually the ones making advances and therefore the ones disproportionately apt to be rejected.

Does the man’s lover no longer desire her husband because he has lost the physical characteristics that once attracted her? That is a possibility. Another is that the passage of time and the familiarity of a long marriage have caused her passion for her husband to dull. However, her lover urges her to do something that a person of either sex can do: use an illicit passion to rekindle the fires of a marital one. It neither condones nor excuses adultery but it is an odd irony of life that extra-marital erotic stimulation can be brought home to the marriage bed. In Some Room Above the Street is a song that displays a sense of wisdom and caring even as it tells of a situation that is fundamentally sordid.

This is not just a scenario endemic to divorce. It is not just the best we can do with a system that means well. It is a bad system that does bad things for all the wrong reasons, with, of course, money at the root.

The family law system has evolved, or devolved, depending on how you look at it, into an adversarial theater of the damned, where turpitude and mendaciousness are considered good breeding; where children, fathers and families are exploited as a matter of routine.

Court officials are quick to tell anyone interested that they act in “the best interest of the children.” They even practice saying it in a haughty, sanctimonious tone.

Don’t buy it. The courts are about only two things. Money and winning, in that order. They even have it rigged so that we usually know who the winner is before the gavel ever hits the wood. The only real mystery is the final tab.

And children? Their best interest is the first thing to go, disposable as Kleenex. That’s what happens when you turn them into property and use them as bargaining chips along with houses, cars and bank accounts, and when you put them at the mercy of judges and lawyers that see them not as children being traumatized by the unraveling of their families, but as marks in a carnival side show.

The money game goes much deeper than the bottom of the average pocket. Carol Rhodes, author of the highly recommended “Friend of the Court, Enemy of the Family,” was involved in the family courts for 20 years. She is a former enforcement officer and investigator for the 37th circuit family court in Michigan.

Her considerable experience in a system touted to be in the best interest of the child, was quite actually the opposite.

“It was all about money,” she says.

“How to get the federal and state dollars that were allotted each case for enforcement. In fact,” she continues, “our director would say regularly, ‘we are not the friend of the family, we are the friend of the court.’”

In her book she goes on to describe how caseworkers were instructed to push through increases in child support, with rubber stamping from the judge, because it meant increases in revenue to the court. She details how her offices were managed with a philosophy of deception and a focus on increased revenue rather than the interests of families.

It was a system, she maintains, that regularly buried complaints over visitation because there was no money in enforcing the rights of the visiting parent, or in acting in the interest of the children from which those parents were severed.

“In the years I worked in the system,” she says, “I witnessed regular deception to clients that was mandated by office policy. I saw gender bias and discrimination. I saw records destroyed.”

Ultimately the 37th Circuit became such a success at generating revenue for the court that they became a model of training for other counties and states that were only too happy to emulate their practices.

Gathering up the cash from broken families isn’t limited to the courtrooms and the lawyers.

Dr. Stephen Baskerville, in his enlightening book, “Taken into Custody,” also exposes the rampant corruption in the entire system. Baskerville points out that psychotherapists, social workers and various social agencies are also in the game; all cogs in a great machine that demolishes what is left of broken marriages and sorts the remains, separating cash from the broken dreams.

He cautions us to remember and consider, and I quote, that “Involuntary divorce involves government agents forcibly removing innocent people from their homes, seizing their property, and separating them from their children. It requires long term supervision over private life by state functionaries, including police and jails.”

It is evident, both from sound research and common sense, that it would be in the best interest of the child to maintain a close, loving relationship with both parents regardless of the marriages collapse; to let the parenting continue, to insist on it, even as the marriage ends. Courts could make that the objective if they were interested in childrens welfare. Instead what usually happens early in the process is the first strike by the court on the core of the family, the restraining order, almost always on the father. They issue them without proof or corroboration, not to protect children, but to take the family down the road to child support orders and the money the courts make from enforcing them.

Read Roades and Baskerville. It’s all there.

Fighting the process is treacherous. Rhodes informs us that when men who knew their rights or fathers rights activists came to the court, the word was passed around beforehand and they were targeted for all the punitive wrath at the judges considerable disposal.

It’s all part of protecting the game; in the best interest of the court, as it were; perhaps violating Rico Statutes as much as it does the lives of children.

And the bias toward women as better guardians of children from earlier days fits in quite well with the schemes of modern courts. All the better and easier for the fixed fight to have a designated winner. No one has to take a dive when the judges hold the scoring cards and have them marked before the opening round.

Best interest of the child? Indeed.

If it stopped there, at the money, it would still be bad enough. But that is the problem. The courts set up Mom and Dad as lifetime adversaries. They system instigates continued battles long after the final decree, sending them back to court repeatedly, like addicts to a crack house. Their children (remember them?) ever caught in the crossfire.

Let’s be really clear about what child custody means. It translates quite literally to ownership. It isn’t just the ability to control when and where Dad and children see each other and how much he will pay Mom and the courts for the privilege of doing so. Managing conservators have the unilateral power to undermine visitation and the father-child bond with impunity. The courts give it to them.

They have the daily opportunity, and quite frequently the desire, to assassinate the character of the absent parent, aka, the father; to twist the child’s memory and perceptions to fit with those of the embittered mother.

Over time, fathers go from being Daddy to being a visitor to being estranged to being a memory, and probably not a good one. It’s not uncommon. You know people to which this, or something like it, has happened. And likely as not you have witnessed their children deteriorate socially, academically and otherwise in the process.

And the next time you hear someone bemoan that Dad doesn’t even try to spend time with the kids since the divorce, consider what he might be dealing with when he does.

Sara Jane: “Daddy, did you beat mommy up?”

Dad: “No, sweetie, I never did anything like that!”

Sara Jane: “Mommy said you did and that is why you had to leave.”

Dad: “Well, honey, I never did.”

Sara Jane: “Daddy?”

Dad: “Yes, sweetie?”

Sara Jane: “Are you going to beat me up, too?”

He can’t fight this. He doesn’t have enough parenting time to give the needed, corrective balance to his daughters life. The courts have made sure of it. The ex knows it and uses it.

It is easy to tell Dad that he just needs to man up and rough it through seeing the minds of his children poisoned with lies and hatred against him. But of course, if we do that then we are no more really concerned with the best interest of the child than the courts or some of the mothers. For in the conversation you just read, it is the child who suffers most. She is being condemned to a worldview of men and fathers that will stain each and every relationship she has for the rest of her life.

Restructuring a family is a delicate and difficult matter. But it will remain much more difficult than is necessary until we restructure or eliminate the corrupt, arrogant and destructive family courts that currently have the responsibility for doing so.

There is no panacea, though getting government out of marriage and divorce would be a good idea. In the absence of that, removing incentives for courts to exploit broken families would be a start. False allegations in family court to obtain restraining orders should result in prison terms. And judges should be removed from the bench and prosecuted themselves for severing a parent-child relationship without a proven reason.

It’s child abuse, pure and simple, and sadly illustrates that while what we need desperately are judges with integrity and a passion for justice, what we have in reality are legions of Tony Soprano’s in black robes.

Paul Elam is the editor of A Voice for Men