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

On May 25, 2006 Madison Tenn was illegally moved six states away from her Sacramento, California home by her mother, says dad Donald Tenn.  Since that time Shannon Phillips has committed fraud and perjury in two states, wasted thousands of tax-payer dollars and kept a little girl from her loving, stay-at-home, primary caretaker daddy, he adds.

Tenn is speaking out about his own case he says, because he’s facing 18 months in prison for a peaceful protest for parents rights.  He wants people to know the truth; that he and Shannon were happily married, “We never had domestic problems.  I’m not a violent person.  I believe in communication.  The police were never called to our home.”

My wife told me she was taking Madison to visit her relatives in Illinois . After she arrived she said she wasn’t coming back.  She wanted me to follow her.  I told her a decision like that should be made together.  I asked her to come home and  take six months to talk it over.  She refused.

Tenn says a friend who is an Illinois real estate agent called and told him Phillips and her mother had been looking at houses for sale.  Tenn explained to Phillips that she could stay in Illinois, but she needed to return Madison.  He says she refused.  What he did next, it seems, caused Phillips to set into motion the VAWA (Violence Against Women Act) machinery that removes innocent parents, usually fathers, from the lives of their children.

I told her the law says she has to return Madison to California; that there are move-away laws that protect children from this sort of thing.

Tenn filed for an emergency ex-parte hearing.  It was a Friday. By the Monday morning hearing Phillips had declared to people at WEAVE in CA and DOVE in IL, and attorney Tony Nevarez that she feared Tenn.   Phillips was given a restraining order and returned to IL with Madison.

Wanting to keep their close bond, Tenn started sending Madison packages every few days with books, snacks, stickers and small toys.  At first he was allowed phone conversations with Madison by Phillips and her mother Kathy Waseen, but that didn’t last.

Fifteen months later, on October 19, 2007 Judge Peter J. McBrien had a hearing in Sacramento on Phillip’s request to extend the restraining order.  (case #06fl05871)

Judge McBrien stated that he did not believe Shannon.  He chastised her for illegally removing Madison from California.   He did not believe any of her testimony or renew the order.  He told Shannon to come to an agreement on parenting time or he would make a ruling that she wouldn’t like.

I wanted an equal parenting plan but agreed to every other weekend and 2 days a week. I remember Judge O’Brien said, ‘This father will be immediately reunited with his daughter.  I am ordering his first visitation for 2 days from today, Sunday the 21st of October.’  He asked if I could be in Illinois on that date and I stated I certainly would be.

Tenn flew to Illinois and was at Phillip’s mother Kathy Waseen’s house in Bethany for the prearranged exchange.  It didn’t go smoothly.

Shannon kept pulling Madison away from me in order to instill fear in her, as if Madison should be concerned. Her mother Kathy Waseen interfered by taking Madison away from the car for as many as 10 minutes.  Finally, I stated that this parenting time belonged to Madison and I and that we needed to go as our time was limited.

Then Phillips said something that no one expected from the woman who had claimed so much fear of Tenn that she couldn’t return to California.

Shannon suggested that she come along with Madison and I and we all visit together. I was shocked.  I told her that would not be possible.

What Phillips and Waseen didn’t realize was that with two cameras rolling, Tenn got the entire incident on tape.

Continued in parts two and three.

Dedicated to Madison website

The problem with this display is the blatant gender bias that is apparent from the name alone: “In Her Shoes.”  Community organizer Alex White told The Item, “Those 136 women were daughters, mothers, sisters, aunts, neighbors and friends.”

News Center 25 has a story about the Women’s Crisis Center for Mid-Coast Family Services in Victoria, their 25th anniversary, and how they’re recognizing Domestic Violence Awareness Month.  Their project also involves hanging clothing, this time t-shirts.  News reports show only female victims’ names and stories being told.

What about male victims?  Certainly those in high positions in the Texas family violence industry would make sure to address and provide services for every victim.  Right?

A quick look at the Texas Council on Family Violence website is discouraging to male victims of abuse, and disgusting to their advocates.  It’s all there in their own words.

Each year, the Texas Council on Family Violence compiles a list of the women killed by their male intimate partners in Texas.

It seems they have no concern about men who are abused or murdered during domestic disputes.  It’s not like it didn’t happen.  Texas wasn’t lucky enough to avoid having a woman murder her husband last year.  This is the story of one:

Charles Shanks, 49, was killed by wife Kimberly Shanks, 51, on December 14, 2008 in Allen, Texas during a domestic dispute.  And here’s no chance it was an accident.  Kimberly stabbed Charles for having the TV too loud, admitting she had aimed for his heart.  She then went next door, picked up a heavy rock, brought it into their home, and hit Charles over the head with it.  She still wasn’t done.  She stabbed him again, this time in the back.

I hope next year The SAAFE House will hang shoes to represent the men who have been killed by their female intimate partners this year.  Here are two of their stories:

Michael Jackson was stabbed in the chest and back by wife Dina on February 25 in South Fort Worth.  Dina was apprehended on her way to Las Vegas.

Melissa Dawn Fleming, 40, shot and killed husband Joseph, 45, on June 14 in Gladewater.  She went to the police and nonchalantly stated that she’d shot him.  Police say there have been no disturbance calls to their residence in the past.

It will be interesting to see if there are men’s shoes on display next year to represent Michael and Joseph.  And even more important, how soon will a pair be hanging at the corner of Sam Houston Avenue and 12th Street for Charles Shanks?

Original article.

Subscribe to Teri’s national family rights articles by email or RSS or:

• Child support torture victim claims hidden bloody evidence
• Abducted child’s father faces prison for protest
• Feminist DV service providers fight for cash and control, not equality
• Dirty little secrets of domestic violence programs
• The face of men abused by women

Law enforcement training is usually provided by these same agencies, causing discrimination to start at the first point of contact.  Some men say they were bruised and bleeding when they were arrested during domestic violence calls after their wound-free female partners claimed fear.  See Sex appeal blinds protectors of justice and The Face of Men Abused by Women.

Abused men with children are routinely turned away from protection shelters, just for having the wrong genitalia.  And some fathers are prevented from seeing their children after mothers claim they’re being stalked, even from thousands of miles away.  See Abducted child’s father faces prison for peaceful protest and Clinton ignores parents of children abducted to the US.

Today, men and the women who love them have reason to celebrate.  On October 2 Men and Women Against Discrimination won a lawsuit against Family Services Board of West Virginia.  (Ruling here.)  The court decided that FSB’s approach had, “a substantial chilling effect of suppressing their members expression of speech, thoughts and ideas relative to domestic violence by depriving them even of the opportunity to obtain certified services.”

FSB had set up a system of approving service providers that eliminated anyone who didn’t agree with their principles.  Providers were required to take 30 hours of training, part of which was to learn, “the understanding that domestic violence is deeply rooted in historical attitudes toward women.” The problem is that statement has no bearing on reliable studies.

A year ago on October 13 California’s Third District Court of Appeals also ruled in favor of abused men, saying a state funded facility violated their rights when it turned away Dave Woods and his daughter.  The National Coalition For Men lead the charge.

This wasn’t the first time feminist DV service providers in California fought equality to keep control over available DV funding.  A few years earlier the LGBT community attempted to rewrite California’s domestic violence laws with AB 2051 to make them gender neutral.  According to the bill analysis:

This bill was originally drafted to make the existing grant program (funded by $23 added on to marriage license fees) gender-neutral and thus ensure that DV shelters catering to the LGBT community have a competitive chance to obtain grants from the DHS. However, the severe deficiency in funding of domestic violence shelters that provide services to battered women and their children caused an outcry among the existing domestic violence shelter providers. Subsequently, the bill was amended to create a separate fund for DV programs that are specific to the LGBT community.

Respecting Accuracy in Domestic Abuse Reporting (RADAR,) a non-profit non-partisan organization of both genders working to improve our nation’s approach to solving domestic violence says the problem stems from the blatantly gender biased Violence Against Women Act.  Their latest campaign “Restore Civil Rights to Domestic Violence Laws” shows how domestic violence laws violate Constitutional protections found in the First Amendment (right to assembly and to free speech), Second Amendment (right to bear arms), Fourth Amendment (probable cause for arrest), Fifth Amendment (due process), and Fourteenth Amendment (equal treatment under the law.)

Until the Federal govt fixes this at the top by renaming and reconstructing the Violence Against Women People Act, lawsuits like this will unfortunately need to continue across the country.  When they won their case last year, NCFM attorney Marc Angelucci told ABC-7, “These programs will often still reach out to victims in a gender-specific manner, only referring to them as women and that doesn’t help the male victims come forward. This is really going to take a long time and more lawsuits to change”

Domestic violence laws violate Americans’ civil rights when they:

1. Provide incentives to file false allegations
2. Fund education and training programs that stereotype all men as abusers
3. Expand the definition of “domestic violence” to include minor verbal disagreements, thus inviting heavy-handed state intervention into private family matters
4. Short-circuit due process protections and remove the presumption of innocence
5. Encourage the issuance of restraining orders, even in the absence of physical violence
6. Promote mandatory arrest policies, even for minor violations of civil restraining orders
7. Fund “primary aggressor” policies that profile men as abusers
8. Support mandatory prosecution policies
9. Refuse legal assistance to persons falsely accused of domestic violence.
10. Discriminate against male victims

Original article.

Subscribe to my family rights articles by email or RSS or:

• Fathers 4 Justice announce support of CT father on hunger strike
• MA getting closer to equal parenting via HB 1400
• Family court documentary SUPPORT? at Atlanta film fest this weekend
• Tortured for child support

Coleman was convicted without any physical evidence or witnesses, only his wife’s testimony.  Fathers & Families’ Robert Franklin, Esq. wrote about another questionable rape case, “This is the way the American judicial system works. It’s aimed at putting people in prison and does so with ruthless efficiency. Most of those people committed the illegal acts they’re charged with. But that same system can be equally ruthless when an innocent person finds himself on the conveyor belt that begins with a charge, runs through court and ends in prison.”  (Duke II?, 7/12/09)

Friends questioned the quality of his legal representation after Coleman didn’t testify in his own defense.  Michael Gannon, Coleman’s defense attorney had his license to practice law suspended two years later, yet Coleman hasn’t been allowed to have a retrial.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Connecticut is assisting Coleman, a British citizen, in regard to his force-feeding. Patrick Doyle, education program manager for the ACLU-CT told the New Haven Advocate that after the first procedure Coleman was sneezing up blood and was covered in vomit.  Jamil Dakwar, director of the ACLU Human Rights Program wrote that “brutally force-feeding” Coleman violated his basic human rights and his right to make a political statement by refusing food.

Coleman told Fathers 4 Justice board member Donald Tenn that he doesn’t need to be strapped down for hours each day.  (See Abducted child’s father faces prison for peaceful protest to learn more about Tenn.) Tenn says Coleman’s case is an example of why Fathers 4 Justice has a “No Jail For Being A Dad” Campaign.

Coleman is one of many parents who choose this form of protest.  John Murtari of akidsright.org was fed via Nasal-Gastric tube for 123 days after refusing to eat or drink voluntarily while incarcerated for child support arrears in NY.  Murtari traveled to Illinois recently for the showing of Angelo Lobo’s documentary SUPPORT? at the Peachtree Film Fest.

False accusations of rape are not uncommon, evidenced by recent news stories:  Women held for blackmailing man [with false rape claim] 9/29/09, False rape accusations forces gay U.S. Soldier to out himself 9/29/09, Nanuet woman accused of making false rape report 9/29/09, Rape accusation traumatizing, former suspect says 9/18/09, Woman charged with filing false rape report after road rage incident 9/10/09, Woman faces charges for false rape claim 9/4/09, as well as high profile cases like the Duke lacrosse case and the alleged gang rape that turned out to be consensual sex at Hofstra University.

Bill’s brother Geoff told the Advocate, “Shame on the people who have violated [Bill's] rights, his mind and his body, shame on a justice system that fails the very people it sets out to protect.”  Coleman’s supporters are having a rally at the prison today from 11 am to 6 pm.

After speaking with Coleman and his ACLU attorney, Tenn who is best known for protesting 4 days on a 175′ crane during a thunderstorm (cnn news report) and helping UK Fathers 4 Justice activists climb the Lincoln Memorial to hang a banner in support of America’s fathers is convinced Coleman is innocent.  Tenn announced in a press release yesterday that he’s currently traveling to Connecticut to meet with him.  Rumors are buzzing, but whether we’ll see another high profile peaceful protest for family law reform is yet to be seen.

Rally in support of Bill Coleman

October 2, 2009

11 am to 6 pm

MacDougall-Walker Correctional Institution

1153 East Street South

Suffield, Connecticut 06080

Bill Coleman’s Statement of Protest

I, Bill Coleman, in September 2007, stopped eating solid food as a form of protest. I am protesting a broken judicial system that is incapable of providing justice as well as protesting the State of Connecticut assisting in the abuse of my children. The system has failed my children and me and I have communicated this in several forums, including in court. My case in not an isolated incident; countless others have been subjected to the injustice of the judicial system. Innocent people do not belong in prison and I now just want to be left alone to protest. Force-feeding me by inserting a tube through my nose into my stomach against my will violates all medical and international law. Furthermore, I am not demanding anything from the Department of Corrections or the judicial system. I want to make very clear that my goal is not to detrimentally affect the order of the prison or Department of Corrections, and it would be disingenuous for anyone to suggest that my actions would.

I also want to make sure it is clear that my protest is not a reflection of the Connecticut Habeas Unit. They are good people doing a good job by fighting against an increasing amount of injustice in the system. The system is broken and corrupt and is also void of any moral or ethical values for the truth. This is further exacerbated because those incarcerated are not offered rehabilitation, which is no more than a token gesture, thus making society a more dangerous place on a daily basis. This is compounded by politicians and legislators putting blame on everyone and everything other than themselves, where it belongs. More laws and longer sentences are not the answer. What Connecticut citizens should know, even if they don’t care about my children and me, is that they are one ‘falsely accused’ arrest themselves away from my nightmare. Make no mistake, your arrest is your conviction in the State of Connecticut.

What surrounds my conviction is filled with suspicious wrongdoing of many types. Having explored every avenue, to save my children and prove my innocence, I now believe the system is not an option for the truth to come out and I choose to fight to the maximum with my life. I do not want to die, but I am willing to die. Force feeding only prolongs death as my organs, after a period of time, will eventually give out. This means the DOC will have to force feed me until my death. Instead of letting me continue my protest the State is wasting valuable resources to temporarily prolong my life for only an undetermined short period of time. These resources should be spent on a better cause such as an investigation of the corrupt judicial system which would help not only me, but also others who have been wronged.

Finally, I forgive those who have wronged me and I ask forgiveness especially to those I have troubled. My family, friends and supporters vowed to never stop until my children are saved and what surrounded my case and conviction is exposed. For this, and more, I give them my eternal love and gratitude and to the Lord “I commend my spirit.”

• Fathers 4 Justice
• Bill Coleman Innocent Man Wrongfully Convicted
• Tenn’s Dedicated to daughter Madison website

More family rights articles:

• Family court documentary SUPPORT? at Atlanta film fest this weekend
• Tortured for child support
• MA getting closer to equal parenting via HB 1400
• Dirty little secrets of domestic violence programs
• Family Rights 101: Why is there a fathers rights movement?
• Family Rights 101: Where can I learn more and hear victim stories?

According to Ash Patil, President of shared parenting group Fathers4Equality, “These provisions in the family law act were specifically implemented to reduce the epidemic of false allegations and parental alienation that permeate every corridor of the Family Law Courts, to the clear detriment of the innocent children caught in the cross-fire.

But Bryant wants them removed, and fails to explain how the innocent victims of maliciously false allegations would be protected without them.

James Adams adds, “What is more astonishing it seems is that unlike the parliamentary committee that recommended these laws in the first place, the Chief Justice has not consulted widely before making such an extraordinary intervention (in fact she has not consulted with any fathers’ groups at all).

Rightly or wrongly, Bryant will now be perceived to have compromised views on this issue, denying her the opportunity to have played a unifying force in the process of family law reform in this country, much like the wasted opportunities of her predecessor.”

The two provisions Bryant wants specifically removed include:

*the order of costs, at the Judge’s discretion, against a parent who has been proven to have “knowingly” made false allegation in Court,

and

*unspecified actions, at the Judges’s discretion, against a parent who has purposely alienated or deliberately maligned the children against the other parent.

The importance of these provisions Patil explains.  ”These provisions have been specifically implemented to reduce the disturbingly common practices by some separated parents in making contrived and sinister allegations in Court against the other parent, and to otherwise engage in concerted efforts to destroy the relationship between the child and the other parent. This is done knowing full well the children will be irrevocably harmed in the process, both psychologically and emotionally.

Yet it goes on and will continue to go on given human nature, unless we have laws to help it stop.

“So these are ‘good’, modest provisions designed to stop misguided parents from misusing the system and abusing innocent children”  were introduced only after extensive community consultation.

According to Adams “These provisions were agreed to by a bi-partisan parliamentary committee (both Labor and Libs/Nats) that went around Australia canvassing the views of all Australians for over two years.

Finally this committee was so appalled at the extent of institutional abuse in the Family Court that it recommended measures to protect innocent children and parents who were victims of contrived allegations and parental alienation by spiteful ex-partners.

” But Bryant wants to override the will of the Australian people and the will of Parliament, and to completely remove all disincentives against lying in the Family Court.

Really soft penalty for a very serious crime.

Patil, who claims that many F4E members are subjected to false allegations, states that “Proving that someone has ‘knowingly’ made false allegations rather than ‘mistakenly’ or ‘recklessly’ is quite a tall order. The standard of proof in these matters is a very tough hurdle to pass, and as a result ‘knowingly false’ allegations have only been proven in a relatively few cases in recent years.

If they are proved, they may result in a costs order, although this has been rarely applied in children’s matters by the judiciary. “Now given that perjury in any other Australian court may result in 10 years or more jail time, one must be mindful of the fact that this is a really soft penalty for a very serious crime.

It is a provision however that can work as a disincentive, albeit a modest one, in dissuading many parents from lying in the Family Court in the first place.” So these are “good”, modest provisions designed as a disincentive to those misguided parents who may in a moment of weakness be tempted to make contrived allegations in Court.

Measured responses to issues of concern Patil and Adams are frustrated by the logic used by the Chief Justice, and Patil adds that “Bryant justifies the need for these changes by suggesting that some people have misunderstood these provisions.

Even if this is true, her suggested fix is a remarkable over-reaction to an issue that could be addressed through a number of simple measures.” “Given that most parents in family law proceedings are either represented by lawyers, have visited a family relationship centre or have sought government funded legal services, a simple review could identify the cause of this misinformation from within these service providers, and provide an opportunity for corrective measures to be implemented.”

Adams wonders why the Chief Justice needs to throw the baby out with the bathwater, and opines that “a request to the Attorney General to implement an educational campaign to educate parents about these provisions would go a long way in addressing any existing misconceptions, and would be a more measured and effective approach to the issue at hand.”

Adams continues “Given the unprecedented nature of these family law amendments, what is required are sensible, well-measured & ultimately timely approaches to these issues, in order to allow for proper outcomes based research to develop. Anything less than this would put at risk the very wellbeing of those we are trying to protect.”

Broader consultations as a first step Fathers4Equality would like to encourage the Chief Justice to put some thought into what checks and measures she would alternatively suggest be implemented, if the current provisions are removed, to protect children from the devastating damage resulting from alienation and perjury in Court.

Given that lying in the Family Court and parental alienation are forms of child abuse, we stress the importance of carefully considering the implications to the welfare of children if these safeguards are removed.

Secondly and in reference to a recent campaign that has promoted a less than accurate reflection of these new laws, we would ask the Chief Justice to consider making a public statement to the effect, as is the case, that no evidence exists of any escalation of child abuse as a result of the new amendments.

This would be an important statement from the Chief Justice in the interests of an informed community discussion on this matter, and would help ensure that the debate is discussed in terms of facts, not innuendo.

Finally, we would like to draw attention to the increasingly under-resourced and overworked child protection authorities in this country, and the fact that too many cases of genuine abuse are not thoroughly investigated, in part because of the level of false allegations emanating from the Family Court.

It must be recognised that for every hour that a child protection officer is investigating a false allegation, it is one hour less protection that can be given to a child in genuine need, and this is a cost that the children of Australia simply cannot afford. Fathers4Equality would be open to discussing these important issues further with the Chief Justice, if she is willing to accept our invitation.

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.

 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

Dear Mr. Yas

This is in response to an article you wrote in May regarding the efforts of Joe Ureneck and the Fatherhood Coalition to prevent two nominations to the Governor’s Council.
I’ve meaning to respond since I first read it but it’s taken me until now to get around to it.

First off, thank you for quoting my article. I thought that riff on Hillary was one of the better lines in the piece, so thanks for the exposure.

By way of background and to nip in the bud any potential guilt-by-association mischief you might consider to further tarnish the Fathers Rights movement (henceforth: “FR” and “the movement”) and specifically the Fatherhood Coalition, I am no longer associated with them or any other organization. I removed myself from the Fatherhood Coalition quite some time ago for various reasons, mainly personal.

As I’m not associated with any organization, I’m not constrained to censor my words for any of the typical reasons: to conform to what is—believe it or not—the PC conventions of the movement, to get published in the mainstream media, to increase the credibility of the movement or an organization, or even in the vain hope of educating someone from “the other side” who may turn out to be educable.

No, you’re going to get it straight from the shoulder, Mr. Yas.

To further elaborate on that point, I recall the mantra of George Kelly of Concerned Fathers, the reigning FR organization in the state at the time I fell victim to THE THING (refer to Aldous Huxley, “Ape and Essence”) over 15 years ago: “You get more flies with honey than vinegar.” I disagree with that sentiment. I believe the movement needs to focus far more on attacking its enemies rather than trying in vain to educate them.

As such, feel honored that I have taken the time to write this missive to you, as lately personal matters have limited my ability to engage in much activism of any kind. So, my essential message to you is simply this:

David Yas, you are an ignorant fool.

I will repeat this or some variant throughout this piece, as it is what you deserve, what you have earned, and what you need to hear—not just a polite rebuttal of your misguided beliefs.

Ignorance comes in two flavors. One may be ignorant because the truth has been hidden from them. Such ignorance is a lesser offense. Then we have ignorance in spite of the truth. In the matter at hand, this would include people such as you who are actually in the business; those who are confronted with the truth yet wish to remain ignorant and whose wish is being granted, to paraphrase a quip from Christopher Hitchens.

With respect to your kind of ignorance, another quote comes to mind, from the seventies’ comedy troupe Firesign Theatre: “Everything you know is wrong.”

And furthermore your ignorance is not benign, it is harmful. It leads to a continuation of an evil. Evil, furthermore, is not excused by ignorance. After 9-11, I am a believer in the aphorism “evil is as evil does.” The fruits of your ignorance, exemplified by your article, are a contribution to an ongoing evil.

David Yas, you are not only an ignorant fool, you are causing harm.

In your article you carefully choose words and expressions to mock and discredit both Ureneck and Ned Holstein and their claims. To wit, according to you, they (Ureneck and/or Holstein):
• are “plotting to defeat judicial nominees whose philosophies don’t comport with their own.”
• are “spurned by the courts and angered by a society that has been sensitive to battered women.”
• “loudly protest[ing] judicial nominees who have shown any sort of sensitivity to domestic-violence issues.”
• “utter things that many of us would say simply defy reason.”
• “may be on the fringe.”
and:
• “Ureneck didn’t sound like a fanatic when I spoke with him over the phone.”

I will give you one thing, Mr. Yas, unlike most reporters on this subject, you make no attempt to conceal your bias.

No such pejoratives are used when you rescue the reader by introducing the voice of reason, Lydia Watts, from the Victim Rights Law Center, a DV feminazi. [I warned you that I don’t censor my words; regardless of what anyone else might think of Rush Limbaugh he has earned my gratitude for coining this wonderfully evocative, and wholly appropriate, conjunction of “feminist” and “nazi.”]

“No. There is no epidemic of women fabricating tales of domestic violence,” you say, followed by her direct quote: “I have heard thousands of victims’ stories and barely ever doubted one.”

So here’s the 4-1-1, Sherlock. Anyone that claims they have “barely ever doubted” just “one” DV victim’s story out of “thousands” has automatically demonstrated a complete absence of credibility, as any honest person with experience in the courts and a molecule of common sense would know.

And you say, “I believe Watts.”

Davis Yas, you naive, gullible, dupe.

In case it isn’t abundantly clear to the reader what you think of Joe Ureneck and the FR movement by this point in your article, you “recall a scene” from a Gene Hackman sports film where “a narrow-minded fellow” tells coach Hackman, “Look, mister, there’s two kinds of dumb: the guy that gets naked and runs out in the snow and barks at the moon, and the guy who does the same thing in my living room. First one don’t matter; the second one you’re kinda forced to deal with.”

I guess it doesn’t matter exactly how the reader interprets this paragraph. Regardless of whether Ureneck is the “narrow-minded fellow” or “the guy that gets naked and runs out in the snow and barks at the moon” or “the guy who does the same thing in my living room,” the point is clear. Ureneck is not worth listening to.

So here’s the truth about domestic violence. Women initiate interpersonal violence with partners more often than men, as the “evil patriarchy” instills in boys that it is fundamentally un-manly to ever hit women. Women are not so constrained by our cultural mores. Taking into account the scientific data and figuring in a fudge factor for the inherent biases of both the respondents (the man to underreport assault by his wife, in good chivalric fashion; the woman to underreport her own violence, as women are conditioned to see themselves as victims) and the research methodologies (where a man who raises his arms to defend himself when a woman is attacking him is considered the aggressor if the woman’s fists come into contact with his arms), it is probable that women are more likely than men to be the initiators in the majority of real domestic violence incidents.

And here’s another fact you can cast into your “defy reason” category: women often hit themselves and then call the police and show their marks as evidence that they have been beaten. Why don’t you run that by your trustworthy expert Ms. Watts and watch the blood rise to her face?

I repeat, to make sure you get it: women’s initiation of violent assault and battery on their partners and their inflicting their own injuries are facts. I have personally observed this behavior, and when I have heard similar stories by others over and over, there is little reason to doubt them because I experienced it myself, and I am not unusual. It’s called the school of life.

Back to 209A. The vast majority of 209A protection orders taken out by women against the fathers of their children are taken out not for protection, but as weapons to cause harm—specifically, to gain “temporary” custody of children (and a child support order) and immediate occupancy of the driver’s seat in the divorce. Shared custody is off the table from the court’s perspective once there is a 209A order in place. Didn’t you get the memo?

When marriages break down, the parties are usually (always?) angry with each other. There is often a sense of betrayal. The feelings and emotions that arise during the breakdown of a marriage can be the most virulent the parties have ever or will ever experience again. Listen to what women often say when looking back on their divorces, things like, “I can’t believe the things that I did.”

Recall the words of prosecutor Mia Magness in her closing arguments to the jury in the trial of Clara Harris, the woman who killed her husband by repeatedly hitting and running over him with her Mercedes:

“[If you catch your husband cheating] you do what every woman would do in this county: You take him to the cleaners. You take his house, his car, his kids. You make him wish that he was dead. But you don’t kill him!”

Magness argued.

There was no shock or outrage at this admission: that a woman has the power to make a man “wish he were dead” by going after him in divorce court. It’s simply an accepted fact of life. Because it’s a universal truth. Magness didn’t even need to mention the really heinous things women do in divorce, like accusing their husbands of sexually abusing their own children, or rape, sexual assault or battery.

Question: How is it that this potential for using the courts with deliberate malice exists, and yet there is no punishment or even disincentive? Answer: look no further than your own article. The legal system has been hopelessly corrupted by so-called “feminist jurisprudence,” of which the domestic abuse regime is a cornerstone. And stupid, gullible men like you that cheer them on…

Women know that if they wish to “teach him a lesson” the state will be their willing accomplice. How is it possible that in what is supposed to be a civil court there exist offices and agents whose specific purpose is to aid one of the parties, the plaintiff in a domestic abuse allegation—with the further outrage that this “service” is denied to men who are seeking protection from women?

In a divorce, custody battle or other domestic relations, it is not “he said, she said,” nor is it husband v. wife. It is man versus wife-and-state. And man does not have a chance.

All women know this, and every father is a potential victim to it.

Ureneck is dead on when he describes the 209A regime as a “travesty.” I’ll go one further: it’s a monstrosity.

You and your colleagues have been taught the standard catechism, that “not so long ago” (translation: over a century ago) wife and children were property of the father. After the rare divorce, children went with their owner, the father. Wifey, usually lacking the education or professional skills to support herself to any dignified degree, was left to her own devices. Hence “rehabilitative alimony,” a phrase delicious with irony considering the feminist mantra that “a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle.”

Unquestionably, women suffered more after divorce… then. Besides the devastating emotional and psychological toll, there was the often enormous loss of standard of living.

However, ask any father today and he will tell you that he would gladly trade places with the 19th century divorced wife, because today, feminists haven’t merely “leveled the playing field,’ they haven’t just “got even,” they have turned divorce into a process of criminalization for men. The emotional and economic hardships faced by the divorced woman of yesteryear are trivial when compared with the lot of today’s divorced father: loss of children, loss of wealth, loss of one-third of his income for 23 years, and criminalization: a constant threat of loss of liberty itself—as in jail—for an infraction, real or imagined, of the state’s so-called “child support” regime or wholly unconstitutional “domestic abuse” regime, whereby a mere hearsay claim by a woman of illegal contact between a man and his children is sufficient by law to send him to jail for two-and-half years.

David Yas, you ignorant fool.

Several years ago Steve Basile of the Fatherhood Coalition set out to show that abuse protection law is applied differently to men and women, something that is common knowledge to everyone “in the system” regardless of whether or not they choose to admit it. (As of course, everyone in the system does indeed deny it.) When the DV feminazis got wind of the research being done in the Gardner District Court, they furiously went to work. Deliberately manipulating and misinterpreting email messages from the study’s author regarding the progress of the study, they in record time managed to get a bill through the Statehouse amending Massachusetts’ version of the Freedom of Information Act, preventing any further such research. Read the relevant documents on the Fatherhood Coalition web site for a blow-by-blow: http://www.fatherhoodcoalition.org/cpf/Gardner_209A_study_index.htm.

All has been recorded for posterity. Basile also maintains a scrapbook of all news items relating to the study. The study has now been referenced in around twenty other research papers, though feminazis in Massachusetts have sought to discredit the study and Basile himself, referring to him, a software engineer with a Masters degree from UMass Lowell in Applied Math, as “some guy off the street.”

Seeking justice in courts that have become little more than feminist tribunals where men are punished for “gender crimes” and the sins of the patriarchy, is a Kafkaesque nightmare. If you ask me exactly how justice is subverted for a man charged with a gender crime like domestic abuse, I would answer, “in every way that it is possible to do so.” By simply violating rules of procedure such as rules of service; by violating the law itself; by hiding files; by “losing” files; in short, whatever is expedient at the moment to accomplish the goal of preventing the male litigant from moving forward. First the simplest ploys, then, if that isn’t sufficient, the tactics increase in subtlety, with the subsequent punishments for the litigant who dares to challenge the status quo ratcheted up commensurably with the degree of work required to quash his efforts. A loss of a weekend of visitation. His wife’s attorney fees. An increase in his child support, etc., etc.

As has already been pointed out to you, the state’s anti-SLAPP statute, our whistleblower law designed to protect individuals from retaliation who reveal crimes by moneyed and/or powerful enterprises, has been transmogrified to protect the 209A/domestic abuse regime from men who seek redress in higher courts from a foul injustice under the law’s many police-state provisions.

Here’s what the law says:

209A Section 1
“’Abuse’, the occurrence of one or more of the following acts between family or household members:
….
(b) placing another in fear of imminent serious physical harm;”

As has been pointed out to you, this is a subjective standard that cannot be disproved. And you are an attorney?

David Yas, you ignorant, stupid, fool. This law is indeed an ass, as are you.

Along with the isolated cases of women who are legitimately terrified by a violent man in their life (rarely the biological father of her children), 209A is a weapon of choice used by vindictive women to cause harm to a man that they wish to punish, for any of a variety of reasons, to any of a variety of ends, including gaining automatic custody of children, a child support order, a Judgment Nisi on terms most favorable to her, or even something as mundane as a higher number on a public housing list.

The law is written and applied to accommodate such a woman. All attempts to modify the law to just give it the appearance of comportment with foundational liberty precepts such as the presumption of innocence and due process, by removing and/or modifying the most egregious provisions, always die in committee. The dozen or so proposals I crafted into the 209A Reform Bill in 2004 sought to achieve a good balance without diluting or removing any of the real protections in place for true victims of real domestic violence.

Refer to: http://www.fatherhoodcoalition.org/cpf/legislation/2004/209A_Reform_long_w_old_text.htm

Just to quell your impulse to dismiss me as an angry embittered, misogynous man, though I don’t make a habit of explaining myself to people who deserve no such courtesy, know the following. I regained custody of my children 6 years after they were (legally) stolen from me. Both children are college graduates and doing well. We enjoy a wonderful relationship. I am on good terms with my ex-wife who considers me her dearest friend, and who regrets taking the actions she did (which included a 209A order that took me three years to beat once I shed lawyers and represented myself).

Though I no longer have a personal stake in this issue, I remain outraged at the terrible injustices perpetrated against men and their children under the rubric of protecting women from “domestic abuse.” And I expect to continue from time to time to emerge from my now peaceful retirement from the movement to serve up the figurative two-by-four between the eyes to individuals like you who are sorely in need of correction.

The last point I wish to make is the one that ‘good’ FR advocates are expected to make first. It is considered politically suicidal to criticize battered women advocates, and so the nuanced approach is to first offer ‘validation’ for true female victims of domestic violence before letting loose with the criticism. I offer it here last.

Do not infer from anything that I have written that I am somehow unaware of the reality of domestic violence (against women). It is insulting to even suggest such a thing. We are all aware of the all too real cases where vicious men brutally assault and abuse their wives or girlfriends. Even make-believe violence against women is difficult for me to watch; after all, I’m but a helpless victim of patriarchal conditioning. I still cringe during the domestic violence scene in “The Godfather.” One of the most difficult things I have ever had to watch is the infamous example where some animal actually videotaped himself abusing his wife.

And this knowledge contributes to my utter disdain for DV feminazis who exploit real victims of domestic violence by manipulating public perception because of such sympathies and emotions that are experienced by all good people.

Don’t bother to reply. I have no interest in educating the stupid. Besides cc’ing Joe Ureneck (who is unaware of this letter) I will however be posting this on the web as an open letter. All this effort shouldn’t go to waste… perhaps some good may come of it if it inspires others to similarly upbraid fools like you.

If you do wish to actually learn something about the subject, I suggest you get back in touch with Joe Ureneck, one of the few people in the movement whom I hold in high regard—and see if he is willing to overlook your hatchet job and expend some effort to educate you. Better yet, go to an actual courtroom and talk to litigants. And never, ever, trust anything spoken by a feminazi.

FINI

http://www.accessmylibrary.com/article-1G1-199033051/commentary-domestic-violence-out.html

Domestic violence: out of the frying pan …

By David Yas, Lawyers Weekly, May 4, 2009

Joseph Ureneck really wants me to write that wives physically abuse their husbands just as often as husbands physically abuse their wives.

He wants me to write that the vast majority of women are lying when they claim that they have been beaten by their husbands.

And he wants me to write that the law is so flawed in Massachusetts that men accused of domestic violence lose everything important in their lives without a real chance to defend themselves.

I can’t write that. I won’t. But Ureneck has my attention.

His group and others like it are plotting to defeat judicial nominees whose philosophies don’t comport with their own.

Spurned by the courts and angered by a society that has been sensitive to battered women, fatherhood rights groups have landed on our turf, the judicial system.

Buttoned-downed and organized, they are now making a point of loudly protesting judicial nominees who have shown any sort of sensitivity to domestic-violence issues.

Ureneck didn’t sound like a fanatic when I spoke with him over the phone. The chair of the Fatherhood Coalition, Ureneck in recent days urged the rejection of two judicial nominees, Laurie MacLeod and Sydney Hanlon, at their confirmation hearings. Both judges were ultimately confirmed (MacLeod to the Palmer District Court; Hanlon to the Appeals Court).

Said Ureneck: “We saw two individuals who were proactive in promoting the 209A [restraining-order] regime. … Our perspective is that there is something akin to a Holocaust going on, and so it is worth rejecting a judicial nominee.”

Ned Holstein, executive director of Fathers and Families, claims that “in a relatively short period of time, we will look back on this as an embarrassing era. It reminds me of the McCarthy era, or the anti-immigrant hysteria, or other periods of time when we have singled out particular groups.”

Holstein and Ureneck utter things that many of us would say simply defy reason.

Ureneck estimates that between 80 to 90 percent of women who claim they have been beaten, or are in genuine fear, are lying.

Both men are convinced that the notion that men are more likely to do harm to women than vice versa is a myth, largely citing the comprehensive work of a professor of psychology named Martin S. Fiebert.

“It’s a seriously flawed argument that men are inherently violent,” Ureneck declares.

Holstein says: “There’s no question … it’s not a matter of debate.”

I asked Holstein: Can’t most men overpower most women? Isn’t that common sense?

“When you actually think about it, it’s not common sense at all,” he says, claiming that most people know of an incident of a wife becoming violent with her husband. He recalls the image of a wife hitting her husband with a frying pan.

“Culture thinks that’s funny,” he says. “But if a man did it, it would be unacceptable.”

Lydia Watts, executive director of the Victim Rights Law Center, says what a lot of us think: No. There is no epidemic of women fabricating tales of domestic violence.

She says: “I have heard thousands of victims’ stories and barely ever doubted one.”

I believe Watts. Or at least I want to. But the uneasy truth is that I don’t know for sure.

Watts says that Fiebert’s research is flawed, and perhaps it is. But I cannot stand up and say that Ureneck and Holstein are 100 percent wrong. And, in fact, voices, including that of Governor’s Councilor Christopher A. Iannella, have made the point at confirmation hearings that reform is needed in the law to give divorced dads a fair shake.

Ureneck and Holstein may be on the fringe. They may even be downright sexist. (Mark Charalambous, who writes a column for the Fatherhood Coalition’s website, wrote on the subject of then-presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton: “There has never been a female president. Ergo, no woman candidate can be perceived as ‘presidential,’ assuming a rational interpretation of the word. When one thinks of the phrase ‘commander in chief,’ a pear-shaped woman in a pants-suit doesn’t come to mind.”)

But they also may have found a comfortable forum to state their case.

Hanlon, a leading voice against domestic violence during her days as a practicing lawyer, heard no fewer than five speeches from representatives from the Fatherhood Coalition at her confirmation hearing. That’s a lot, even given the Jerry-Springer-like hysteria that can erupt at any given Governor’s Council hearing.

As it turns out, Ureneck had rallied his group with the following post on the coalition’s website: “Please rendezvous with Joe Ureneck who will be at the Governor’s Office and will be wearing a badge that says, ‘Vote No on Hanlon.’”

The Fatherhood Coalition then uploaded to YouTube video footage of the hearing that its members had shot – in 13 parts. I’ll let you know when I’m done watching them all.

And this sort of thing will continue.

“This is a fast growing movement,” Holstein says of calling out judges and judicial appointees. “It’s not new in concept, but it is new in execution.”

I am reminded of a line from the film “Hoosiers,” when a narrow-minded fellow is concerned that Gene Hackman’s new-to-town, unconventional basketball coach is turning the small town of Hickory upside-down. He tells the coach: “Look, mister, there’s two kinds of dumb: the guy that gets naked and runs out in the snow and barks at the moon, and the guy who does the same thing in my living room. First one don’t matter; the second one you’re kinda forced to deal with.”

Yes, judicial nominees are going to have to deal with groups like Ureneck’s and Holstein’s.

Watts, of the Victim Rights Law Center, says these groups “are free to do what they want, but the frustration I have is that this is a calculated effort against judges. These are judges who have shown strong understanding and commitment, and they are penalized for doing so.”

The modern manifestations of free speech – public hearings, websites, the vast chaos of the blogosphere – tend to turn the sullen into spokespeople.

Seeing these groups protest at judicial confirmation hearings gives dads who have been accused of domestic violence some hope. But is it false hope?

Before showing up at a hearing and telling their tale, men embittered by their treatment in the legal system should demand answers.

Are these leaders arguing facts, or are they playing on emotions? Will attacking a judicial nominee keep an unqualified person off the bench, or will it merely stain the reputation of someone who will serve Massachusetts well?

Fatherhood rights groups should be careful that their attacks are really meant to improve the judiciary and are not just borne out of the most contemptible of motives: revenge.

END

Tobi Pitts leaned forward in her seat, clasping her hands together with forearms resting on her knees. She looked at Howard with tired green eyes that were sunken into a patchwork of premature wrinkles and thin make-up. Her hair was a mass of bleached, neglected curls that hung to the sides like twists of tattered rope.

“I can’t make you say a word, Mr. Franks,” she said. “But the court did order you to come here, and I do think it’s in your best interest to talk about why that happened.”

Howard scanned the room. There were eight other men in the circle, some watching him, others with eyes to the floor. All of them silent, waiting. He looked back at Tobi and found her unblinking gaze still on him, patient as alabaster.

“I see,” he said. “My best interest.” And the room sank into silence again. Tobi remained fixed.

A man to Howard’s left, three seats down cleared his throat and adjusted his tie. He had the meticulous look of a newscaster, complete with handsome profile. His hair was a highly styled crown of silver-gray perfection. He regarded Howard with deep azure eyes resting behind glasses that sparkled as though hand polished by a personal assistant.

“Howard,” he said, in the practiced tone of an announcer, “Tom Watson here, and believe you me I feel for you. I didn‘t want to talk when I got here either. But once I got over that I learned a great deal. Tonight‘s my last night.”

Tom glanced over to Tobi to see if she was watching and was disappointed to find her still looking at Howard.

“Anyway. I don’t mind telling you I used to be a real jerk. I gave my wife so many beatings I couldn’t even begin to count them. In here I learned where it was coming from. Power man, and I am just flat addicted to it. It gave me a rush, a sick rush, to do what I did to her. I’ll bet you can identify with that a little.”

Howard studied the other men in the group. He noted some smirks and the look of disgust on the faces of others that seemed to deepen the more Tom spoke. Suddenly, without warning, he had to steady himself against a wrenching wave of grief that rose through his gut toward his chest.

“So I hope you open up a little, buddy. Remember, we’re all the same here,” Tom concluded. He then pointed at Howard with his hand formed into a mock pistol, winked and clicked his tongue.

“Forget him,” said a heavyset man. He had a cheerless face, shadows of stubble cast across the cheeks like a dark mood. “If you don’t talk they will keep you here longer, and they’ll use it against you in court.”

Howard pondered that for a moment and finally spoke again.

“They?” he asked, “Don’t you mean, her?” And he tilted his head in Tobi’s direction.

The large man grinned without diminishing the sadness in his eyes even a little. “It’s all the same.” he said.

“No, it’s not,” Tobi interjected. “Mr. Franks, I am a therapist, not a judge. I don’t tell the court anything you say in here. That’s held in confidence. All I do is report whether you have attended and whether you are cooperative. Whether you believe it or not, I am here to help you.”

“And what is cooperative, Ms Pitts?” Howard asked. “Am I uncooperative if I don’t spill my guts to you, perhaps put on a little dog and pony show?” he said, cocking a thumb back at Tom, who furrowed his brow and did his best to look indignant.

Tobi swallowed. Her fingers, once woven loosely together tightened and began a slight tremble. A rose hue painted itself across the skin of her face and her eyes hardened. Howard looked at the big man, whose expression now simply pled caution. And silence again filled the room. This time a silence as taut and bloodless as Tobi’s fingers.

Howard raised his hand and bowed his head pensively. The pain locked in his gut unleashed itself and twisted it’s way up through his chest like a mass of writhing snakes. He choked it all back down and spoke.

“Six weeks ago I was a happily married man. Sixteen years with the same woman, Kate, and two beautiful daughters. I had a good business, a decent enough business partner and everything to look forward to.” Howard lifted his head and made direct eye contact with Tobi.

“Then my father died. It was not unexpected, he’d be fighting cancer for three years. My wife convinced me that it wouldn’t be best to pull the kids out of school and fly them to Baltimore for the funeral. I agreed and went on my own.”

Howard didn’t know it, but at this point none of the other men were looking at the floor. Each of them leaned forward as they listened.

“When I got back I stopped on the way home to buy some flowers for Kate. Just something for carrying the weight while I was gone. But my credit card was declined. I called the bank and was informed that all my accounts were closed. All the money was gone.”

Tom interrupted. “Oh man, here come the excuses. I can see it already.”

“Shut up!” the big man boomed, and Tom shrank back in his chair.

Howard shook it off and continued. “I went home and nobody was there. I found the kids with her mother. And her, she was…” Howard raked his fingers through his hair and took a deep breath. “She was with my business partner. They had taken it all. The money, the business, all gone. Everything.”

“I caught up to them at his place. She came to the door wearing a silk robe I gave her last Christmas. I just stood there dumbfounded for, I dunno, what seemed like forever. When I could finally make myself speak all I could do was ask her why. Why had she done this? She told me it was because I was a loser. She told me she was a woman with needs and that I never, from the day we were married, met them. She told me the kids would be better off without me and that any more contact with her or them would have to be through a lawyer.”

“Then she told me something else.”

Howard closed his eyes and seemed to drift for a moment in the vacuum of the silent room. He opened them again and found the group transfixed, as though teetering toward his next words.

“She told me that she would kiss me goodbye but she didn’t think I’d like the taste of another mans sex on her lips.”

A single tear slid from Howard’s eye and tracked down his cheek.

“I lost it,” he said, clinching his hand into a fist and beating it against his knee. “I punched her in the face and broke her nose. Of course I went to jail and that’s how I ended up here, as your new assignment, Ms. Pitts. Another statistic of domestic violence.”

Tobi saw her opening and took it. She spoke in a soft, rehearsed whisper, beckoning Howard to consider her question.

“Are you saying she deserved a broken nose, Howard?”

Howard seemed to think for a moment and then replied.

“No, Ms. Pitts. I am saying she deserved the beating of a lifetime.” The entire room took on life as the men shifted around in their chairs. One of them muttered “F**king A right,” under his breath but it was heard by all.

Tobi started to speak but Howard cut her off. “I’m not done.” he said, His tone was final and unyielding. “You wanted me to talk and I am talking. You just listen.” He settled himself for a moment, and then said, “Please.”

Tobi gently bit her lower lip, then gave Howard a reluctant, almost unperceivable nod.

“You’d think this was the worst of it, but it’s not. After doing flips for weeks to try to see my daughters, last week I was allowed to talk to my oldest, Lisa, on the telephone. I was thinking the whole time that as bad as things were that I could live with it, that I could manage a way to move forward if I could just be with my children. I was so happy to have Lisa on the phone. I couldn’t wait to tell her how much I missed her and that I couldn’t wait to see her.”

“But you know what she said when I told her that? She said,” And then whatever composure Howard had failed, taking his will and strength with it. The tears poured forth like two rivers and his breathing came in great heaving hitches as he cupped his hands over his face and sobbed. He had to force out every word, one at a time, to finish his story.

“She said, ‘I can’t see you till your better Daddy. Mommy said you’re sick.’ ”

Paul Elam is the editor of A Voice for Men
This story can be read unedited at The Oddville Press Volume 1 Issue 2

There is a deliberate and unprovoked “gender war” and the main target of discrimination is not women, according to research – it is men.

In this article I will look at the evidence – it is comprehensive – and the unintended effects. If indeed, they are unintended.

The Feminist so-called ‘Gender studies’ have claimed that mass media portrayals and images are key influences that both reflect and shape society’s views of women and women’s self-identity. They do not consider men.

As well as attacking so-called sexist media portrayals such as page three girls and “girlie” magazines, – which, incidentally feature young ‘empowered’ women taking their clothes off without a skerrick of duress and doing what they want to for copious amounts of money – feminists have challenged objectification, marginalization, trivialization and other negative portrayals of women in movies, advertising, TV drama and other media content.

Although it is increasingly hard to find any such representations not driven by women themselves, their argument that such portrayals are damaging have won eager support from legislators and from most media professionals including film makers, advertising producers and editors. After all, it is women who are the primary consumers of media’s fruits.

Until recently, gender theorists and media researchers have argued and lied or simply assumed that media representations of men are predominantly positive. Men have allegedly been shown in mass media as powerful, dominant, heroic, successful, respected, independent, they say, and in other positive ways conducive to men and boys maintaining a healthy self-identity and self-esteem. All things that feminists do not like one bit.

But hey, Errol Flynn died decades ago. Marlbro’ man too.

The mendacious feminist view has come under challenge over the past few years.

John Beynon, a Welsh academic, examined how masculinity was portrayed in the British quality press including The Times, The Guardian and The Sunday Times and more, over a three-year period from 1999-2001. He didn’t look deeply at the more crass tabloid press where matters are considerably worse.

Susan Faludi’s 2000 best-seller Stiffed: The Betrayal of Modern Man, also finds and exposed the myths and lies and rings alarm bells about the false image of men in our society.

Beynon concluded in his 2002 book, Masculinities and Culture, that men and masculinity were overwhelmingly presented negatively and as “something dangerous to be contained, attacked, denigrated or ridiculed”.

In Australia a broader and more extensive content analysis of mass media portrayals of men and male identity was undertaken in 2005 at the University of Western Sydney, by Dr Jim Macnamara .

It focused on news, features, current affairs, talk shows and lifestyle media, and found that men are widely demonized, marginalized, trivialized and objectified in non-fiction media content that allegedly presents facts, reality and “truth”.

Examine the quality and scope of the evidence. The study involved collection of all editorial content 9 no cherry picking) referring to or portraying men from: 650 newspaper editions (450 broadsheets and 200 tabloids), 130 magazines, 125 TV news bulletins, 147 TV current affairs programs, 125 talk show episodes, and 108 TV lifestyle program episodes. They were from the 20 highest circulation and rating newspapers, magazines and TV programs over a complete six-month period. Media articles were examined using in-depth quantitative and qualitative content analysis methodology.

This comprehensive and exhaustive research found, in volume, that fully 69 per cent of mass media reporting and commentary on men was unfavorable compared with just 12 per cent favorable and 19 per cent neutral.

Men were predominately reported or portrayed in mass media as villains, aggressors, perverts and philanderers, with more than 75 per cent of all mass media representations of men and male identities showing men in one of these four ways.

More than 80 per cent of media mentions of men, in total, were negative, compared with 18.4 per cent of mentions which showed men in a slightly positive role.

The overwhelmingly negative reporting and portrayals of men in mass media news, current affairs, talk shows and lifestyle media was mainly in relation to violence and aggression. Violent crime, including murder, assault, armed robberies and attacks such as bashings, accounted for almost 40 per cent of all media reporting of male violence and aggression, followed by sexual abuse (20.5 per cent), general crime (18.6 per cent) and domestic violence (7.3 per cent).

Disregarded is the fact that crime is a feature of a tiny minority in our society and the vast majority of men are law-abiding, family-supporting, self-sacrificing chaps going about their lawful occasions. Men who are increasingly dismayed at the ease and frequency with which women denigrate them.

Other topics of media coverage of men were fatherhood and family, male sexuality, work and career, and men’s social behavior. In all of these categories, men were predominantly reported and portrayed negatively.

Fully one third of all media discussion of male sexuality examined in the study was in relation to pedophilia which demonstrates the appalling distortion inherent in debate on men, given that an infinitesimal proportion of men are pedophiles.

Fatherhood, a prominent also-ran subject was discussed in 361 media articles and features during the period of the study. Some media coverage positively discussed men as fathers, pointing to increasing recognition of the importance of fathers in children’s lives. However, along with recognition of the importance of fathers and the depth of many men’s emotional connection with their children, discussion contained an almost equal number of criticisms of men as “deadbeat dads”, “commitment phobic” and as perpetrators of domestic violence and sexual abuse within families.

That sexual abuse is far less common in a family with a biological father in it than without – in fact, statistically negligible – is totally ignored or suppressed.

Men are exclusively portrayed as the perpetrators of domestic violence and child abuse despite evidence of violence and abuse committed by women.

The National Family Violence Survey in the US for instance found women just as likely to commit violence against men as men are against women, and a US National Incidence of Child Abuse and Neglect report in 2000 that found “where maltreatment of children led to death, 78 per cent of the perpetrators were female”, Where is that ever reported by our media?

What an image of men to present to the target audience of the media, the Primary consumer – women. They know that women want to see men as bad, it seems, in order to justify buying stuff from the media’s sponsors.

The media’s deliberate, contrived image of men is wrong. Very wrong. Factually and morally.

The Australian Advertising Standards Bureau reported in 2005 that TV commercials drew a record and increasing number of complaints from men during 2004 while those from women are decreasing.

The Australian Federal Government’s 73 Million Dollar advertising campaign against domestic violence which targeted only men as perpetrators of domestic violence and only women as victims was labeled “propaganda against men” with many men criticizing its negative and blatantly false “stereotypical portrayals” as reported in The Age, January 3, 2005.

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

Doris Lessing, the famous British early feminist author, said at the Edinburgh Book Festival, in August, 2001:

I find myself increasingly shocked at the unthinking and automatic rubbishing of men which is now so part of our culture that it is hardly even noticed.

She went on to point out-

The most stupid, ill-educated and nasty woman can rubbish the nicest, kindest and most intelligent man and no one protests …

Her audience was stunned.

One could add that intelligent, educated TV presenter and news editor women are as bad as their crude, nasty sisters seeking every opportunity to create a false image to suit their anti-male agenda. Indeed their University education in Women’s Studies lies at the root of their systematic and public misandry.

Stupid is also an increasing thematic portrayal of men, especially in television adverts which the Australian study did not cover.

Men are routinely portrayed as “fools, idle, good for nothing and inept” usually a second fiddle to their so much smarter and more decisive female partners. In adverts, the savvy, empowered, successful ‘Executive woman’ is married to a stupid boy-man who cannot open a can of beans and whose children are more capable at doing year 4 homework than he is.

Canadian authors, Paul Nathanson and Katherine Young in a controversial 2001 book, Spreading Misandry: The Teaching of Contempt for Men in Popular Culture reported widespread examples of “laughing at men, looking down on men, blaming men, de-humanizing men, and demonizing men” in modern mass media. They concluded: “… the worldview of our society has become increasingly both gynocentric (focused on the needs and problems of women) and misandric (focused on the evils and inadequacies of men)”.

This seems pervasive too in many TV ‘dramas. It is clear such TV shows seem to be preaching a message of ‘defer to the woman’ as the only way of impressing her or stopping her being violent – and failure to do so will result in a smack to his face.

Violence toward men, physical and verbal, direct and indirect, is treated as comedy or ‘deserved’. Whatever happened to ‘There is no excuse for violence’? .

Doris Lessing said “Men seem to be so cowed that they can’t fight back, and it is time they did.”

Now, how does one expect men to do this when there is so much legislation that forces them to keep their opinions and protests to themselves, and so much misandric vilification in all arms of our media-driven culture; the media that just won’t give men a voice?

With the rapid rise of female and feminist influence, seemingly devoid of the famed and hubristically claimed ‘empathy’ and compassion, our media Institutions are dominated by subtle verbal thugs.

How do you think it affects Justice in the Family Courts, where an Industry of rent-seeking hangers on suffused with false and awful images of men, pass judgment.

Men are less ’cowed’ than chained to a post in the back yard, like a dog.

Let us examine the effects of this chaining up. I want to show how women have lost a valuable resource – thrown it away – the care and concern of even the nicest, kindest and most intelligent men that Lessing refers to.

And worse for women – Mistreated dogs bite.

I have provided a lot of detail from contemporary research which shows the systematic destruction of masculine reputation foisted upon us by an anti-male media, driven by the education women receive in our Universities.

Men are rubbished and calumnized daily. Good men; ordinary, hard working men; family men. The good name of men is soiled at every opportunity by ordinary women repeating feminist AgitProp.

Women have eagerly adopted the habit of disrespecting men, making it a sardonic sport, so much so that even an early feminist like Doris Lessing is horrified at the destructiveness, callousness, crudity and downright lies.

What can men do about it? What are men doing about it?

Men are generally doers rather than talkers, present company excepted. And when good men stop doing what good men do, women lose out.

Anthony Nazzaro writing for the National Organisation for Men has pointed to incidents, behavioural trends. Lets look at some:

The Baltic Sea; Estonian-Swedish ferry sinks, over 800 die. A disproportionate number of women drown. Many say the “Law of the Sea” (women and children first), was forgotten, and “The Law of the Jungle” (every man for himself) prevailed. The screams of women drowning were heard by many men, it was reported.

Montreal, Canada; 14 women students were killed by a mentally disturbed man. Many media commentators were bothered by the fact that the male students didn’t risk their lives in an attempt to ‘protect’ the women. Feminists used this as yet another male-bashing exercise. They have an annual ‘protest’ accusing those boys and all men of being complicit.

New York City, the Twin Tower Bombings: in the panic to get out of the buildings, some women reported of being shoved out of elevators by men. One or two of the 300 odd firemen who died in the inferno perhaps? Was it the actual the case that women were pushed out? Maybe it was just a whine from a woman or two who broke a heel. But men were criticized, in a tragedy.

On the radio in the UK, a lost child, a little girl, is reported as found wandering the aisles of a ‘businessman’s ‘ train from Glasgow. Women phone in condemning men on the train for not ‘helping’ the child. Their tone is heated, bordering on calls for lynching. The many business-women passengers who did not help are not mentioned.

A small girl wanders from a kindergarten in England; she drowns in a pond. A man-hunt looks for a van seen in the area. The man is found and cleared but is vilified for not stopping to help a wandering child. He says, “I was afraid to talk to a strange child and be accused of being a paedophile”.

In the book “Male and Female – A Study of the Sexes in a Changing World’, there appears an opinion “that men have to learn – to want to provide and protect others, and this behavior, being learned, is fragile and can disappear rather easily under social conditions that no longer teach it.” Or deride it.

Phyllis Schlafly, a well known American writer, has written that male soldiers are now being trained to disregard female soldiers’ pain and suffering if captured, since the sexual assault of a U.S. female POW during the gulf war (who turned out not to have been sexually assaulted at all, by the way). She’s afraid if this attitude gets out to the general public, it could be devastating to male-female relationships.

Well it has, and it is.

Destroying chivalry by continually criticizing it and blaming men for being polite and helpful is one thing, but are women willing to forfeit the paternal feeling that most men still have for them?

Ooow now there’s a provocative word, but when did feminists every keep to real meanings of words? Paternalistic used to be a positive word, rubbished by feminists.

Many men are no longer more outraged by women being abused than by men being abused.

Today, men are starting to refuse to see themselves as the providers and protectors of women. In an equal world why should they be? The provider protector role we are told is ‘oppressive’. This archetypal male role has been rubbished – by feminists and their legions of media whores and legislators.

Women are hardly noted for stirring themselves to provide for and protect men. Quite the opposite in fact. Every opportunity to abandon men is taken, as Doris Lessing pointed out in disgust at her feminist sisters.

Women can take back the night on the one way streets all they like.

Feminist legal scholar and Harpy Professor Catharine MacKinnon has said that the increase in domestic violence and rape are symptomatic of male attitudes toward women. Hah! She would say that, wouldn’t she.

What increase? She speaks absolute nonsense. There has been a consistent decrease in domestic violence and rape against women in all western countries.

It is women’s domestic violence and false allegations of rape which has seen a marked increase. More lies and vilification from the Women’s Studies Departments infecting our Universities, and our legal system, but then what can one expect from such a rabid liar as Professor McKinnon.

She emulates Professor Mary Koss who fabricated the infamous and ubiquitous 1: 4 women raped statistic by deliberately falsifying self-selected data collected through the Feminist Ms Magazine. Despite being exposed and torn apart by Christina Hoff-Summers’ in her book “Who Stole Feminism?”, there is barely a Women’s magazine in circulation that has not continued to repeated this wicked lie to terrify its readers and turn them against decent men.

Liars. Men-Haters.

Women Professors of Lies are to be found in every Australian University too. Professors whose careers have been made founded on the most outrageous personal and professional falsity.

Could Feminism’s AgitProp Gender Politics, designed to suborn women, have changed men’s attitudes so that men now see men and women as just people? Have feminists pushed women off the pedestal? Perhaps they have opened men’s eyes to an historical Confidence trick. Is this a good condition for our society?

According to a recent poll, many fewer men would give up their seat in a lifeboat to a woman today, quite a difference from the 1912 Titanic disaster where mostly women were saved. Even more than children. In a riot, disaster or war, will it mean every man and women for themselves?

Many men today demand that women be obligated for the draft and combat along with men. Mel Feit, of the National Center for Men, in the USA has stated that “a male body isn’t any more capable of withstanding a bullet than a female body.”

Women hold political office and Board-room positions, and are police officers and some are even firefighters. Why should men still risk their lives to protect them?

Geraldo Rivera on a show regarding male-female violence stated, “The way I was brought up, men should always protect women.”

But isn’t this attitude patronizing and demeaning? Feminists tell everyone it is, taking every opportunity to berate men.

Some women call this equally disrespectful attitude, misogynistic. What a friggin’ nerve. Some men call this result of societal equality, poetic justice.

If being equally respected is what women want, then perhaps women could make a start on being respectful and change history – and herstory while they are at it. They have had several generations of feminism and equality but seem yet to make that start.

Meanwhile being equally disrespected could be a natural and inevitable by-product of their systematic disdain, even if back-firing on women.

It seems to me that to stop this rot in society and specifically the media and the Law- sponsored, forced-redundancy of men, will need a revolution in society. Maybe brought about by calamity.

If, say, an invasion was to occur and men were to turn their backs on the defence of the nation as we are now “redundant” what would the prevailing attitude of the female gender be then?

If such an invading force was one that sees women as nothing more than chattel to be used abused and discarded at a whim, would we then as men be good for something — ahhh yes we would be good at defending the freedom and advancements that these women claim they have gained for themselves.

This shows that the claims the femanazis have made in respect to the advancement of women are nothing without the men to protect and ensure those gains. They are only guaranteed existence by a willingness of men to uphold them.

But why should men stand up and defend the rights of the feminazis and their followers who label men redundant, violent, abusive, child abusers, perverts, rapists etc as they are fond of vomiting in the main stream media. Remember the feminist catch-phrase? “ALL men are rapists”.?

Perhaps it will never come to be that men will en-masse turn their backs in such a situation as we all have mothers, sisters, daughters and female relatives whom we hold dear to our hearts.

But even these are increasingly disrespecting men, divorcing and dispossessing their husbands and estranging themselves and the children from their fathers. Children, particularly girls are developing an horrendous image of men, starting with their fathers. They will grow totally distrustful of men altogether. Boys self-esteem is terrible as they look to a future when they too will become the men they see portrayed. There is a self-fulfilling prophesy bearing down on us.

80% of divorces are initiated by wives, wanting to rid themselves of the men Doris Lessing spoke about. Nice men. Intelligent men. Kind men. These men are deliberately mis-labeled and dragged into the family Court, sometimes by policemen who have thrown them out of their homes on false allegation. Men’s are dispossessed of their homes and their families in ‘The Best Interest of the Children’, Adolph Hitler’s wicked phrase. It is not only men’s image that is ruined.

Men just might leave all women to themselves.

It will not be from anger. Despite being so mistreated, men in general have not shown anger toward women. But men are feeling profoundly disappointed, disillusioned and disgusted.

Western women have not raised any objection to being manipulated by feminism. Instead they have embraced it’s seductive, destructive mantras and mendacities. They punish faultless men who they see as all the same. All bad. They have permitted calumny and few have raised objection like Doris Lessing. They have chosen to follow a pernicious and socially destructive Marxist-Feminist agitprop path to a bed of their own making that they have to lie in.

Alone.

No doubt they will blame men, for being commitment phobic.

Notes

(This article accompanies a podcast by Amfortas produced in conjunction with Christian J.)

Give a Dog a Bad Name. Pt.1.

Give a dog a Bad Name. Pt.2.

Benyon, J. (2002) Masculinities and Culture, Buckingham: Open Uni Press

Nazzaro A. The screams of women : Men’s increasingly dispassionate feelings about women. The Backlash! – January 1995 Organization News – National Organization for Men

Macnamara J. Dr, an Australian scholar and author of Media & Male Identity: The Making and Remaking of Men, Media Research findings from a PhD research thesis completed in 2005 through the University of Western Sydney released by Palgrave Macmillan, London in September 2006. ‘Dissing’ men: the new gender war.

Regarding McKinnon’s lies, the best evidence comes from the US Justice Department’s annual crime victimization survey–which compiles numbers based on interviews with some 75,000 Americans, rather than from police reports. The survey found that in 1979, the rate of rape was 2.8 per 1,000 people over age 11. In 2004, it was 0.4. per 1000

Some experts say that because the survey was redesigned in the early 1990s, the most reliable data come from 1993 and after. Even here, though, the trend is the same, with a drop of 75 percent. That translates into hundreds of thousands of rapes that didn’t happen.

When reporting has increased by 1/3 and rape rates dropped by 85% this means one thing: An increase in false reporting:

While researchers and prosecutors do not agree on the percentage of false allegations, the consensus is that approximately 40% to 50% of charges are clearly false.

This number does not include unresolved allegations held “in limbo” where evidence is too weak to try the case even under shield laws, relaxed rules, and comparatively weak evidentiary standards applied to rape cases:

• A survey of all the forcible rape complaints during a three-year period at two large Midwestern state universities found that 50 percent of the accusations were false.

• In a nine-year study of all resolved rape cases in a Midwestern U.S. city of 70,000, the accusers recanted their charges 41 percent of the time. The 41 percent figure does not include the other accusations that the police department recorded as unfounded, for which there was insufficient evidence to establish the assault.

• According to a report of the Defense Department Inspector General released in 2005, approximately 73% of women and 72% of men at the military service academies believe that false accusations of sexual assault are a problem.

The culture of false allegations of violence bears unacceptably high costs. Families and innocent lives are destroyed by our wasted tax dollars, while real cases go ignored or unprosecuted. Judges and juries are fooled and make bad decisions.

See also RADAR ALERT: Beyond Duke: About Half Of All Rape Allegations Are False

The following list consists of internet podcasts and radio shows, some live and interactive, as well as audio archives about family rights issues.  These audio shows feature interviews with professionals and victim families.

• Best Interest of the Family
• DadsDivorce.com podcasts
• Dads on the Air
• Get Your Justice Live
• Lee PAS Foundation
• Split in Two

Make no mistake about it, Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor’s comment regarding the ability of a “wise Latina woman” to render a better judgment than a white male (which was not a one-time, off-the-cuff remark) is met with knowing smirks and snickers by those that travel in her ideological circles. It would not be considered a controversial statement on any college campus where “patriarchy” is considered a socio-political pathology comparable with fascism, racism, sexism, etc. Such indoctrination is not confined to women’s studies curricula; it is standard fare in (often required) undergraduate social science courses. Thus it comes as no surprise when President Obama initially dismissed criticism of her remarks as “nonsense.” To him, and all similarly educated “progressives,” it is just that.

The identity politics crowd views the concept of blind justice as a quaint artifact of an unenlightened era, as opposed to the evolved concept of a malleable standard of justice (the “living Constitution”) that empathizes with the social condition and feelings of the litigant. They consider affirmative action, feminist jurisprudence, etc., as progressive, representing a higher truth that trumps the obsolete, patriarchal thinking of the “white-male power structure.”

According to Sotomayor, the rule of woman is a superior legal mode whose time has come. They are wrong. Far from being progressive, identity-sensitive jurisprudence is literally regressive, as in harkening back to an earlier, unenlightened time when kings and oligarchs ruled by fiat, like King Solomon, the Politburo of the U.S.S.R, or today’s Iranian Ayatollahs.

Establishing equal justice for everyone, be they serfs or kings, represented a triumph of political thought, as did the presumption of innocence, due process, habeas corpus, freedom of speech, and other milestones that are part of a precious heritage of western civilization extending back through the centuries to the ancient Greeks.

Many who have not had course to find themselves unwittingly involved in civil litigation would be surprised to discover that these precious rights are now under wholesale assault from the left. The expression of opinions that run contrary to the canons of political correctness is not only constrained everywhere from the college campus to beauty pageants, it is firmly on track to becoming criminally actionable (“hate speech”). Men accused of gender crimes like “domestic abuse” are presumed guilty and have to prove their innocence in courts that are little more than feminist tribunals. Due process is also nowhere to be found for men accused in these Kafkaesque courtrooms. Such men are routinely stripped of their children, thrown out of their homes, slapped with extortionary child support orders and often jailed with no more than a hearsay assertion by an angry wife or girlfriend that she is afraid.

Thanks to the racial discrimination euphemistically called “affirmative action” that afflicts law and public policy nationwide, individuals who happen to belong to the wrong class: white males, are discriminated against in employment and school admission policies. The white firefighters vying for promotion in New Haven were blatantly discriminated against as a result of affirmative action policies at the Fire Department, duly affirmed by Sotomayor’s ruling. How ironic that Sotomayor’s own appalling appellate court decision in Ricci v. DeStefano will be heard by the Supreme Court this term. The high court may have been poised to finally abolish affirmative action. If she is confirmed, will she recuse herself?

The present grassroots anti-courts movement is unlike previous cycles of popular agitation against the third branch of government. This time it is borne by a groundswell of righteous outrage at the selective denial of our precious constitutionally guaranteed civil and human rights. It is not just the individual litigants who suffer when justice is administered by courts steeped in victim-feminism, identity politics and affirmative action. Confidence in the legal system entire is undermined when, under the color of law, constitutionally guaranteed civil rights are subverted to promote a self-righteous and flawed vision of political correctness.

That these injustices proliferate in virtual media silence is another scandal that will no doubt continue unabated with people like Sotomayor and other Obama appointees-to-be administering their brand of “progressive” justice.

# # #

Denise Noe’s Lizzie Whittlings: Elizabeth Montgomery

Actress Elizabeth Montgomery won a permanent place in the hearts of Borden buffs when she took on the part of Lizzie Borden in the made-for-TV movie, The Legend of Lizzie Borden. For a movie-of-the-week, it was unusually well made and engrossing.
Elizabeth Montgomery was the right actress for the part. For one thing, with her medium blonde hair and snub nose, Montgomery bore something of a resemblance to Lizzie. That was a definite advantage since Lizzie’s visage is so very well known. Equally important, as an actress Montgomery was able to convey a sense of entitlement and ladylike restraint while suggesting layers of possibly homicidal rage boiling beneath a controlled surface. Montgomery seemed utterly comfortable in the period clothing. She also appeared believable in the startling scenes in which she was supposed to be out of those clothes and in the nude! This ability to act in a role in which the character is riddled with contradictions was especially vital to The Legend of Lizzie Borden, as the movie was deliberately crafted to suggest a lingering mystery. The film would show scenes happening in cinematic “reality” and its present tense, and then focus on Elizabeth Montgomery’s face to go into what might have been a flashback – or a scene from Lizzie’s overheated imagination.
The woman who would so memorably play Lizzie Borden was born on 15 April 1933 in Los Angeles, California, into a show business family. Her father was the famous screen actor Robert Montgomery and her mother was the theater actress Elizabeth Bryan Allen.
According to findadeath.com, Elizabeth Montgomery liked being called “Lizzie.” Often a shortened version of Elizabeth, Lizzie was Miss Borden’s actual name. Elizabeth Montgomery’s preference for the nickname provides an interesting link between her and Lizzie Borden.

Always an actress
Elizabeth Montgomery appears to have enjoyed a childhood that was both happy and privileged. The affluent Montgomery family split their time between Hollywood, New York State, and Great Britain. As a child, little Lizzie attended the Westlake School for Girls. According to a website called Bob’s Bewitching Daughter – Elizabeth Montgomery, “Her first acting role was at the age of five in a French language production of Little Red Riding Hood at the Westlake School; Elizabeth played the wolf.”
The family moved to New York City in 1950 where her father began his television series Robert Montgomery Presents. Unfortunately, the public triumph coincided with personal upheaval as Robert Montgomery and Elizabeth Bryan Allen divorced in December of that same year. After the divorce, the young Elizabeth Montgomery lived first with her mother and then with her father. She entered the Spence School, a college-prep institution exclusively for females, and then went to the American Academy of Dramatic Arts. She attended the Academy before making her television debut in 1951, in her father’s series. She appeared in an episode called “Top Secret” in which Robert and Elizabeth Montgomery played a fictional father and daughter. By 1952, she was a member of the summer stock company on Robert Montgomery Presents.
The young Elizabeth Montgomery worried about being known primarily as Robert Montgomery’s daughter. She wanted to be seen and evaluated as an actress in her own right. She thought that perhaps she should change her last name in order to establish a truly independent identity in her career and mentioned this possibility to her father. Clearly disappointed, he asked, “What’s the matter, you ashamed?” She kept the Montgomery last name on her acting credits and would throughout her life.
In March of 1954, she married Frederic Gallatin Cammann. Cammann came from a family that was both wealthy and socially prominent. The Social Register dropped him from its roster for marrying an actress.The couple divorced in 1955.
In December of 1956, at the age of twenty-three, Elizabeth Montgomery wed actor Gig Young, who was forty-three at the time. Perhaps she felt this marriage would have more going for it than the previous one since they shared the same profession. If so, she was sadly mistaken. Gig Young was a heavy drinker and the union was marred by the problems associated with a partner’s boozing.
During this period in which her personal life was turbulent, Montgomery racked up professional accomplishments as a busy, working actress. She worked mostly in television. She appeared in the popular series The Untouchables and was nominated for an Emmy for her performance. It was the first of nine Emmy nominations she would receive although she never won the award.
Montgomery played in a feature film called Johnny Cool in 1963. While making that movie, she developed a romantic relationship with director William Asher. She soon divorced Young and married Asher.
It may have been lucky for Montgomery that she dissolved the union with Young when she did and especially lucky that she did so without physical violence. The troubled Gig Young would marry thirty-one year old Kim Schmidt in 1978, when he was sixty-five. Three weeks after they wed, Gig shot Schmidt to death and then turned the gun on himself and committed suicide.
Having worked as an actress all of her life, Montgomery told Asher she would like to abandon her career in favor of full-time homemaking and to have children. Asher was in favor of the couple having kids but preferred that she continue acting if the two of them could find a way to work together. He soon found the perfect vehicle for that purpose, a sitcom that he would direct and in which she would star.

Bewitched and a trademark twitch
The premise of Bewitched was a variant on the fish-out-of-water theme that has proved so resiliently effective in comedies. The television sitcom was inspired by two motion pictures, the 1942 I Married a Witch and the 1959 Bell, Book, and Candle. Both films were comedic fantasies about mortal men falling in love with good-hearted witches.
In the TV show Bewitched, Elizabeth Montgomery starred as the witch Samantha, the wife of mortal ad executive Darrin Stephens (first played by Dick York and then by Dick Sargent who replaced the former because a back injury left York unable to work). Samantha tries to settle down into the life of a middle-class suburban housewife and resolves to leave witchcraft behind. However, she always ended up using her special powers that could be both the source of humorous jams and her secret weapon to get out of them.
Elizabeth Montgomery’s winsome portrayal of the wholesome witch was a major reason for the program’s success. Another was the strong support her character received from the other cast members. Actress Agnes Moorehead brought a vinegary tang to her depiction of Samantha’s mother, Endora (so named after the Biblical witch of Endor). Endora’s powers of sorcery gave the role a special punch as she played a classically interfering mother-in-law who thought her son-in-law was not good enough for her daughter.
Despite the strong fantasy elements to the program, many viewers could undoubtedly relate to the bickering when Endora archly asserted, “Samantha, I will not stand here and be insulted by something which is 94 percent water” and Darrin replied, “Oh, yeah! Well, what about something which is a hundred percent hot air?”
The role of each member of Samantha’s supernaturally gifted family was sharply etched and played in a distinctive manner. Comedian Paul Lynde, as wizard Uncle Arthur, possessed a colorful sense of mischief. Marion Lorne was sweet and somewhat pitiful as Aunt Clara, the witch who never could quite get a spell right.
Elizabeth Montgomery sometimes branched out within the series itself, donning a black wig to play Samantha’s cousin Serena, a naughty witch who contrasted with Samantha’s nice witch.
Samantha’s trademark would be the supposed twitching of her nose that signaled that she was using her magic powers. It was actually the twitching of her upper lip that, in turn, moved her nose. Montgomery had a habit of twitching her upper lip when she was nervous. Asher decided to make this the sign that Samantha was using magic.
The cast of mortal characters was just as strongly defined as that of the witches. Both York and Sargent were excellent as the loving, well-meaning, and frequently exasperated Darrin. David White was friendly but suitably demanding as Darrin’s boss. Perhaps the most vivid mortal character was Gladys Kravitz, first played by Alice Pearce and then by Sandra Gould. Both actresses did a fine job of portraying this nosy neighbor who is certain that something very odd is going on in the Stephens house but can never manage to get anyone else to see what she has seen or believe what she says. It is an arresting comedic moment when Samantha asks Gladys Kravitz why she has come to the Stephens house and Kravitz replies, “I came over for a snoop, uh, a scoop of sugar.”
Bewitched was a program that could be enjoyed by the entire family with little fear that youngsters would be exposed to anything inappropriate. Interestingly, however, the show broke new ground in its depiction of marital intimacy by showing Darrin and Samantha sleeping in the same bed. Prior to the Stephenses, most TV married couples had slept in separate beds.
While Elizabeth Montgomery never left acting behind for full-time homemaking as she had once planned, she did realize her goal of having children. She was pregnant with her first child while the Bewitched pilot was filmed, and gave birth to William Allen Asher in 1964. Her next two pregnancies were incorporated into Bewitched storylines. Elizabeth Montgomery gave birth to Robert Deverell Asher in 1965, and Tabitha Stephens was born around that same time. When Montgomery delivered Rebecca Elizabeth Asher in 1969, Samantha Stephens brought forth Adam Stephens.
Bewitched enjoyed a very good run before its cancellation in 1972, and is fondly remembered by many fans decades after its demise.

Dramatic successes in twenty-two TV movies
Like many stars of hit programs, Montgomery did not want to be typecast. She steadfastly refused to twitch her upper lip and nose for fans after Bewitched went off the air.
She also tried to stretch her acting wings by eschewing comedy for drama. She appeared in several made-for-TV movies with a dramatic bent. In 1972, she played in the TV movie The Victim. It is a claustrophobic, creepy suspense movie in which Montgomery plays Kate Wainwright, a wealthy woman trapped in a house during a storm. The electricity and phone have gone out, a murderer has done in her sister, and Kate desperately tries to avoid being his next victim.
That same year of 1972, the ten-year marriage with Asher unraveled and the couple divorced in 1973.
While making another TV movie, Mrs. Sundance, in 1974, she met actor Robert Foxworth. The two were soon in a romantic relationship. Having had three marriages end in divorce may have left Montgomery reluctant to wed again. She and Foxworth soon began cohabiting.
She starred in the 1974 A Case of Rape. Like Samantha Stephens, Ellen Harrod, the character played by Montgomery, is a suburban housewife. But A Case of Rape was no humorous fantasy—it was an extremely serious movie that treated this sensitive subject in a manner that was compelling.
The Legend of Lizzie Borden in 1975, the extraordinary made-for-TV movie that has become a favorite among Borden aficionados, followed it.
This fine actress continued working for many years but took a hiatus from her profession in the mid-1980s. She returned to acting in 1990 with Face to Face, in which she played archeologist Dr. Diana Firestone, opposite her lover Robert Foxworth.
After cohabiting together for almost twenty years, Montgomery and Foxworth decided to marry. They wed on 28 January 1993.
In 1995, Montgomery was working on a television movie, called Deadline for Murder: From the Files of Edna Buchanan, when she started feeling constantly tired. At first, the actress believed that she must be fatigued from overwork. Later, she realized that she was really sick and went to a doctor. The physician diagnosed Montgomery as having colon cancer. Exploratory surgery showed that the cancer had spread to her liver.
Normally a slim, but healthy, 122 pounds, she had wasted away to only 82 pounds when she went into the Cedars-Sinai Medical Center on 8 May 1995. Physicians were unable to stop the merciless spread of the cancer. Morphine helped control the pain. She was discharged on May 15 and returned to her Benedict Canyon home.
According to findadeath.com, she and Foxworth “embraced, and she drifted off, never to wake again. Elizabeth Montgomery died quietly, alone, on May 18th.” She was sixty-two.

Elizabeth Montgomery’s legacy
Her body was cremated. At her memorial service, held on 18 June 1995, Amanda McBroom sang. She may have been chosen to sing, in part, because her last name seemed to pay tribute to the role for which Montgomery was best known. Montgomery’s image was displayed on a screen and those assembled gave the deceased actress a standing ovation.
Today, a nine-foot high bronze statue of Montgomery as Samantha, astride a broomstick, graces a park in Salem, Massachusetts, the home of the infamous 17th Century witch trials.
Massachusetts is also, of course, the home of the Borden murders. In his summation for Lizzie Borden at her trial, Governor Robinson would refer to the Salem tragedy of two centuries before when he told the jury that acquittal would show that “witches are out of fashion in Massachusetts.”
Ironically, in the century after that acquittal, the talented actress who fashioned herself into a sweetly adorable witch would also craft herself into an utterly enthralling Lizzie Borden.

Works cited
“Bell, Book, and Candle,” http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0051406.
“Bewitched,” http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0057733.
Bob’s Bewitching Daughter – Elizabeth Montgomery, http://www.bobsbewitchingdaughter.com.
“A Case of Rape,” http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0071286.
“Deadline for Murder: From the Files of Edna Buchanan,” http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0112821.
“Elizabeth Montgomery,” http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000548.
“Elizabeth Montgomery and the cast of Bewitched, http://www.findadeath.com.
“Face to Face,” http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0099535.
“Gig Young,” http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0949574.
“I Married a Witch,” http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0034881.
“Legend of Lizzie Borden,” http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0073273.
“The Victim,” http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0069461.

The manhood brand is dead, kaput, and that is no accident. Men, who built the legal and physical infrastructure of this country from scratch, have, over the past 36 years, chosen to allow women to marginalize and overshadow them. It’s as though the entire history of men was written on an Etch-a-Sketch and then shaken until erased. Maria Shriver, wife of The Terminator, has proclaimed America a woman’s nation, and she is right. How pathetic.

The epitome of dead manhood is the corrupted structure of parenthood: mothers own children, fathers rent them. Such is the outcome of the Roe v. Wade decision, which unconstitutionally handed women more reproductive rights than men. This 1973 US Supreme Court decision told women: it’s your body, your baby, your choice.

While a pregnant woman ponders her unborn child’s fate, dad is out of the equation. But, if she chooses motherhood — baby ownership — he, namely his wallet, is in the equation. Contract law stipulates a correlation between ownership and financial responsibility. Not in maternity.

At the moment of birth, mother becomes the father’s landlord, to whom he pays rent. Worse, he must fight for the key to his flat! Does one need more proof than the inexplicable custody fight that fathers are mere tenants, not the owners of their children?

As owners, mothers get lots of behavioral latitude — in ways that fathers, as tenants, never could. No matter how badly mothers MissBehave, as Brooke Burke and Denise Richards prove while contemplating the mixing of motherhood with bikinis, America celebrates them.

Perceived Power

Men built America, landed on the Moon, and comprise 85% of legislators. So, how did America become a “woman’s nation,” where 60% of college graduates, 50%+ of med-school graduates, 50%+ of law-school graduates, and 80%+ of veterinary-school graduates are female — where Barack Obama created an unconstitutional Council on Women and Girls and now wants to institute a Title IX-like push for women in science & engineering?

Simple: men, who have a perpetual fear of not getting laid, never had any real power. Back in the day when women were home baking cookies, couldn’t get credit, couldn’t own property, and didn’t run businesses, men had perceived power. As women began entering the workforce, earning graduate degrees, and using their reproductive rights as weapons, “manhood” waned.

Men are uncomfortable confronting women as peers, because they believe — wrongly — that males are more sexual than females, that kowtowing for sex is a prerequisite. Women, naturally, exploit this male ignorance to the hilt.

Result: Men reflexively buy drinks for women, propose marriage on bended knee, assume fault in every dispute, and rubber-stamp almost every piece of anti-male legislation (think VAWA). This is manhood?

Unproductive Expressions of Manhood

When men are bashed in TV sitcoms and commercials, they tolerate it. That’s why so much is on the air. Corollary: You never see woman-bashing on TV, do you?

Watch this exchange I had with Bill O’Reilly in February 2009 (click photo to watch). Bill doesn’t seem to mind the male-bashing: he opines that men are tough and can take it.

When the topic is Osama bin Laden, men are Rambo (McCain proclaimed that, if elected, he would follow bin Laden into the Gates of Hell). But, when the topic is women, men are Bambi — silent and deferential. To wit: The US Department of Labor, in January 2009, released a scientific study that proves no gender wage gap exists. But, you don’t see the male talking heads on TV discussing it, do you? They’re too scared.

Because men have allowed manhood to become synonymous with impotence, they express masculinity in unproductive, artificial ways. Here are five examples:

• Loud motorcycles
• Blaring music from automobiles
• Extreme fighting
• Tattoos
• Tolerating violent women

Despite giving them temporary testosterone rushes, these behaviors, ironically, defeat manhood. They are substitutes for real expressions of manhood: standing up to women, disagreeing with them, saying no to them. Their fear of being rejected in the bedroom is so great, yet so unfounded, that men would rather live in a gynocracy and mourn the death of manhood than reverse this sad situation.

The NoNonsense Bottom Line

Rebranding manhood is possible only if the product — the man — changes. Otherwise, there’s no brand to rebrand!

Men cannot revamp perceptions and laws and policies if they refuse to change themselves. For example, if a man doesn’t have the balls to talk to a woman in a bar without buying her a drink, he doesn’t have the power to change custody laws.

Men must change their views of themselves and of women, and begin treating women like peers. Equality means equality. The Constitution states nowhere that women have special rights or privileges or protections, yet men keep granting them — each time destroying the manhood brand.

Manhood does not derive from deferring to and coddling women; it results from facing and demanding respect from them. Until men grasp this, the manhood brand will remain dead and America a “woman’s nation.”

About the Author

Marc H. Rudov, The NoNonsense Man®, is a globally known radio/TV personality, relationship coach, and author of 100+ articles and the books Under the Clitoral Hood: How to Crank Her Engine Without Cash, Booze, or Jumper Cables (ISBN 9780974501727) and The Man’s No-Nonsense Guide to Women: How to Succeed in Romance on Planet Earth (ISBN 0974501719). The 2008 recipient of the National Coalition of Free Men’s “Award for Excellence in Promoting Gender Fairness In The Media,” Mr. Rudov is a frequent guest on Fox News Channel’s Your World with Neil Cavuto and The O’Reilly Factor.

Rudov’s books, articles, radio/TV archives, and podcasts are available at TheNoNonsenseMan.com.

Copyright © 2009 by Marc H. Rudov. All rights reserved.

The fact is that most fathers do not harm their children. Domestic violence is not gender specific. Some mothers have also committed similar unnatural acts. For example, I am currently representing a soldier, formerly deployed in Iraq, who is now struggling to rescue his daughter from the alleged abuse of her mother in Chicago.

Without a careful review of the entire file and transcripts of court proceedings, it is hard to say why the judge in the Connolly custody case made his decision to give unsupervised visitation rights to this father. With hindsight, it appears that the judge’s decision was clearly wrong. But, the current petition to remove that judge from the bench does not seem to solve the problem. The correct method of seeking accountability in such a matter is done through the Judicial Inquiry Board.

Until we know all the facts, I caution against unrestrained emotions which may militate against the rights of good fathers struggling to protect their children. A mother has lost two children; let us support her but not lose our sense of reason.

Jeffery M. Leving is one of America’s most prominent family law attorneys and the author of Divorce Wars. He is the publisher of levingsdivorcemagazine.com

I was raised by my grandmother who was born in the late 1800s. I have three daughters and two sons. I am especially grateful that my daughters were born into a world vastly better for them than it was for their great-grandmother. But, what positive changes for my sons?  It is difficult for me to understand how or why my sons have been born into a world that is, in some ways, more difficult for them than it was for boys in the late 1800s.

Most nationally recognized domestic violence organizations view the issue of domestic violence from a feminist ideological [people who place women's rights before victim's rights] perspective. These organizations argue that contemporary men’s rights groups are guilty of singling out and then presenting data that supports their belief that men and women are equally guilty of domestic violence. However, a review of the literature will demonstrate that ideological feminists pioneered and continue this polarization process.

They still report that around the world, 1 in 3 women are beaten, coerced into sex or otherwise abused in their lifetime. They ignore that an impartial and balanced review of the literature documents using similar methodology the same is true for 1 in 3 men.

They still report that, 1 in 5 female high school students report being physically and/or sexually abused by a dating partner. They ignore that an impartial and balanced review of the literature documents using similar methodology the same is true for 1 in 5 male highs school students.

Nationally recognized domestic violence organizations similar to the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence (NCADV), most often, report only the data that supports their perspective and goals. While not laudable, this polarization is understandable because the NCADV is exclusively or primarily concerned about the victimization of women and children , and not men.

The NCADV is often recognized as the national voice for domestic violence organizations. The NCADV’s position is that only women and children suffer from abuse. While the NCADV position is myopic, at least the NCADV clearly acknowledges its position.

It is far less understandable why our public policy makers ignore or minimize male suffering. Most people believe that our public policy makers are equally concerned about how domestic violence affects all family members regardless of age, gender or sexual orientation. However, the 110th Congress H.RES.590 and the Violence Against Women Act are just two of many examples that demonstrate our policy makers are exclusively or primarily concerned about the suffering of women and children and not men.

History documents that it is rarely productive for our public policy makers to pass legislation that positions the needs and desires of one group of people against those of another. This ignorance of male suffering is but another example of how our legislators too often ignore the complexities of an issue in favor of a quick and simple intervention.

Ignore the Men and Boys

On March 11, 2009 President Obama announced the formation of a White House Council on Women and Girls . As the father of three daughters, I commend President Obama for establishing a council that is intended to provide a coordinated federal response to the challenges that my daughters will confront in this 21 st century.

However, as the father of two sons, I find it impossible to understand why the President believes it is not necessary to also establish a council that is intended to provide a coordinated federal response to the challenges that my sons will confront in this 21 st century.

The White House Council on Women and Girls has been established to ensure that agencies across the federal government take into account the particular needs and concerns of women and girls. Policy makers, domestic violence interveners, researchers and the mainstream media argue the reason they are exclusively or primarily concerned with the suffering of females is because far more females than males die each year because of domestic violence.

Domestic Violence-Related Deaths

The report Domestic Violence Fatalities seems to have appeared before the blind eyes and deaf ears of all of the above groups. In Utah in 2005, there were 65 domestic violence-related deaths. The Utah findings document that there were 52 male domestic violence fatalities and 13 female domestic violence fatalities.

In fact, using a methodology that include both intimate partner homicide and suicide provided by the National Violent Death Reporting System (NVDRS), it can be extrapolated that each year there may be as many as 7,832 male and 1,958 female domestic violence suicide fatalities. These domestic violence-related deaths far exceed the number of domestic violence-related deaths by homicide.

The NVDRS findings join an ever growing list of data that demonstrate domestic violence-related fatalities are not exclusively or primarily a problem suffered by adult heterosexual females. Perhaps if Congress had, as original intended, established a more inclusive Family Violence Act, rather than a restrictive Violence Against Women Act, in this 21 st century, we might better understand that domestic violence is a problem for everyone regardless of age, gender or sexual orientation.

It seems that our policy makers, domestic violence interveners, researchers and mainstream media are either oppressing the NVDRS data or they are ignorant of it. I’m not sure which is worse.

For those who are interested in an impartial and balanced exploration of the problem of Domestic Violence-Related Deaths I have a ten page paper with hyperlinks and references at http://tinyurl.com/cw4n9a . And as always, comments are welcomed.

My president had said he respects our civil rights. I believed all we needed to do was show President Obama and Vice President Biden how false allegations of domestic violence hurt 170,000 children a year.1,2 How VAWA has lead to uncontrollable corruption from individual shelters all the way to the US Department of State.

I was sure President Obama would agree that every parent deserves due process. Those parents deserve a trial with a jury of their peers, before the possibility of losing custody of their children. I wanted to show him how many fathers are absent from their children’s lives, by no fault of their own.

But before I knew it, President Obama disappointed me. He also disappointed millions of fathers who are grieving the unjust absence of their children. Instead of making things more equal between the genders, we now have an Office on Women and Children. And we don’t have one for men and their children.

Oprah Winfrey is increasing domestic violence in America. By being Harpo — remaining silent — on the truth about violent women, she unwittingly perpetuates the problem.? Repeatedly excusing women’s culpability and unfairly blaming men only serves to foment this pernicious societal scourge.

On March 19, 2009, Oprah aired an anti-male show about domestic violence (DV), to capitalize on the biggest news story: Rihanna. Oprah holds men totally responsible for both causing and ending DV. Outrageous! Nowhere on her show was mention of all-too-common incidents of female violence such as those involving actress Kelly Bensimon and NFL player Geno Hayes.

Instead, Oprah stridently cautioned her female audience: If he hits, he’ll hit again. Fair enough. Missing from her mantra, though, was: Never hit a man — out of anger, revenge, jealousy, hormone imbalance, or any reason whatsoever! Also absent from Oprah’s show was a reciprocal warning to men: If she hits, she’ll hit again.

Acceptable Marginalization of Men

Why is the DV situation so unfair & unbalanced? Americans — especially male citizens, talkshow hosts, journalists, politicians, and judges — not only trivialize female-on-male violence, they laugh at it.

To wit: In a Saturday Night Live skit (from 02.24.01), Katie Holmes repeatedly whacks Will Farrell in the crotch. In the photo below (click to watch videoclip), Chris Parnell, playing the director, instructs Holmes in how best to grab and twist Farrell’s testicles.

SNL’s New Twist on Testicles

Consequences? Acceptable marginalization of men leads children to disrespect them, women to hurt them — with impunity — and courts to unfairly prosecute them.

Report from the Street

I hear frequently from cops all over the country who tell me that my articles don’t begin to cover the truth about widespread and unreported female-on-male violence. One particular officer writes to me almost every week about another incident. His latest:

I recently arrested a gal for hitting her boyfriend (no politically correct woman-is-victim crap). She left the crime scene, and he called my department. Upon my arrival at the scene, this guy approached my patrol car. At a minimum, he was 6′7″ and had a bloody nose. We arrested her at her parents’ apartment across the street, after a short struggle and strong denial of any wrongdoing.

On the way to the police station, I had to restrain her against the inside of the passenger door of my patrol car (I had a cageless car). So, I requested more officers, and we had to walk her the rest of the way to the police department.

She demanded that I call the bar, where they were before the altercation, to ask the bartender about her boyfriend’s abuse … yadda, yadda, yadda. The bartender reported nothing abusive about her boyfriend and only remembered them arguing. The more lies I caught her in, the more she denied culpability — using a foul mouth.

Even though her boyfriend is large in stature, he’s a wimp. No brighter than she, but undeserving of being abused.

Ultimately, the trial was vacated. I kinda wanted to see what angle she would use to defend herself in court, because none of her alibis confirmed her version of the story, as I indicated in my report. That’s probably why she didn’t want to go to court.

A lot of officers don’t put the full details in their reports, which can help convict DV culprits — male or female. But, the details are especially important when the alleged culprit is a female, because she’ll show up on her best behavior, in conservative attire, and easily fool judges and juries.

The Real Cycle of Violence

Problems are fixed only when their root causes are exposed and addressed — not ignored, distorted, or deflected to others. That’s what happens in Washington, and why Washington solves nothing. Domestic violence is a growing problem because people are in denial about its female roots.

Anyone who condones, denies, trivializes, or laughs at female-on-male violence is responsible for encouraging, enabling, and perpetuating it. If you plead guilty to this, Oprah just assuaged your guilt. Worse, she gave mainstream media the green light to continue misreporting DV statistics. This is the real cycle of violence.

Oprah Winfrey, because of her power and passion and influence, is in a unique position to educate millions around the world about the truth: women cause up to 70% of domestic violence and must not be given a pass.

But, instead of empowering women, by exhorting them to become accountable and responsible for their violence, Oprah disempowers and victimizes them by unilaterally blaming men for the entire matter.

Oprah validates people who believe a man never should touch a woman, no matter what she does to him. Implicit in this belief is a woman’s right to assault and hit men, for any reason she chooses, and I don’t hear Oprah protesting that insanity.

We Are Now a Woman’s Nation

What makes women think they’re more important and valuable than men? That’s easy: men, through their words and actions, constantly put women on pedestals. Wait a minute … what about that so-called feminist quest for equality?

Let’s get real. Women never wanted equality; they always wanted superiority and knew that spineless men would deliver it. Men, as they are wont to do, have come through with flying colors, sowing their own demise in the process.

So, America is now a gynocracy, Barack Obama has created the unconstitutional Council on Women and Girls, and Maria Shriver rightly proclaimed that “We are now a woman’s nation.” A symptom of being a “woman’s nation” is blaming men for all female behavior. Duh.

The NoNonsense Bottom Line

Victimhood mentality is the antithesis of equality — an emotional prison that stunts growth. Women must own up to their violence. Men and women must be equally prosecuted for hitting and hurting each other; that should have been Oprah’s message on March 19th. It wasn’t. Instead, Oprah cemented hidebound — and inaccurate — thinking.

If Oprah really wants to end DV, she’ll tell women to stop it — in the same breath that she tells men to stop it. Moreover, she’ll scold her TV colleagues for putting anything on the air that trashes and injures men for comic relief.

Oprah aims to help women, but acting like Harpo on female violence ultimately hurts them — by persuading them to choose victimhood. Oprah’s success was possible only because she never chose victimhood. It’s time for her to end the double standard.

About the Author

Marc H. Rudov is a globally known radio/TV personality, relationship coach, and author of 100+ articles and the books Under the Clitoral Hood: How to Crank Her Engine Without Cash, Booze, or Jumper Cables (ISBN 9780974501727) and The Man?s No-Nonsense Guide to Women: How to Succeed in Romance on Planet Earth (ISBN 0974501719). Mr. Rudov, the 2008 recipient of the National Coalition of Free Men?s ?Award for Excellence in Promoting Gender Fairness In The Media,? is a frequent guest on Fox News Channel?s Your World with Neil Cavuto and The O?Reilly Factor.

Rudov?s books, articles, radio/TV archives, and podcasts are available at TheNoNonsenseMan.com.

Copyright ? 2009 by Marc H. Rudov. All rights reserved.