Latest update from the (single) mother land as at 4th July 2008

1) So lapdance clubs reinforce the idea that women are sexual objects? What about the magazines and media where only beautiful slim women are used? Will the male strippers also be banned as they reinforce the idea that men are sexual objects? I think not! The law continues to operate one way only. Besides, it is in women’s interests to encourage this view as then there is less chance of a man being happy with a ‘real’ woman and the women working in this industry continue with their tax-free cash income and further transfer of wealth from men to women.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7460302.stm

2)In spite of the survey showing most people blame crime on poor parenting, gov’t still talks about sentencing alone!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7460134.stm

3)It must be terrible being a feminist in the government. The more they try to educate women not to have sex (ie not to have anything to do with men) the more sex they have. They Tell them to use contraception and yet the number of abortions continues to rise. When will they learn that the main cause of this problem is the massive increase in single mothers and the children learn from their parents good or bad behaviour. Hence poor parenting and no male role model equals an increase in early sexual activity and higher numbers of abortions. This is further evidence of the success of the anti-father and- anti-heterosexuality policies of the government and the obvious consequences of such an absurd approach. Obvious to everyone with any common sense - which rules out most feminists and most of the government of course!
“Government advisers called for high quality sex education at school and investment in contraception services for young people.”

“We know what works to reduce abortion amongst teenagers.

“We need high quality sex and relationships education at school and at home and effective contraception.

“Primary Care Trusts must ensure they are investing in contraceptive services for young people.” “In other words - more of the same failed policies which make things worse!
note - there is no mention of men at all - sex is obviously something that only women are supposed to do (so how do they get pregnant????)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7462934.stm

4)So much for equality! First woman soldier to die in Afghanistan ‘hero’ (sic) what about the 105 men who died (disposable?)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7462985.stm

5)This is what happens when the benefits of having a child are perceived to be much greater than the responsibility. These girls were obviously poorly parented and lacking in love and affection if they needed to resort to these lengths - plus peer pressure and group pressure to conform - more signs of ’success’ of the feminists - it is after all (to them) every woman’s right to have a baby - regardless of the society consequences as a result of irresponsibly having a baby without ensuring that the father is fully committed  - and the mother should only have the baby for the RIGHT reasons - not as here! Poor babies - what a hopeless life they have in store.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7464925.stm

6)more false allegations by an anonymous woman for publicity purposes and anti-male role model purposes.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7464844.stm
Obviously not being treated seriously as they are being allowed to fly home
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7466928.stm

7)Yet another undermining of civil liberties in the western society of feminists - this is yet another law that is not needed - trying to scare people into believing that there is a real problem with terrorism, which there isn’t.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7463333.stm
and in USA same…
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7466544.stm

Further signs of the ’success’ of feminism - promoting women as engineers instead of men has left a shortage of engineers - surprise surprise. How about targeting boys? Surely not!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7460658.stm

9) At least someone thinks it is worth helping men find their fathers. It is just a devastating shame that they were either not allowed or not able to maintain contact and had to be adopted in the first place - if the fathers ever knew that they had a son?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7459578.stm

10) Somebody else has noticed that boys need male role models and at school they do NOT need women teachers!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2164363/Female-teachers-told-to-%27shut-up%27-to-inspire-boys-in-the-school-classroom.html

11)AIDS is something the feminists love as it is spread by penetrative sex and they can bang their drums and say that penetrative sex is dangerous so don’t do it! However this report shows that firstly it is still predominantly a male-male homosexual problem and secondly the numbers are incredibly low - so much for the apocalypse prophecies of 10 years ago. Still a problem and low but rising.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7466889.stm

12) Shows TUC completely out of touch with reality and dominated by feminists - this article on low pay completely misses the point that two-parent families are the best way of bringing up children and keeping children out of poverty - not by increasing the numbers of single mothers as Labour and the TUC clearly want! Also - completely missed the point - it is emotional and psychological poverty caused by lack of male role model and hence lack of motivation and way out of the benefit dependency culture which has massively increased as single mothers increased.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7465136.stm

13)  More government over-reaction - this time with the aborigines in Australia.

“Vince Forrester, an elder from the Mutitjulu people, who are the rock’s traditional custodians, told a rally in Sydney that the government’s actions had been a disaster.

He insisted that Aboriginal men had been portrayed as violent alcoholics who beat women and abuse children. “

Not just aboriginal men, actually - if you read the rest of the media.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7467093.stm

14)Just shows what the greedy MP’s are doing with our money - trying to get away with everything that they can!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7467752.stm

15)feminism gone mad! Fathers day cards banned from Scottish schools! Whatever next?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/2176315/Father%27s-Day-cards-banned-in-Scottish-schools.html

16) Screening for men? am i dreaming? but not for 3 years and only in scotland for men over 65! aneurysms only.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/7470436.stm

17) So teenagers think poverty is the number one problem? Could this be because so many have so little money spent on them by their single mothers? Maybe if they had been asked about having a father that would have been top? Best way of reducing poverty is to keep families together. Except the government is actively bribing people to separate by the huge benefits for single mothers if they separate.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/7471891.stm

1 A temporary limit for the anti-male paranoia of child rape - narrowly avoided the death penalty. Rape of course is discriminatory defined to be penetration by penis - thereby excluding women. Of course REAL rape includes penetration by anything and then women could also be prosecuted for rape - hence the reason for the very narrow law - to go with the narrow minds of the feminists drawing up the law! Of course the feminists would like men to receive the death penalty for any kind of heterosexual sex, or even thinking about it - but not yet reached those extremes. Albeit by a narrow 5-4 majority. Obviously the feminists will try again in a few years, and no doubt succeed next time round.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/7473780.stm

19)It had to happen under a feminist government - a specific law legalising discrimination against men, but not the other way round! And guess who introduces it - none other than HH herself architect of the anti-male persecution and policies against men throughout society.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7473568.stm

further nonsense by HH on this subject:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7474801.stm

20) Civitas have published a lot of stuff with which I agree and often quote. Once again they have highlighted the media/government/feminists over-reaction as ruining adult-children relationships and guidance and particularly in the category most needed - that of male role model. As families decline and single mothers take over so alternate father figures become even more important. However, the feminists love to persecute men and proclaiming that all men are pedophiles and rapists is a good way of driving men away from children through fear and paranoia. Children suffer so all the negatives in society increase even faster. Well done feminists! You should be REALLY happy now.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7474692.stm
for example - could not print a picture of a baby on a cake, might be pornographic!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/merseyside/7474968.stm

21) More sexist misinformation from the feminist government/media. Of course they want to lock all men up for ever and never release them The problem is over-crowding and hence releasing 18 days early seems sensible. Of course the feminists want to try and stop that so they highlight that 4 out of 26,000 committed a further offence - wow is that all? it does seem to be working to me but not to the feminists as even one offence is too many - and the entirely anti-male tone of this article is typical of the hysteria surrounding so called DV crimes - many of which are false allegations that the Court believe and many are self defence but of course the man is found guilty. There is a huge industry built up[ around DV now and it is misrepresented as only being male on female violence when in fact around half of DV is female on male. You would never believe that fact from this distorted news story!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7476678.stm
-

22) So it IS possible in the extreme for a woman to go to prison! Abandoning her 2-year old for the weekend got her 2 years in prison. bet she appeals!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/lincolnshire/7477178.stm

Plus another woman sent to prison for enslaving other women…
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7476927.stm

23) Further feminist control of the sporting world is spreading - banning competitive sport for under 8’s - whatever next!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7477154.stm

24) I must watch this TV program if it is critical of the criminal ‘justice’ system - and see how accurate it is??? It seems that the Legal World are complaining about it!

http://www.lawcareers.net/information/news/Detail.aspx?r=2059
http://www.newlaw-directories.co.uk/jobboard/cands/newsview.asp?id=964

25) Further distorted reality news coverage to make believe that DV is only men attacking women.
Why such illustrious organisations should only ask women if they have been victims is beyond me! They should not only have asked EVERYONE whether they have been victims but also ask the women whether they have ever been perpetrators of DV and/or provoked the man into hitting them. Then maybe just maybe we would start to get closer to the truth - of course if everyone has told the truth in completing the survey - surely they would not have lied to increase the figures? It is very easy to say you have been a victim anonymously when no proof of police or hospital involvement is needed - these results should be taken with a pinch of salt and the organisations involved should be severely criticised for divisive discriminatory and unreliable data analysis - but they won’t be.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/7484160.stm

26)Is this the level of oppression that the UK government is aspiring to? Guilty until proven innocent - the flimsiest of associations to terrorist groups is all that is needed in France…
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7484587.stm

27)Family replaced by gun culture - so says head of Police authority….
So what is the role and/or purpose of the police then? promotion or
opposition to family breakdown?

Why won’t they join forces with us and oppose policies that encourage and reward family breakdown and punish those who stay together?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7484605.stm
funny - it has been deleted! But here is the text:

Family ‘replaced by gang culture’

The breakdown of family life can lead youths into gang culture, it is
claimed

Family life has been replaced by gang culture based on drugs and
violence for “almost feral groups” of young people, a police chief has
suggested.

Barbara Wilding, Chief Constable of South Wales, said in some areas
tribal loyalty replaced that of the family.

Her speech was made at King’s College London in May, and reported in
The Times, which obtained a transcript.

Ms Wilding said that family breakdown was the root cause of many
problems for young people.

Speaking at the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies, she said: “In
many of our larger cities, in areas of extreme deprivation, there are
almost feral groups of very angry young people.

“Many have experienced family breakdown, and in place of parental and
family role models, the gang culture is now established.

“Tribal loyalty has replaced family loyalty and gang culture based on
violence and drugs is a way of life.”

The former deputy assistant commissioner for the Metropolitan Police
also said more focus should be placed on tackling the complicated
social and economic issues that lead to criminal behaviour.

“In an age of cost-benefit analysis… there is no appetite for
solutions that have no visible return and no patience for any which
will not bear immediate political fruit.”

During her speech, Ms Wilding also said disaffected young people were
a prime target for terrorist recruiters.

Give me the strength to change those things that I can change, the tolerance to put up with those I cannot change and the wisdom to know the difference.

Latest update as at March 8th 2008

<!– | Permalink–>

In the motherland, men…

1)… Are not allowed to say anything bad about any woman/women, even if it is true and was your own personal experience whilst in hospital!

“The nurses that looked after me were mostly grubby,” he said.

“We’re talking about dirty fingernails, slipshod, lazy.

“But worst of all my Lords they were drunken and promiscuous,” he told peers.

“How do I know that? Because if you’re a patient and you’re lying in a bed, and you’re being nursed from either side, they talk across you as if you’re not there.”

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/e…et/7270565.stm

2) Some good news, but nobody knows why teenage pregnancies have fallen so much, although everyone wants to take the credit.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/e…re/7271155.stm

3) More tired old repeated mantras from the opposition Tory party - these policies have been tried and do not work. The number one cause of crime is children brought up without a father - why is this not mentioned? Why simply ‘build more prison places’? What kind of policy is that? The policy of failure.

Juliet Lyon, director of the Prison Reform Trust, called on the government to establish a royal commission, an ad hoc advisory committee often used to investigate major issues.

“Successive governments have allowed prisons to rot in a policy vacuum,” she said.

“… this government must reach beyond party politics and, instead of arguing about who can spend most money on more jails, it should establish a royal commission on the nature and purpose of imprisonment.”

They still do not or they refuse to understand the causes!

When will this country, or indeed any country realise that you cannot punish people into being good - it takes positive reinforcement not threats to make people behave and positive role models.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7274148.stm

4) In spite of the so-called better performance by girls at school, they are less able at simple arithmetic - surely there cannot be some misinformation here?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/e…on/7271396.stm

5) Girl guilty of murder? Surely not! Well she won’t get very long in prison …

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/e…ne/7275409.stm

Amazing! Women going to prison for life for murder! Surely not!
http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7282776.stm

6) Non-news - trying to keep the feminists on board pretending there is discrimination when it is the women’s choice not to follow a career -

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/e…on/7269436.stm

7)More attempts by the feminazi to increase the NUMBER of men found guilty of rape, not the ACCURACY of the number. Moving nearer to the situation they would like where every woman who makes an allegation is automatically successful - who cares about justice? No mention of the fact that false allegations account for most of the claims as women know they are unlikely to be prosecuted for perverting the course of justice if they make up the allegation. Of course, the feminazi want to undermine heterosexual activity and scaring people into avoiding sex is a powerful weapon,
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/7275588.stm

8)Funny how when it is a woman suspect no warnings to beware of women are circulated, but when there is a male suspect then ‘all parents are warned’…further attempts by the media to whip up anti-male paranoia
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/e…ds/7276266.stm

9) Women clearly want it both ways (Surprise surprise!) Able to wear short skirts to inflame and annoy men who cannot have them as a girlfriend, but also to express their freedom - what about men’s freedoms to have respect for morals and not be offended by indecent exposure as they see it? Be interesting to see which group gets prosecuted.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7276654.stm

10) Funny how when a mother suffocates a child they are quick to find it was accidental death. Maybe it was in this case, but who is to say for certain? Yet another problem of children brought up by single mothers. If the dad was around, he could have prevented this.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/e…re/7280096.stm

11) Only in the news because it is a woman - Council causing grief to tenants is a normal part of life under the LA dictatorship, but this one makes the news!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/e…re/7279825.stm

12) Another non-news story - why don’t they try and find logical reasons for the move before jumping to conclusions? And what about boys who are not at school? They are presumed to be truants and their parents are prosecuted? Why not treat both genders the same for a change????
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7280970.stm

13) Yet more non-news and discriminatory stories to keep the feminists on board - why only stop violence against girls? What about the much bigger problem of violence against boys?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/e…on/7282038.stm

14) More failure to understand the need to differentiate between good and bad mothers - Turkmenistan starts to bribe women to have more babies rather than better quality babies ie brought up by 2 parent families - large families are bad news as kids cannot get enough parenting time from any adult.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7279540.stm

Contrast with the 1-child policy in China -

Why change a successful policy - contrast this with the absurd ‘breed ‘em and weep’ policy of western governments saying more=better when in fact it is obvious that the people most likely to take the bribes are the least likely to bring up the children properly
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7281023.stm

15) Of course a woman does not have to resign or be punished when caught out acting illegally - more discriminatory treatment in politics.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/7281820.stm

16) Another non-news story to keep the feminists on board - women trafficking - over-played exaggerated and made to seem like a major problem when most of the women come willingly to be prostitutes for the high money and easy work - here 10 women ‘rescued’ ‘most ever’ - hardly worthy of mention!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7282711.stm

17) More failure to understand the root causes of alcoholism - and an attempt to steal the headlines with knee-jerk reactions - trivial changes to tax on alcohol are hardly going to stop the serious problems of kids growing up without a male role model and hence feeling detached from society.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7282308.stm

1 Italy - unbelievable! Protection for women (but not for men in the same situation, no doubt?) Why should she be able to lie about adultery and get away with it?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7284134.stm

19) As more single mothers smoke as they are poorer and clearly less willing to give up smoking (or anything?) for their kids - so more damage to children - further reason why there should be a clamp down on single mothers rather than encouraging and rewarding them as this government does.
“Mothers smoking is a greater risk than fathers smoking”
[mothers?] “He said parents often lied about whether they smoke near their children.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/e…de/7284793.stm
20) Whilst changing the system of council tax from a flat-rate (where everyone pays the same, but the poorer people get a reduction based on low earnings) to a system based on income would penalise men who earn more and hence pay more tax already, whilst women would benefit in paying less as they earn less on average. Once again this would increase the transfer of wealth from men who pay tax to women who receive benefits. When will men realise that they are being disproportionately punished and fight the high taxes on them?

News Article on increase in single mothers April 2007

<!– | Permalink–>

Updates on UK statistics - bad news for everyone that single parents
are on the increase - but no surprises!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6542031.stm

My thoughts on this article -

1) Single mothers
The graph shows the depressingly bad news that there is a rapid
increase in the number of single mothers, but not that of single
fathers. Clearly, the women are keen to take the bribe of the £4500
per annum per child and the men are not. Since all the negatives in
society are massively increased for children being brought up by
single mothers, the unsurprising news makes depressing reading. The
increase started more than a generation ago and shows signs of
accelerating. In ten years half of children may be brought up in
fatherless families. What is that going to do to the crime rate?
David Green, director of the Institute for the Study of Civil Society,
told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme: “If you take almost any measure -
how well children do in school, whether they turn to crime, whether
they commit suicide, etc - it’s better to have two parents.

2) 60% of single men staying at home
The article makes a big point about so many men staying at home and
tries to make this into a negative. The fact is that since so many
women and girls are getting pregnant as teenagers, they have a much
greater opportunity to leave home and get a Council House for free.
Since it is ‘easier’ for them to live on the state they are doing so
in ever increasing numbers. The fathers of those children have no
rights to council housing and have to pay the mothers the ‘fathers
tax’ of up to 25% of their net income so have not enough money to
leave home. they need to be supported by their parents in paying for
their children that they are denied reasonable contact with.

3) ’single parents are poorer’
WRONG! Since they get virtually everything for free - Free
accommodation, no rent, no council tax, free prescriptions, free
school meals, free child care, and £4500 per child in cash to spend in
anyway they choose (drugs, alcohol, cigarettes etc), no punishment for
abusing their children or neglecting them or just being appalling
parents and almost impossible to be jailed as a mother regardless of
what crime they commit (because the children will suffer…)plus they
are allowed to earn additional cash tax-free through prostitution and
multiple fathers’ tax payments, they are far better off than a two
parent married couple working hard and having to pay for everything
and tax and national insurance as well! Needless to say, the people
examining their ‘income’ were looking narrowly at the wrong factor.

4) ‘The number of households has risen 30% since 1971, but the
population only rose by 8%’ and ‘More than seven million people in
Britain also live alone now, compared with three million in 1971.’
This is a disastrous indictment of how badly the ‘experiments in
living - the fatherless family’ is working out.
As a result, the number of houses required has jumped, so not
surprisingly this had led to shortages of accommodation and house
prices have jumped - ‘wages rose on average by 92% from 1995 to 2005,
but house prices rocketed by 204%’.
Thus traffic has increased as people have to live further away from
their jobs, people have to buy more of everything to stock the extra
homes (good for the capitalist system - is this another reason why the
Government is actively encouraging family breakdown?) and it is bad
for the environment - two cars when one would have done before.

This, the report said, had left societies more fragmented and led to
much less trust and co-operation between neighbours.
Absolutely - and no support networks so single mothers have to abandon
their children on the street whilst they are off with their friends as
their parents live too far away to look after them.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/h…ial_trends.pdf

Looking at the report itself rather than the prejudiced article -

5) Table 1.2 shows the population by gender. There are more males than
females in the ‘under 16′ and 16-24′ groups, but more women from then
on - why is that? Men have a far higher suicide rate than women and
men do the more risky jobs - army, construction and mining so die off
earlier. Life for boys and young men growing up without a male role
model is far tougher and they just give up. Also murders of men is far
higher than women, although the reverse would be believed by the new
coverage,w here one woman being injured covers ten times the news
coverage of ten men getting killed. This is confirmed by table 1.9
‘deaths by age and sex’ which shows that in the 16-34 age group, men
have twice the death rate of women.

6) ‘In Europe, women could expect to live 8.4 years longer than men’ -
This shows the huge discrimination against men in every aspect of life
in Ethe Eu. In Britain, however, the gap is slightly less - possibly
due to the fact that more women smoke here, plus also life as a single
mother is actually not that much fun even if they don’t have to lift a
finger.

7) Page 15 - Black ethnic group had the highest proportion of single
mothers - half of ‘other black’ and ‘black Caribbean’ households but
only 10% amongst Indian and 15% Chinese - some racial groups still
believe in sensible methods of bringing up children properly - not
surprisingly the feminists are targeting the Asian women now to try
and unsettle Asian families and destroy them in the same way they have
destroyed western and afro-caribean families.

Table 2.21 shows the increase in teenage pregnancies.
This is not surprising as girls growing up in a fatherless house are
more likely to be short of male attention and more likely to get
pregnant. They are likely to be the children of teenage mothers
themselves. Since the rewards for being a single mother (free housing
etc) are the same regardless of age, and the fact that their mothers
are often unable or unwilling to show appropriate affection or
guidance to the children, it is not surprising that they believe
getting pregnant is an ‘escape’ from their ‘loveless’ home and that a
baby will be ’someone to love them’ - but like the RSPCA warning on
dogs - children are not just for Christmas they are for life. The
reality of the trap they are getting in to takes a long time to sink
in - and when it does they are prime cases for adoption. Luckily most
are having abortions, but too many are wrecking their lives and that
of their children by actually giving birth to the baby. Is this also
related to the increase in sex education which tells kids how to have
babies, but does not teach about relationships and the reality of
living with a crying, screaming, pooing living thing 24/7?

9) P29. Exclusion rates
Looking at troublesome children matches the characteristics for single
mothers - ‘other black’ and ‘black Caribbean’ children had the highest
exclusion rates, Indian and Chines the lowest. Boys were four time
that of girls - firstly lack of male role model and secondly the
discrimination against boys intrinsic in schools.

I could go on That is enough for now

A disastrous picture of a declining and collapsing civilisation.
Congratulations to consecutive Governments for destroying the family
and hence society in their pursuit of revenge for the women!

I may continue in another article.

Anti-Male discrimination in Education in the UK

<!– | Permalink–>

More than most
areas of society, this one in particular is largely filled with my
views and opinions, and less based on statistics and evidence than
others. i am still formulating my views on this subject and I am open
to debate on the following ideas, as indeed I am on any of the
articles,

If you catch the children young enough, then they will be suitably
brain-washed as adults, and that is what has happened.

1) Background

When I grew up in the 1970s, the news stories on education were about
the fact that boys were outperforming girls in most subjects ‘and how
unfair this was’. There was pressure to close the gap. Clearly, this
has now happened.

Going back into history, it was widely believed that there was no
point educating women, as they were destined for being house-wives and
stay-at-home mothers, and the cost of educating them would be wasted.
Similarly, it was not considered necessary for them to have the vote,
as they were neither interested nor bothered about politics. Clearly,
these views have changed, but large numbers of women DO stay at home,
whether through choice, necessity or the benefit trap, and less women
than men are interested in politics and less women than men bother to
vote.

2) Fundamental basis
This is the key to understanding the changes in education as being
along gender lines. if you agree with this statement, then I believe
you would agree that the rest of the article flows from here.
My controversial bit, and I believe backed up by most people’s general
view is that men are more logical rational consistent and more able to
focus on one task for long periods to the exclusion of everything
else. Women are more emotional irrational and inconsistent and more
able to multi-task - ie do many things or think many things
simultaneously. Women are able to understand spatial and conceptual
problems more easily, men prefer reality and facts. Men are more
curious and competitive, women more team-oriented
I must emphasise at this point that I am NOT saying that either is
right or wrong best or worst just simply to emphasise that men and
women are DIFFERENT but equally valuable and important. These
differences I think are the reason why children do better with two
parents, one mother and one father as these personality types are
complementary to each other. It is probably also why men and women
struggle to form relationships without conflict.

Since the feminists took over, there have been radical changes in the
education system, mostly for the worse. Most of these changes can be
viewed on gender lines as being disproportionately bad for men and I
would argue, that is why they have been introduced.

I believe that the role of parents during their children’s ‘minority’
is to bring them up to be law-abiding, independent, self-sufficient,
contributing, well-balanced members of society. I believe that the
role of education is to supplement the parent’s roles and provide the
knowledge and skills to cope as an adult.

3) Changes - Maths
Whilst I enjoyed maths, algebra, differentiation and the like, I can
see no purpose at all for the vast majority of children in teaching
maths beyond about 6th grade age 11. An average student by then would
have all the basic maths to cope with life. Unfortunately in the UK at
least 15-20% of ADULTS fail to reach this basic level, in spite of
having twelve years of education in which to study it. This is widely
recognised as a failure of the system. In the 1970s, boys were doing
significantly better than girls at maths. So the system was changed.
Instead of repetitive sums and learning tables by rote, which favoured
the boys, the system is now ‘conceptual’. You have to ‘visualise’ the
numbers joining together. You have to use ‘number ladders’ to do
adding and subtraction. Tables are out and long multiplication is
carried out by some bizarre method of repeated addition. When I taught
my son old style multiplication, he picked it up in minutes at the age
of 6. He had to UNLEARN it and got thoroughly confused by the
feminised version, which still confuses him.

4) Changes - Competition
The biggest damage to boys has arisen in the feminists view that
school time should be a fuzzy warm protective place where children can
be children immune from reality. Until they are thrown out of the door
at 16 or 18 to be confronted by cold hard real adult life entirely
unprepared for what happens to them. Specifically, competition is
BANNED! My son did well at keystage 2 what used to be 11+ and I asked
his teacher how he had done in the year group. I was told oh we don’t
want kids to know that as it might make them too competitive!
In the absence of competition for boys in particular, they are likely
to lack motivation. In team sports where overwhelmingly men are better
than women, and indeed they are so much better that in virtually every
sport there have to be separate competitions for women as they would
not get anywhere at all in the men’s competition otherwise. Bizarrely,
these second class games argue successfully for equal treatment at the
Olympics and even in tennis at Wimbledon (the last major ‘hold-out’)!
Even though they compete in best of three, compared with men best of 5
and even though the quality of the women outside the top 20-30 is
appallingly poor, they still demand and receive equal money!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/tennis/6385295.stm
In golf, for example, the occasional woman has tried and failed
miserably to compete on the men’s tour, but men are banned from
competing on the women’s tour! So much for fairness!

At school, the competitive sport is frowned upon. It is not surprising
therefore that our national teams do so badly on the international
front. In particular the Australians and the Americans know all about
‘win or bust’ and appear to always have an ‘extra gear’ to use when
times are hard. I believe this is because they have been brought up on
competition from an early stage and revel in those tense situations,
unlike the British sportsmen, who fizzle out under pressure. I must
give credit here to the England cricket team for winning the Ashes in
2005 although they lost them this year, but they bounced back to win
the tri-nation one-day series!

5) Changes - Parent-teacher liaison
Ruth Kelly suggested that fathers who do not attend parent’s evenings
should be banned from having contact with their children.
My son has just moved up to secondary school and a new headmistress
has just taken over the very well performing school he attends. At the
first introduction event, she talked long about the ‘three-way’ golden
triangle of school, parents and children. Improving communication
would benefit the children. All wonderful stuff. So what does she do?
Virtually all communication with parents is via a ‘homework diary’
that the children take to and from school and has to be signed by the
parent oat the weekend. Virtually all additional information is by a
letter which is handed to the child in the class. Whatever happened to
email? Only used for ‘begging letters’. Thus overwhelmingly the mother
is the one who receives the information and denies the father any
opportunity to find out what is happening at the school. Requests for
two copies of everything still rely on the children to remember to
hand to dad at the weekends.
Further - the parents ‘evenings’ have been changed to afternoons! The
teachers were working too hard and need to go home, so it was felt
better to hold these ‘consultations between 3 and 5pm. Thereby all
working parents and particularly dads are automatically excluded. When
I complained about this, I was told that 98% of parents turned up last
year and largely voted in favour of the change. When I pointed out
that what really happened was that 98% of children had at least one
parent there and that he did not know what percentage of PARENTS,
simply percentage of children, he did not reply.
His other comment suggested that parents should treat visiting the
teacher in the same way as visiting any other ‘professional’.
I pointed out that schools were near where you live not where you
work. That visiting your accountant, solicitor etc could be arranged
near where you work and hence during the lunch-hour. Some even run
evening surgeries. Visiting your doctor would be a likely reason for
time off, although a GP had to be near where you live (further
discrimination against working people and in particular men). Needless
to say there was no reply.

6) Changes - history
I have noticed the feminisation of history lessons. It is perceived
that boys enjoyed history owing to the battles and the learning of
kings by rote, so all that has changed. The lessons now concentrate on
the ‘lifestyle’ of the times and the ‘female’ historical figures are
much more important. Suddenly the handful of Queens and wives of Henry
8th and Boudicea Joan of Arc etc become much more significant than the
vast myriads of men who fought and died for their country.

7) Changes - Science
On a similar vein, the male inventors are ignored and the tiny few
female inventors get disproportionate mention. Florence Nightingale,
Marie Curie (famous for CONTINUING the work of Mr Curie after he
died). Based on my personal opinion that men are better able to focus
on one issue to the exclusion of everything else, it is not surprising
that 99% of inventions and innovations in history have been by men (I
would say 100% as I cannot think of any by a woman, and my dad did a
PhD on the subject and could not name any, but I am sure there MUST
have been one somewhere!), It used to be said that behind every
successful man there is a woman nagging him on. In other words, a man
had a wife who supported, encouraged and helped him so that he could
concentrate on the job in hand (Now THAT is an old fashioned idea - a
supportive wife - wishful thinking nowadays?). However, the successful
women are overwhelmingly single. They often get to their late 30s and
realise they have sacrificed the possibility of a family to have a
career and realise their biological clock is ticking. They suddenly
get ‘baby hunger’ and apparently Cambridge is the place in the UK
where this happens the most(!), and grab the nearest man and have a
baby. Is this for selfish reasons or for the good of the child?
Also a vast fortune was wasted on schemes such as ‘WISE’ (Women into
Science and Engineering) to reverse the perceived discrimination
against women in entering science and engineering, as only 4% of
engineering students were female. As a result of dropping their
attempts to attract men into science and engineering and focusing only
on women, the number of women went up 20% and the number of men went
down 6%. The end result meant even greater shortages of engineers!
Once again feminism triumphed over logic and rationality!

Changes - subjects
More feminised subjects have been introduced which are ‘easier’ for
girls. Media studies is a good example of a meaningless subject that
has risen in popularity and is a very easy subject to get a degree in.
It appeals mainly to the fashion conscious, celeb watching mindless
brigade who cannot think for themselves - disproportionately women who
are interested in trivialities of fashion and ’street cred’.

9) University
It used to be the elite who went to university. The government now
wants 50% of kids to go to uni - to avoid them ending up on the
unemployment register!
Devaluing the university is a way of undermining the advantages of
clever kids, mainly men. It also puts off the employers as if everyone
has a degree, it is meaningless. Thereby removing the competitive
edge.

10) Hypocrisy
The feminists in charge know that the state system that they have
created is appalling and falling further an further behind the private
school system. Hence many (most?) of them send their kids to
fee-paying schools outside the state system. For example, Ruth Kelly -
education minister -
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/a…isy/article.do

The future
Ruth Kelly was set ten tests as education minister.
-http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4153/is_20050106/ai_n9562564
Just a few points -
In order to ensure that nobody ‘fails’ as that is bad for the poor
little girlies - and taking away the stigma of failure means that
nobody passes - therefore it is not competitive as you will pass
anyway! In other words, the competitive boys are frustrated by not
having anything to compete over.
Truancy rates are rising as are all the other negatives in society as
a direct result of the exclusion of fathers from society. The number
one cause of truancy is family breakdown. Kids need a male role model
and if dad is denied contact, then they get the role model from the
local gang leader on the street with the inevitable progress down the
escalator of crime. Additionally, being brought up in a single mother
household makes kids more likely to be dependent on state hand-outs
and not seeing their mother working. Thereby the kids grow up
believing you can get anything on a plate without having to work for
it. They are not stakeholders in society therefore they do not value
anything they see around them, eg street furniture or other people’s
belongings - these things are all there for them to vandalise steal,
graffiti or whatever they feel like at the time - they have never
learned a conscience as there is no punishment either from their
parents, or from the state which refuses to seriously punish children
under 18.
False allegations - particularly male teachers suffer from false
allegations. According to the National Union of Teachers, 95% of
allegations are false, but the damage is done. The kids are not
punished, but the teacher is finished.
http://factuk.org/
Only 2% of child minders and 11% of primary school teachers are male.
Thus most kids from single mother households do not see a man in a
position of responsibility until the age of 11 - it is too late. It is
presumed that any man who wants to teach children must be a
paedophile.

The Jesuit priests say -’Give me a child until the age of 7 and I give
you the man’ - the vast majority of the child’s development is set by
the age of 7.

I have heard that a primary school head can look aroud the class of
new kids at the age of 4-5 and identify accurately which will go to
prison and which will go to university. The first few years are the
most crucial and have set the pattern.

Discipline - I have heard lots of nonsense from people believing that
reintroducing ‘corporal’ punishment will solve the problems at school
- in other words using the cane on disruptive pupils. Unfortunately,
society has changed so much that it would have no effect now. Those
kids who would have been good anyway do not care what the punishment
is as they would avoid it, even if just a detention. The bad kids will
consider it a ‘mark of their success’. the ones in the middle, MAY be
slightly affected, but would pronbably follow whichever of the other
two groups they belonged to. Being ‘bad’ is far more attractive than
being ‘good’. Remember from your own school days what happened to
‘teacher’s pets’, or ’swats’. They got bullied. I know, I did!
I saw a programme where the audience was asked about whether they
smacked their children and when. A woman put up her hand and she
stated that she smacked her children when SHE was tired! What kind of
message was she sending them?
I have seen mothers in supermarkets stop to talk to another mother.
The child sits on the floor and entertains himself, peacefully and
harmlessly. Mother finishes her chat and says ‘let’s go’. The child is
in the middle of something and does not move immediately - WHACK! He
gets a clip round the ear and is dragged off screaming. What has he
learned? When he is good he gets smacked!.

Other times I believe that the mothers only interact with their
children when they are naughty. When they are good, they are ignored.
Thus the child learns in a bizarre sort of way that his mother must
love him when he is being naughty because that is the only time he is
receiving any attention from her! It is not surprising that these kids
grow up to be criminals!
Fathers are more likely to ‘rough-house’ with their kids. They are
basically wrestling matches, but controlled. The boy learns how to
control his aggression, because if he gets carried away, the dad will
stop immediately. these are safe ways for letting off steam.
http://www.waldorfhomeschoolers.com/roughhouse.htm
Dumping the kid in front of the tv or computer does not let out the
natural aggression, even through violent video games, and this
frustration boils over in dangerous ways on the playground etc.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3603235.stm
http://khloud.wordpress.com/2007/02/…-for-children/
Yet another reason why dads are crucial, particularly to boys.
http://www.psychologymatters.org/videogames.html

Summary
There are some calls for segregated education as there are some
studies which appear to show that girls do better in single sex
schools whilst boys do better in mixed schools. I doubt it. I do not
believe in segregated anything. The blacks fought hard and long to get
mixed education, for a very good reason, there schooling was second
class compared with the whites. There schools were treated less
favourably on the jobs market. I believe the same would ahppen if
boys and girls were segregated, the boys schools would be rubbish, the
girls would be favoured.
In any case, I believe that it is better for society if boys and girls
coexist in harmony and ultimately in relationships. It is extremely
unlikely to happen if everyone is taught in single sex environments
and that is exactly what the feminists would like to happen and
therefore I am opposed to it and in any case it is not a society I
would like to live in. Let’s fight against that segregated future
TOGETHER.

Anti-Male discrimination in other private family law issues in the UK

<!– | Permalink–>

Continuing the subject of private family law -

2) ‘Family’ Courts (FC)
Other countries (most notably Saudi Arabia)
http://www.amnesty.org/ailib/intcam/saudi/report.html
have (rightly) been criticised for having Court hearings in ’secret’ –
with the public and media excluded – but the UK has similar ‘Star
Chambers’ and they are known as the ‘Family’ Courts.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article…336608,00.html
Challenged to ECHR and lost by Dr Mike Pelling
B. v. the United Kingdom and P. v. the United Kingdom (36337/97 and
35974/97) No violation Article 6 § 1

Only the parents and their legal representatives have traditionally
been permitted to enter. Whilst it has been said that ‘Justice must
not just be done, it must be seen to be done’, the reverse is also
true – ‘Injustice must not be seen’. This ‘injustice’ is practiced
daily in the FC. The ‘argument’ in support of this secrecy was based
on the absurd notion that they were somehow ‘protecting the interests
of the children’. In fact, if the case was appealed to the Court of
Appeal, the parties would be identified by the first letter of their
names (e.g. Mr A and Ms B – as they are in the youth criminal courts),
so why this could not be permitted in the lower Courts is beyond me!
Prior to October 2005, it was ‘Contempt of Court’ (COC) to discuss
your FC case with anyone other than your legal representative, without
permission of the Court, in a manner that might permit the children to
be identified. This made it extremely difficult for
‘litigants-in-person’ (LIP -people with no legal representative) to
get help and advice, whether from Citizens Advice Bureaux, fathers’
organisations or even family and friends. Whilst an application for
permission was normally granted, the reality was that much of the
advice was technically COC. The change in October legalised the
practice and permitted discussions with a ‘McKenzie Friend’ (MF).
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2005/20051976.htm
MF’s became popular following widespread dissatisfaction with the
legal professions’ institutional anti-father attitude and high cost as
well as the discriminatory way that Legal Aid is calculated (see
article on ‘tax credits and benefits’). The MF is a (normally)
non-legally qualified person who can provide (quietly!) ‘advice and
support’ to the LIP. Many fathers’ organisations provide lists of
suitable people, many who have greater experience in the FC and can be
valuable assets in the unequal fight. MF’s role in the FC is ‘at the
Judge’s discretion – they have no automatic right to be present.
However, there is now ’strong’ pressure on Judges to grant MF’s the
right to attend (but not to speak on behalf of their ‘clients’) – and
fathers have reported success when threatening to walk out of the
hearing at the start and appeal the Judge’s refusal to permit the MF
to attend. This is one small success of the fathers’ movement.
Effectively, the legal system is only available to the very poor and
the very rich (see Legal Aid section below). The vast majority in the
middle cannot afford the high cost of fighting a whole series of
bitter Court cases over many years in a hopeless attempt to achieve
slightly more ‘parenting time’. The legal profession has been accused
of deliberately prolonging the dispute to make more money out of the
parties. The ‘adversarial’ system (where lawyers try to ‘win’ at all
costs, by convincing the Judge that their argument is ‘right’ and the
other side’s argument is ‘wrong’) in the UK is entirely unsuitable for
children cases, where there is no clear ‘winner’ and ‘loser’ in an
on-going dispute. Some countries operate an ‘inquisitorial’ system,
whereby the Judge asks the questions (’inquires’) to determine exactly
what has happened and the views of the parents. In this system, the
parties have little need of legal representation (so presumably the
legal profession would not support this approach!). For the FC, this
would seem far more appropriate, where the ‘truth’ is usually between
the two opposing positions and one person is neither entirely right
nor entirely wrong.
http://www.fassit.co.uk/secrecy_family_courts.htm

There are proposals for changing (slightly) the above system and
‘opening it up’ to (slightly) more publicity.
http://www.mensaid.com/fl-openjustic…mustchange.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/5011464.stm
It is possible that a media representative may be allowed to report
on the proceedings in a limited and non-identifiable manner – one of
the (small) successes of the fathers’ movement, although actually
resulting from a much publicized (feminist) solicitor (Cabinet member
Harriet Harman’s sister Sarah Harman) being suspended from practicing
as a result of COC for naming a FC party. (Adversity makes strange
bedfellows!)
http://www.harmans-solicitors.co.uk/…wsvi.asp?ID=60

3) Children’s interests must be paramount
As it clearly states in the CA, in any matter concerning children,
‘the children’s interests must be paramount’. This mantra is used to
justify all kinds of absurd actions by the Courts, but is NEVER
defined! Everyone is ‘presumed’ to know what it means, without every
publicly stating the meaning. S1 of the CA lists all the ‘factors’ to
be taken into account, but cases have demonstrated that none of these
has priority, but all are relevant. The most glaring absence from the
list is the most important – outcomes. I would argue that the role of
parents is to bring children up to adulthood such that those children
become law-abiding, contributing, independent, happy, healthy
(mentally and physically) members of society (you can clearly add
further factors to this wish-list). In an ideal world, this should be
the guiding principle behind the Court’s decisions. In other words,
what can the Court do now to ensure, as far as reasonably possible,
that this child or these children have the best chance to fulfill that
wish-list? Whilst it is clearly impossible to predict with certainty
the outcome for any particular child, there are plenty of studies
available to indicate what is the likely outcome for most children in
a given set of circumstances and amazingly, these are never used,
presumably because they overwhelmingly disagree with the Court’s
normal judgments! There is no on-going monitoring of ‘outcomes’ even
for the cases heard in that particular Court or by a particular Judge!
A Judge can never know whether he was right or wrong in a particular
judgment (unless he later sits in a criminal case where the children
return as defendants – common if he gets his decision wrong!).
Since the overwhelming result of Court action is a ‘winner’ (normally
the mother) and a ‘loser’ (normally the father - and hence the
children), with the ‘winner’ getting Residence and the ‘loser’ getting
a derisory amount of ‘Contact’ (parenting time), it is amazing that
there is no (or negligible) statistical evidence to support this
approach as being in the best interests of the children! In fact, the
opposite is true! Overwhelmingly, the evidence supports the fact that
children do significantly better on all aspects if brought up in a
stable two- (biological) parent (married) household. When parents
separate, the evidence is overwhelming that children do better if
there is on-going substantial involvement by the (biological) father.
This is determined in studies by comparing the ‘results’ between
children in stable two parent families and those brought up by a
single mother. The difference between these two household structures
is obvious (only to me, it seems!) – the father! Children brought up
in a single mother household are significantly more likely to (see
www.civitas.org.uk - The Fatherless Family)
- become criminals,
- play truant from school,
- leave school with lower qualifications,
- become pregnant as teenagers,
- become alcoholics,
- become addicted to drugs,
- commit suicide,
- have mental health problems
- become homeless,
- be abused and become abusers

In summary, all the negatives in society are massively increased
without the biological father present. It can therefore only be for
reasons related to ‘feminist propaganda’ (and anti-male hysteria) that
fathers are denied the chance to be equally responsible for their
children (unless the mother consents) after separation, because there
are no (or negligible?) studies to support this argument. Recent
coverage of (out-going?) Labour Minister John Hutton’s speech stating
that the best was to bring up children was with married parents (and
hence the worst way with just a single mother?) was greeted
hysterically by the feminist news media.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/5349000.stm
He later ‘made up for it’ by announcing CSA mark 2 with increased
powers to pursue ‘absent’ fathers.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programme…am/6166393.stm
The opposition Conservative Party set up a ‘task force’ to look at
‘Social Exclusion’ with former leader Iain Duncan-Smith (IDS) as
chairman. They produced a 110-page report entitled ‘Breakdown Britain’
on 11th December 2006.
http://povertydebate.typepad.com/hom…n_brita_1.html
This came to the conclusion that the causes of problems in society
were related to five inter-connected factors – family breakdown,
indebtedness, addictions, educational failure and worklessness. The
report identifies ‘dadlessness’ as one of the major factors in all of
these, but fails to identify the causes of this and the responsibility
of the feminist Government policies in persecuting and discriminating
against fathers in causing this problem. Clearly, IDS is playing to a
pro-female media and trying not to annoy them by pointing out that
feminism is the main cause of disaster in this country. It will be
interesting to see the policies that are proposed to reverse
‘Breakdown Britain’, when these are announced in June 2007.

4) CAFCASS
The Children and Family Court Advisory Support Service are largely
tasked with writing reports on children. In disputed cases, they will
be invited to visit the children and get to know them (in 4-5 visits
maximum!) Normally these take place at the mothers house. Normally
they do not record the conversation or make verbatim notes at the
time. They write them up afterwards.
Originally this work was carried out by the Probation Service - who
deal with inteviewing conicted criminals before sentencing - normally
men. They received less training than the average traffic warden. They
have no guidelines or complaints procedure until recently. Not
surprisingly their reports were overwhelmingly prejudiced and
anti-male. Sometimes they used the report twice with different
children. Sometimes they even forgot to change the name!
The consensus being that if the report concluded that the mother
should win, then the Judge concurred. if the report concluded the
father should win, the Judge would over-rule it!
The reports often took moths to prepare - delay favouring the mother
who had blocked contact.
CAFCASS offices have been routinely ‘attacked’ by Fathers 4 Justice as
being the key way that fathers are denied reasonable contact with
their children. CAFCASS simply do not understand the concept of shared
parenting.
There are proposals for change. They are to be invited to mediate
rather than write reports.
The Conservatives have proposed changes - see this article by shadow
spokesman for the family, Theresa May
http://www.conservatives.com/tile.do…356&speeches=1

5) Separation and the ‘de facto’ argument
I shall consider the instiutional anti-male discrimination in
divorce/separation in another article. For the moment on the specific
topic of children suffice it to say this -
When a relationship ends, normally the father is encouraged to leave
the family home ‘temporarily’ to ‘reduce the stress’. This is
horrendously bad advice. Since family cases often take months to
resolve. This ‘temporary’ exclusion becomes permanent. The Courts will
then argue that the current situation is ‘working’ and should not be
varied. Thus the status quo argument is used counter-productively.

6) Enforcement of Court Orders
What is the point of a law if it is not enforced? Britain is a country
with high levels of litter. We have litter laws that are almost never
enforced. Thus people know that dropping litter will almost never
result in a punishment, so they do not worry about doing so. As a
result, the streets are filthy and it is expensive to hand-pick
litter.
Whilst I do not believe that punishment is the best way to ensure
compliance with the law, if there is no punishment then why should
people bother? This is most obvious in children cases. In the
‘typical’ case, a mother will get a Residence Order, a father will get
a Contact Order (CO).
So what happens if the mother refuses to bring the children to the
handover place, or is ‘out’ when the father calls to collect the
children? NOTHING.
All the father can do is go back to the Court on the Monday morning
and ask for a new hearing. This will take typically six-eight weeks.
The Judge may ask the mother why she broke the Order. She will then
produce one of the following typical reasons -

Children did not want to go
Children ill
Children invited to a party/school event/ something else
Father abused the children/mother/mother’s new partner/etc ’some time
in the past’
Children upset after the visit

The Judge will then probably spend time attacking the father and
making the mother’s breach appear to be the father’s fault.
I attended one hearing where I raised the subject of ‘punishing’ the
mother for the breach, and the Judge ‘flinched’. they are not taught
to punish mothers and just cannot do it. As far as we are aware, only
two women have been sent to prison for persistent breaches of a CO,
NB see attachment for differential sentences by gender for offences
against a child.
This was an appeal by one of the mothers against a 42 day sentence -
In the Matter of K (Children) 2002 WL 31452170
(Judgment attached)
Another had her sentence reduced to one week -
Z v Z (Refusal of Contact: Committal) 1995 WL 1081587

But when a father was TEN MINUTES late on returning the child, he
received a seven day prison sentence.(see attachment for detail of
Court judgment for the appeal)In the Matter of M (Children) 2004 WL
1929057
In fact, cases of ‘implacable hostility’ by the mother usually result
in a reduction of contact for the father, to a level that the mother
can cope with.
Unlike for lesbians! In a complete contrast to the situation for
fathers, a Court ruled on a residence battle between two lesbians.
When the biological mother became implacably hostile to contact, the
non-biological mother appealed to the Court of Appeal who ordered
shared residency taking away the sole residence of the biological
mother! The biological mother appealed to the House of Lords who
overturned the judgment and said that only in exceptional
circumstances should children be removed from their biological
parents. It is a shame that lesbians have more rights than fathers! Re
G (Children) [2006] UKHL 43.
http://www.journalonline.co.uk/article/1003497.aspx
It is obvious that jailing any aprent should be a last resort.
the new Children Act 2006 poroposes some additional measures -
tagging, curfews etc. None of which will be used against the mother,
of course.
In fact the simplest is the best idea - compensatory contact. If the
mother blocks contact for one weekend, the father should automatically
get the next TWO weekends in replacement contact. This process would
eventually lead to a reversal of residency - the only way to stop the
nonsense.

7) United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/k2crc.htm

This has not been formally ratified by the UK so does not actually
form part of UK law. However, by signing it the UK has expressed an
intention to avoid opposing the convention - specifically of interest
is the following articles -

Article 7

1. The child shall be registered immediately after birth and
shall have the right from birth to a name, the right to acquire a
nationality and. as far as possible, the right to know and be cared
for by his or her parents.

2. States Parties shall ensure the implementation of these
rights in accordance with their national law and their obligations
under the relevant international instruments in this field, in
particular where the child would otherwise be stateless.

Article 8

1. States Parties undertake to respect the right of the child to
preserve his or her identity, including nationality, name and family
relations as recognized by law without unlawful interference.

2. Where a child is illegally deprived of some or all of the
elements of his or her identity, States Parties shall provide
appropriate assistance and protection, with a view to re-establishing
speedily his or her identity.

Article 9

1. States Parties shall ensure that a child shall not be
separated from his or her parents against their will, except when
competent authorities subject to judicial review determine, in
accordance with applicable law and procedures, that such separation is
necessary for the best interests of the child. Such determination may
be necessary in a particular case such as one involving abuse or
neglect of the child by the parents, or one where the parents are
living separately and a decision must be made as to the child’s place
of residence.

2. In any proceedings pursuant to paragraph 1 of the present
article, all interested parties shall be given an opportunity to
participate in the proceedings and make their views known.

3. States Parties shall respect the right of the child who is
separated from one or both parents to maintain personal relations and
direct contact with both parents on a regular basis, except if it is
contrary to the child’s best interests. 4. Where such separation
results from any action initiated by a State Party, such as the
detention, imprisonment, exile, deportation or death (including death
arising from any cause while the person is in the custody of the
State) of one or both parents or of the child, that State Party shall,
upon request, provide the parents, the child or, if appropriate,
another member of the family with the essential information concerning
the whereabouts of the absent member(s) of the family unless the
provision of the information would be detrimental to the well-being of
the child. States Parties shall further ensure that the submission of
such a request shall of itself entail no adverse consequences for the
person(s) concerned.

As it is obvious from the above, the UK is blatantly breaching these Articles.

Legal Aid
In attempting to take cases to Court, one of the main problems is
cost. Solicitors routinely charge £150-200 per hour and are
specifically prohibited from offering fixed fee or conditional fee
arrangements in familay law cases. A typical contact dispute may run
£20-30,000. Thus there is a huge incentive to deliberately extend or
prolong cases as has been mentioned above.
However, for parents with little or no income there is Legal Aid. This
povides a solicitor effectively for free. The assessment process looks
at the parents income
http://www.legalservices.gov.uk/civi…calculator.asp
and expenditure. It allows £198 per child on top of the basic £635 per
month. I checked with the Legal Services Commission (LSC) and asked
the question - what happens if there is a dispute over Residence?
Normally disputed assets are not included in the Legal Aid
calculation. However, the LSC confirmed that the parent receiving
Child Benefit would receive the £198 allowance per child, the other
parent nothing. Thus the mother can get Legal Aid whilst earning a
significant amount more than the father! Further anti-male
discrimination!

9) Abortion
I like raising controversial subjects on this forum, as I am not
allowed to do so anywhere else! This one could be the most
controversial yet.
In the UK a baby has no rights of its own untuil it is born. There was
a case concerning a pregnant woman who was attacked. As a result the
baby was born prematurely and died after just a few weeks. The
attacker was charged with assaulting the woman not the child. This
case defined the moment when a baby became a human being for legal
purposes - completely out of the mother’s body although it could still
be attached by the umbilical cord.
This case is crucial because of the status of the foetus - it is
therefore considered to be part of the mother’s body. I believe that
the baby should have rights from the moment of conception. Some people
might argue from the legal time limit for abortions 24 weeks,
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/6099982.stm
some might argue that the legal time limit should be reduced as babies
have survived with the adbvances in modern technology. Because of the
case above, when abortion occurs, the baby must be killed in the womb.
I won’t go into further details as they are deeply distressing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dilation_and_evacuation
For the purpose of discrimination issues, the treatment of a foetus as
part of the mother is crucial for determining who has the right to
decide on whether to have an abortion. From a LEGAL perspective (i
emphasise this as it is entirely an immoral position), the mother is
simply removing an unwanted part of her body, like having a lump
removed from her breast. Thus she has absolutely power over whether or
not to do this. The father need not be consulted nor give his
approval. Thus the mother has absolute power over wther the baby is
born, regardless of the father’s views. If the mother wants an
abortion and the father does not, there is absolutely NOTHING he can
do about ensuring that the baby is born. This is anti-male
discrimination of the worst possible kind!
A father did take this case to ECHR and lost of course 408 Paton v.
United Kingdom
Application No. 8416/78 (1981) 3 E H R R 408 (Judgment attached)

The differential sentences continue even after birth - compare this
murder of her new born baby by a mother - PROBATION
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/4903002.stm

with what happened when the man did it - MANSLAUGHTER
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/e…ts/4678898.stm

See attachment for differential sentences by gender for child cruelty (EXCEL)

10) Public Law saved for another article!

Anti-Male discrimination in Health services in the UK

<!– | Permalink–>

Next for something completely different is ‘Health Inequalities’ or
‘why women live longer than men’. I am not a doctor, nor have I
trained in any area of medicine. what follows is a summary of my
research on this subject and applies mainly to the UK.

It is well known that in virtually every country, women live longer
than men. Not by a little but by perhaps 8-10 years, although in
Britain, recent figures show the gap is reducing.
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=881

So-called ‘premature deaths’ also have a wide gender difference -
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/h…ion/html/4.stm

So why is this? Are women tougher/stronger/less susceptible to illness
etc or is discrimination at work here as well? I will argue that
institutional discrimination throughout the health system is the root
cause, magnifying any perceived differences, if any, in biological
‘toughness’.

1) Suicide
The media keep repeating ‘non-stories’ such as this -
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6196716.stm women in afghan

But fail to mention the much bigger problem of male suicides.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/health/mens_hea…_suicide.shtml
Since the 1980s the number of women committing suicide in the UK has
halved, but the number of men committing suicide has increased by ten
per cent. Suicide is now the most common cause of death in men aged
under 35.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/5082616.stm in japan

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/womansho…6_24_tue.shtml
According to the World Health Organisation, China is one of the few
countries where more women kill themselves than men.
So, of course, WHO are concentrating their efforts on female suicide
in China, rather than tackle suicide elsewhere in the world.

According to Bob Geldof (pictured on this page), the number one day
for suicides in Christmas Day, the number two day is Father’s Day.

I would argue that as a result of feminist teachings over the years,
men are told that they should be ‘tough’ and ‘not cry’. Men find it
difficult to talk about their emotions. men tend to have smaller
social circles and tend not to discuss personal issues, problems or
other ‘weaknesses’ with male colleagues. All of these factors make it
far less likely that men will discuss the problems, and rather that
they bottle them up inside. The inevitable explosion leads to all
kinds of mental illnesses and suicide is the final straw. Men in the
UK are not prone to suicide bombings, but tend to believe they are the
only ones going through their problem. Father’s groups in the UK are
badly attended and have low membership numbers, in spite of large
numbers of victims. There are 2.7million people on Incapacity Benefit
and only 1 million on unemployment benefit in the UK. Incapacity
benefit is paid out to (mainly men) who are incapable of working for a
variety of reasons. many are mental. I have seen fathers destroyed by
family breakdown ending up in mental breakdown. Around 60 suicides
specifically said that the Child Support Agency had driven them to
kill themselves (see earlier article). Needless to say the Government
is trying to reduce the number of people on Incapacity benefit,
believing they are mainly ’scroungers’. The Government is also cutting
back mental health expenditure and releasing more and more mentally
unstable patients into the community. Many of these untreated or
under-treated men are likely to kill or attack others through
inability to control their actions.

2) Dangerous Jobs

Another obvious reason for premature deaths is death in the course of
your work. Men are far more likely to be employed in dangerous jobs -
army, air force, navy, mining, shipbuilding, oil exploration,
steeple-climbing, road-building, construction and heavy engineering.
these are all extremely dangerous jobs and largely male industry - not
through discrimination, but personal choice. As a result, far more men
die at work than women. even in the military which has to practice
so-called ‘equal opportunity’ in practice the women are given ’safe
jobs’ and the men are on the front-line’ How many men have been killed
in the pointless invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan? In any country
where war has been happening for many years, there is a chronic
shortage of men.
For example in Chechnya -
http://www.jamestown.org/publication…&issue_id=3880
Polygamy is back on the agenda. This is a symptom of the huge numbers
of men dying in war.
In fact, one controversial argument in favour of the war by the
feminists is to ‘mop up’ the huge numbers of surplus single men who
have no chance of getting a partner, and may be ‘dangerous’ to the
women (attack/rape etc) if allowed to ‘roam the streets’ with high
‘testosterone’ and no outlet.

3) Driving
The UK has a relatively low rate of road deaths by EU
standards.http://www.statistics.gov.uk/STATBAS….asp?vlnk=7254
This equates to about 3200 per year -
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=1208#

I would argue that the majority of people dying on the roads are men,
for this reason -Men on average drive more miles per year than women.
Men do most of their driving on motorways, women in towns. Men have
more accidents on average, but are safer drivers overall as they have
less accidents per kilometre driven, which is the only sensible way of
measuring ’safe’ driving. The feminist media, such as Diamond
insurance, claim that women are safer drivers as the have less
accidents. Whilst it is true that they have less accidents, this is
because they drive less miles. My 11 year old son has never had a
driving accident. According to the feminists he is a safer driver than
me, who has driven 500,000 miles and had one accident. Which of us
would you prefer at the wheel with you as a passenger?
Since accidents in town are generally at low speed, there is less
chance of a fatality. Motorway accidents tend to be high speed and
hence more likely to kill the participants. I would therefore argue
that the majority of accidents on the roads kill men not women.
Additionally, since the media is obsessed with women’s problems, i
suspect this issue would be higher up the agenda if more women died.
As anyone who studies the media will observe, it it doesn’t affect
women it ain’t news.

3) Sickness.
Men are taught from an early age to be ‘tough’ and not to complain. It
is a sign of weakness to be sick. As a result, men are far less likely
to visit a doctor for medical advice than women. Additionally, women
in child-rearing stages are regularly in contact with the medical
services and hence are more likely and less reluctant to ask about
‘this pain that won’t go away’. A man is literally more likely to be
at death’s door before he approaches a doctor. Also since men are more
likely to be working full time they have more problems in getting time
off to visit a doctor and it is less likely to be paid. As a result,
the five year survival rates for just about every terminal illness,
particularly cancers, are far worse for men than women. In simple
terms, the men approach the medical services much later than women.
early detection is one of the biggest indicators in improving survival
rates.

4) Prevention
I believe that prevention is better than cure. The Government clearly
believes this for women and has introduced mass screening (I would
argue not often enough) for women - regular cervical smear tests and
breast screens. These have had a dramatic reduction in breast and
cervical cancer deaths for women.
Men have nothing. Men die from breast cancer as well, but there is no
screening programme. Men die from prostate cancer, and the screening
is a simple blood test to detect the level of prostatic specific
antigen, PSA - a key indicator of prostate cancer. The arguments
against are complete nonsense - I have attended lectures by senior
specialist surgeons in this field - they said that when diagnosed with
prostate cancer, they have three choices - cut it out, radiation
therapy or ‘wait and see’. the third option means monitoring the PSA
regularly to see if it jumps dramatically and then doing one of the
other two! This is because so-called benign prostate cancer affects
many elderly men and can be ‘left’ rather than treated. It is normally
identified by slowly rising PSA. Whilst ‘active’ cancer is indicated
by rapidly rising PSA. For this reason I would argue that we should
ALL have regular (every 6-12 months over age of 40) PSA blood tests
(pinprick) and then we can do our own ‘wait and see’. Whilst the
‘absolute’ PSA level may vary between men, the rate of change is the
indicator of ’something’ happening.
I would argue it is gender discrimination and not basic science that
is preventing the introduction of mass PSA screening for men.
4) Alcohol, drugs and cigarettes.
All of these are extremely dangerous. http://www.roycastle.org/patient/facts.htm
Lung cancer is still the number one cause of death for men. The number
one cause of lung cancer is smoking or passive smoking. You shorten
your life by the amount of time you spend smoking. As men have
realised the dangers of smoking, they have begun to cut-back. One of
the ’successes’ of feminism is that women are now enthusiastically
taking up all the ‘bad’ habits that were originally restricted to me -
smoking, drinking alcohol, drugs to extreme. As a result, the number
of women dying from lung cancer and other smoking related diseases is
increasing, the number of men dying is decreasing. This is the main
reason for the reduction in the gap in life expectancy between the
genders.

Summary - If we had a fair Government (which we don’t) and if men and
women were considered equally important by the Government (which they
are not), then if the aim was to increase every one’s life expectancy
by spending money on research into healthy living, disease causes,
preventive techniques and screening, you would have thought that they
would target the group that had the LOWEST life expectancy first,
wouldn’t you?
In fact, over 90% of Government funding for the medical services in
the UK is spent on services that are wholly or largely devoted to
women’s health.

That is my explanation for the discrimination in life expectancy in
this country.

I discovered the following additional discrimination recently -

General Practitioner (GP).
The GP is the ‘gateway’ to the National health Service (NHS). Other
than attending the Accident and Emergency ward of a hospital, the
normal way in to access health services is through a GP.
Everyone registers with a GP. I have now discovered that you are only
allowed to register with one GP surgery. This must be where you live,
not where you work.
Since most GP’s surgeries (like most facilities and services in the
UK) are only open Monday to Friday 9 -6, they are not accessible by
the majority of people who work full-time without taking time off
work. Since disproportionately more women work part-time, and hence
more men work full-time, it is disproportionately more difficult for a
man to access GP’s surgeries and hence NHS services than a woman. This
is another reason why men are more reluctant to ask for health help
and hence have a poorer service as a result of accessing later than
women. Since men pay more tax and NHI which is used to fund the
service (although women are more likely to receive free prescriptions
for medicines than men) it is unfair that they receive less service
than the women.
I discovered myself that even though I work virtually next door to a
GP’s surgery, they refuse to treat me as I am registered at home (90km
away). They said they would give me an appointment, but ‘only in an
emergency’! What about prevention being better than cure? How do I
know if it is an emergency?

False Allegations

I have picked up on a
recent news story of interest to everyone, I believe - FALSE
ALLEGATIONS.

(All comments on laws relate to the UK only)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/e…es/6037701.stm

This news story is exceptional for a number of reasons and highlights
the problems men face in the UK.

1) After sex, a man is accused of rape.

Under the current law in the UK, the accused man is named, the female
‘victim’ remains anonymous. This applies to accusations of sexual and
other abuse against children as well. The inevitable result of that
publicity is a ‘witch-hunt’ and the accused man is persecuted,
threatened and otherwise bullied and in many cases either lynched or
commit suicide. This is even before he has been to trial. Many,
perhaps most cases collapse before trial. In rape cases barely 6%
reach a conclusion with the accused man found guilty, around 300 per
year. There has been a massive jump in rape accusations in the last
few years, but the actual level of convictions has stayed at around
300 per year. The feminists argue that the Police and courts are
failing women. I argue that women are swamping the system with false
accusations knowing they can destroy a man without actually having to
stand trial or be named - the damage is done immediately.

2) The highlighted case is extraordinary because in the overwhelming
majority of failed accusations, there is no punishment for the
accuser. Compare the Police’s response to somebody who makes a false
999 call - extremely likely to be prosecuted for wasting Police time.
Yet make a false allegation and ruin a man’s life, normally no
punishment.

3) This woman actually received 6 months in prison. I would argue that
that kind of sentence is not a deterrent. The man could have got 10-15
years if found guilty, the woman should get a similar punishment. Then
it would act as a deterrent. This woman is a danger to all men.

4) Overwhelmingly the UK prisons are full of men - only around 4000
women out of a prison population of 75000 approx. The UK prison
service is at capacity. Police stations are having to use their
custody cells for prisoners. Yet around 8000 of the men are remanded
in custody until their trial. many will be found innocent and have no
claim for wrongful imprisonment. They can only claim if found guilty,
locked up and then released on appeal.

5) Do men and women receive the same punishment for the same crime?
Overwhelmingly the answer is NO. Not from me, but from the sentencing
guidelines council who monitor these things. They highlight, for
example, the perception that women convicted of manslaughter receive
longer sentences than men.
http://www.sentencing-guidelines.gov…nslaughter.pdf
(specifically point 7 on page 4)
The reality is the opposite. they monitored cases where spouses killed
each other and claimed provocation - it reduces murder to
manslaughter. In the UK, a conviction for murder is a mandatory life
sentence (although up for discussion at present and there are
proposals to introduce a first, second and third degree murder)
manslaughter is at the discretion of the Judge. When a man killed his
female partner, he got an average of five years. When the woman killed
her male partner she received an average of 18 months.

A Home Office study in 2003 monitored cases from initial stop and
search by the Police through arrest charge and sentencing on an age,
gender and nationality basis. It is widely believed that the police
are institutionally racist and this was confirmed by the study - for
example - a black or Afro-Caribbean person was SIX times more likely
than a white person to be stopped and searched by the Police - SIX
times more likely is sufficient to say that the Police are
institutionally racist. So how would you describe the system when a
man is TWENTY times more likely than a woman to be stopped and
searched?
They followed cases through to trial and determined that gender was a
significant predictor of severity of sentence - they stopped short of
saying the system favoured women, which it obviously does! When
comparing similar crimes and similar severity of crimes, the men on
average got custodial sentences where the women got community
sentences. Alternatively, where both went to prison, the men got
longer sentences than women. Newspapers in the UK have run campaigns
to stop ANY woman being jailed! .

Enough for now!

Anti-Male discrimination in the family courts in the UK

<!– | Permalink–>

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/s…ds/6192406.stm

Unusually for family court issues, this particular news story has been
publicised widely, firstly because it involved a 12-year old girl
(rather than a boy) and secondly because the media were collectively
painting the father as the bad guy (as usual). I saw a newspaper story
headline indicating that the child had been ‘abducted by her father’
to Pakistan. In fact, she was accompanied by her 18 year-old sister on
the flight and appeared to have been travelling willingly. Needless to
say, the UK courts have decided that she should return to her mother.
Notice the above news story has a ’smiling’ girl pictured with her
mother - surely the papers are not taking sides???

So what is wrong with the family courts?

1) They are secret courts.
Whilst there are proposals to ‘loosen’ the secrecy surrounding what
happens in these ‘Star Chambers’, the current situation is that anyone
who reveals recognisable details about the participants is in contempt
of court, and faces a possible prison sentence for doing so. The rules
on consulting non-lawyers were changed in October 2005, so that
‘Mckenzie friends’ and other Fathers’ groups, for example, could be
consulted about your case, without permission of a Judge, which had
been the previous situation.
The proverb that ‘justice must not just be done, but must be seen to
be done’ has an opposite view -’injustice must not be seen’

2) The Balance of Probability
In theory, the family courts are civil courts and as such operate on a
basis that the Judge must determine (as there are no juries) who he
believes on the ‘balance of probability’. In other words, which person
is more likely to be telling the truth. As most family court judges
spend much of their time on criminal matters, it would be extremely
surprising if their prejudices were different in the family courts
than when operating in the criminal courts. As you may have read from
the previous article, the criminal courts are institutionally
anti-male. Thus in family issues, there is usually no third party to
provide objective evidence, and hence the judge must choose between
the male and female perspectives. Since the judges are overwhelmingly
anti-male and pro-female, it is not surprising that they prefer the
female perspective.
You can now view the guidance given to magistrates and judges online
http://www.jsboard.co.uk/family_law/index.htm
It is particularly interesting to read the guidance regarding women in
general and victims of domestic violence (perceived by most of the
media and the courts as being a male attacker female victim issue when
the evidence is overwhelmingly that it is much more likely to be
similar numbers both ways) which are overwhelmingly along the lines of
‘be nice to the poor women’.
Having spoken to a few barristers with experience of the court arena,
they are also of the view that the courts favour women.

3) The law being upheld - Parental Responsibility
One example of the institutional unfairness to men is included in the
Children Act, 1989 which lays the foundation for all that happens in
the family courts. This created the term ‘parental responsibility’
which encompasses all the powers and responsibilities that parents
have. Without PR you cannot stop your child leaving the country,
changing its name or being adopted (to name but a few). It is the most
important factor when determining ‘control’ of children. The Children
Act states that - Mothers automatically get PR on birth. A father can
only get PR either by - marrying the mother, by agreement with the
mother (the mother’s veto), if the birth is jointly registered after
01/12/03 (with the permission of the mother - she can register on her
own, he cannot - mother’s veto again), or by order of the court. This
discrimination against unmarried fathers was challenged in the courts
and the father lost - the judge said this discrimination was justified
as it distinguished between ‘meritorious and non-meritorious fathers’.
Notice that there is no way of distinguishing between meritorious and
non-meritorious mothers!

4) Making children choose
One of the nastiest aspects of our adversarial system is that the
children are effectively required to ‘choose’ which parent is to be
the main parent. Since the UK system operates on a ‘winner takes all’
basis - that is one parent gets 100% of all the benefits and tax
credits of having a child, the other parent gets nothing and has to
pay up to 25% of his net income to the mother until the child is 19 -
the parent who is the ‘main’ parent is the key. Whilst shared
parenting or joint residency, where both parents get equal time , is
overwhelmingly in the best interests of the children, the courts do
not appear to understand nor favour this system. They erroneously
believe that a child needs a ’settled’ home. There is no evidence to
support this. There is lots of evidence to support the idea that the
more contact a child has with its father post-separation the better he
will do on all aspects of development.
Interestingly, so-called ‘experts’ are appointed to discuss with the
children where they would like to live. usually they visit the child
at the mother’s house and visit the father separately. It would be
surprising if a child in those circumstances said they wanted to live
with dad. I fact a few do. When the judge considers the report - if
the child says they want to live with mum - the judge usually agrees.
If they say they want to live with dad, the judge says that we know
best and of course they didn’t mean it. Children have been dragged
kicking and screaming from dad’s house and given to mum. The child in
the article at the beginning of this piece is likely to be in that
category.

Summary
The system in this country is entirely counter-productive if you
believe it should look at the ‘best interests of the children’.
Nowhere is this defined. It is interpreted to mean ‘we must not do
anything to upset mum’.
Actually I would propose that the courts should be looking at outcomes
- what should we be doing to do whatever we can to ensure the best
chance of these children growing up to become law-abiding,
contributing, healthy members of society. If that was the basis for
decisions based on statistical outcomes rather than deep-rooted
prejudices then there would be hope for the future.

News updates from the UK as at 17th June 2008

More news from the (single -) motherland

1)Well 4.5 years seems a lot to me - most of the mothers who have done far worse get far less. Also his partner got nothing - the male partners of women accused of killing the babies are usually sentenced as well - not happy about this - women who abort their babies do so legally before birth. does not seem fair somehow

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/e…re/7390271.stm

2) Yet again this study connects symptoms in children brought up badly by disproportionately single mothers and tries to cross relate! It is obvious to me that they are all bad behaviour which is much more likely when brought up by poor parents in a broken family. They are either incredibly stupid or doing it deliberately! Am I the only one who can see the bigger picture?!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7389980.stm

3) Well - the Chinese also treat women differently and better. Breaking up a female only protest and no arrests?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7394672.stm

4) Is this law anti-male? so much for gender equality in Spain! Now that women are in the majority, is the work of the feminists finished or only half done?
“A new law attempts to protect women with specialist judges, legal services and restraining orders on violent men within hours.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7375230.stm

5) More progress to eliminate the last requirements that fathers are involved in IVF -
These are the creation of hybrid embryos, “saviour siblings” and the proposal that IVF clinics should no longer have to consider the need for a “father” figure when deciding whether to offer treatment.

Great! Just what the world needs! More children artificially created without a father!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7394591.stm

6) In the one corner the feminists who resist any kind of reality for children, any kind of learning, any kind of structure - everything that suits girls. In the other corner the sensible people, the masculinists and anyone with an ounce of common sense - childhood is about learning how to cope with being an adult and adult life is competitive.

Equals the battle over testing to improve school performance or stressing out children.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/e…on/7396125.stm

7) Somebody else agrees with me! The importance of the father being lost…
http://www.civitas.org.uk/press/prcs73.php

8)My view of wars and armies is that the feminists use them to get rid of surplus men. Making men believe they are (dead) heroes is one way to cover the horrible reality that even if you survive the war your head will be badly screwed up by the sights and horrors making you unfit