Lake Taupo, New Zealand

Read more!

Neighborhood Watch

About this time of year, two years ago, a man who was going through a similar, equally unjust time in his life was organizing a Neighborhood Watch. He and I traded stories, then he asked if I'd like to join. I said Yes. I had been an organizer of Neighborhood Watch in the US.
The same guy had organized a program to refurbish bikes from the tip, outfit them with safety devices and even helmets, for the kids who couldn't afford bikes themselves.

It took nearly two years, but someone dropped by a form for me to sign about a month ago. It was for a police check. I really didn't think anything of it.

A couple of days ago, I got my answer.
It seems that because I had had "involvements" with police, I am not fit to be a member of the Neighborhood Watch. That's simply disgusting. In the whole of 50 years, I have had less than a handful of traffic tickets, and no charges -- until facing the prejudice of the Intervention Order process.
There are few people better suited to be a part of a Neighborhood Watch in this area. I don't do drugs. I don't even drink. I'm familiar with the neighborhood and the neighbors. Yet Sen Con Sharron Coburn deems me unsuitable because of "involvements with the police."
Just another insult from a perverse, irrational system.

Update, two days after the original post

(Sunday, 1 Oct 2006)
I realized while watching the sky at the beach yesterday why the guy who originally contacted me was no longer organizing the Neighborhood Watch: He would have had "involvements" with the police, too.
Neighborhood Watch had been talked about around this area since I moved here over 5 years ago. This guy was the first one to do the work to organize it. His community spirit and energy were as obvious as his gentle spirit, if you looked, despite his nervous, energetic demeanor -- and accent.

This morning I sent an email to the Sen Constable. It was probably a foolish and wasted move. She'd already made her decisions. Sometimes you have to wonder if the police realize they spend half their on-street time chasing men who are not criminals in the make-criminal furor called "domestic violence."

Here is the email I sent this morning. It was returned. The Sen Constable apparently has blocked my address.

I can summarize my police involvement in one incident that is in the police call records.

After receiving the Intervention Orders against me, I looked into them on the Net and with calls to local community legal services.
Frankly, the standard paragraph in the Orders disgusted me. I was not guilty of any of those things.

One morning, I confronted my former partner and questioned her aggessively about what she was doing. Her response to every question was "I was told by my attorney not to discuss the Intervention Orders."
Further disgusted, I called the Frankston Police to report that I was in breach of the Intervention Orders. Although my questions were pointed and fair, the Orders seemed to forbid me to pose them. I told the officer that he should probably send a car around to enforce the orders.
The officer said the didn't understand. I said my partner has lied under oath in order to force me out of our jointly-owned home on the instructions of her lawyer.
The officer said he had to talk to one of the complainants, so I handed the phone to my ex.
She told him that police attendance was not necessary, that no one was in danger.

She was right. No one had ever been in any danger in that house. In fact, the abuse had been done to me by her daughter and herself. I imagine she was afraid the officer might realize that.

I believe in the course of the next couple of months, I made another similar call with the same results.

If you check your records, you'll find these were the only calls (as far as I know) made from that house to request police attendance. Her goal, with her daughter and other family members conspiring, was simply to abuse the protections provided by Intervention Orders to extort a more advantageous settlement. Considering the amounts involved, really her purpose was to continue her abuse of me.

My ex had told me months before she had found a way to have me removed from the house, even though she agreed at the time there were no grounds.

If the purpose of Intervention Orders is to protect people and allow them to work out their difficulties in a civil manner, then the Orders she and her daughter filed served no purpose. The settlement agreement had been worked out months before either of them filed Intervention Orders, in writing.
In this case, the people who filed the Intervention Orders were the abusers. They had increasingly abused me over a two year period when I was increasingly disabled and nearly invalided.
The Intervention Orders were filed when I was recovering from major surgery.

Thinking about this email, I realize it will not make any difference. You're not going to change your mind about my involvement and the Neighborhood Watch. Maybe I'm just taking the opportunity to try again to get someone to listen. It is truly sad that I now have a police record of some kind.

I was told once at CentreLink that I have rights. I found myself blurting out that I did not. If there was nowhere to go to enforce those rights, then they did not exist.
In those two sentences is really the synopsis of my "involvements" with the police.

Thank you for your time,

You can't help but wonder how these people are trained. How do you train the police to not investigate before making a case for prosectution? Does it just save time for the officers to guess who's guilty, then make a case based on imagination?
I suppose my complaints about being turned down for Neighborhood Watch will make me rise in the police watch list.
Do these people realize that they are making it a crime in Victoria to be a disabled man? Or to just be male?

Make-criminal program

This is a make-criminal program. Chasing innocent people trying to make them into criminals is much safer and produces more impressive statistics than actually investigating those committing real crimes.

Read more!

Emotional flashbacks

The emotional flashbacks have returned. I'm sure there is a clinical term for them, maybe I'll come across it sometime.

Two years ago, this should have been a time to share the rejoicing that my mobility was returning. A time of making uncertain forays around the neighborhood to see how far my new hip would allow me to walk. A time to share the relief and joy of walking again, even if it was still painful.
Instead, it was a time of family crisis. Her older son developed a brain tumor. He needed emergency surgery. When I tried to help, I was pushed aside.
I had been trained as a counselor and mentor and was active in a community group formed to support people who had suffered a life-changing injury; and she knew I cared a great deal about her son, but she sealed me away from him. There is a good chance the time would have been good for both of us, but she decided otherwise.
She and the boy's partner locked everyone out, even his father.

So I rose and walked, testing the new leg each day a little more, and instead of sharing these small victories with my partner, I shared them with friends and neighbors.
My back was still bent and skewed. Both back and knee still had bone on bone areas. I was learning to walk again, now with both feet forward. Retraining the muscles from head to toe, literally, in a new posture.
I wanted, even needed, to share my efforts, but the door was closed.

I still find myself questioning her, voicing the questions to the trees and the birds over and over. Questions that will never be answered, at least by her. Questions whose answers will never be wise or satisfactory, because they will have to come from me.

In some now strange-sounding way, I felt is was manly of me to take it all up alone, leaving her to tend to her son. Even now, I don't know what else I could have done.
After two long years of illness, I was still physically weak. My body had atrophied from inaction. Additionally, I had endured increasing insults and abuse from her and her daughter. Again, I drew my self up in some manly fashion, telling myself that she was doing the best she could do in the face of so many trials; not letting myself see -- at least not often -- that she was just enjoying bullying me in front of her daughter.
I told myself that how she dealt with her daughter and son were her business. After all, I had come into her life after the family that had created them; that I had to respect her feelings, even if they had proven cruelly irrational many times.

And so now, two years later, I learn just how much of a strain I was under then because the mornings leave a painful hole in my heart.

How many other men live their lives in this kind of pain? Putting aside the feelings that bear on them like a great weight each morning to face the world?
How many were not as lucky as I was, to quickly find people -- strangers -- who cared for them, respected them, and even believed in them, because the one person they needed to feel these things for them betrayed them? What do those men do? One answer, of course, is in the rising suicide rate amongst men. I know too well how attractive that option can be, - even with the support I found.

How many years will these flashbacks come? This is two years now.
Will the flashbacks always be there? Will every morning from September to June be so painful? Somewhere in my mind I realize the pain will subside in time; that I'll find more and more to fill my life; that someday the lessons I've learned will make me a better person. I cling to those fragile rationalizations at times, desperately.
This is the real price of the furor to prevent "domestic violence." In reality, all the efforts only create a new, more horrible form of it. The saddest fact is there was no "domestic violence" in my relationship; until she "found a way" in the brutal prejudice of the courts.

Read more!

The Buzz

The Buzz

Make Love, NOT babies

Look for the flier at every place you can imagine…

To:

My husband and I are thinking of approaching his ex wife and asking for a mid week visit with his son instead of a telephone call.

She listens in on the telephone calls then tells the child his father is an idiot etc. Afterwards, if something is said during the phone call that she doesn't like she puts the call on hold then tells her son what he is to say. He accidently left the phone off hold.

We tried last year for 50/50 and didn't get it, however are happy to try for a mid week visit instead of a phone call. …

Response:

There is no harm in trying. And I think we should all be continually keeping the pressure up.

Yes the norm now includes some mid-week contact (usually a few hours after school, which is hypocritical because Family Court child psychologists know kids fair better with block contact).

I suggest paying a visit to a senior official in your nearest Family Court and talking to them about it. I also suggest visiting your nearest Family Relationship Centre.

They will probably both say there is nothing they can do about it and will advise you to see your $olicitor. But it is worth a try - to get them on side and sympathetic if possible. Both the Family Court official and any $olicitor will probably tell you that you have no chance in court if there has been no "change in circumstances" .

…

Also it is worth reminding the Family Court and the Family Relationship Centre that your level of contact is way behind the norm, especially in the context of changes in legislation (which they will probably say cannot be applied retrospectively) .

You need to try to 'melt' his ex-partner - that is, try to win detente and then some level of friendship - not easy I know. Possible ways:

- invite her to children's birthday party
- send photos you have taken
- share with her information and things you have done together
- be flexible if she wants to change days, wants extra time (which hopefully she will reciprocate !?)

And:

I don't know if a midweek overnight stay is becoming the norm.

I had orders that permitted the usual mid week phone call. My former spouse & her husband refused to put my son on the phone. I went to court earlier this year.

I was seeking that the order be upheld. Much to surprise Her Honor decided that the phone call was proving 'unsuccessful' , dismissed that part of the previous order and granted me a mid week visit from after school until 7.00pm.

…

Are You at Risk of Becoming a Victim of False Allegations?

Alan Karmin of New Jersey was accused of domestic violence. But he had never assaulted his wife. What was the basis of the claim? It was alleged that Karmin telephoned his ex-wife 10-15 times a day and was late on his child support payments. But telephone records and cancelled checks easily disproved both allegations.

How could anyone make such a ludicrous accusation? Because in New Jersey, state law includes "harassment" in its definition of domestic violence. And according to a report issued today, New Jersey and six other states fall in the "Extremely High Risk" category of states with laws that actually encourage false allegations.

http://www.mediarad ar.org/docs/ Ranking-of-States-DV- Laws.pdf

Newsweek Bashes Dads

Parental Alienation Syndrome occurs when one parent has turned his
or her children against the other parent, destroying the loving
bonds the children and the target parent once enjoyed. Opponents of
fathers and the shared parenting movement often portray PAS as a
nonexistent fraud used by abusive fathers to win shared or sole
custody.

Now Newsweek has joined the fray on behalf of alienating parents and
the feminist activists who love and make apologies for them. In the
new article Fighting Over the Kids: Battered spouses take aim at a
controversial custody strategy

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/14870310/site/newsweek/

"Some of the more important points contained in the documents
include:

1) The allegations of abuse against Genia's ex-husband, Timothy, were never once substantiated.

2) The abuse allegations coincided perfectly with every custody hearing.

3) Genia was caught--on videotape--at a supervised visitation center coaching her children to make remarks against their father.

4) During the hearing resulting in her contempt charge and jailing, she was warned over 15 times to stop interrupting the judge.

5) Despite a position with IBM, paying $80,000 per year, Genia refused to pay her child support.

6) A court appointed psychologist characterized Genia as highly controlling, and said the biggest hurdle to an amicable custody arrangement was this fact.

7) Her previous attorney had quit the case because she was too volatile and unpredictable.

…

Other High-Profile PAS Cases Are Just as Flawed

I'm not very familiar with the Genia Shockome case; however, I've seen enough to be very suspicious of these cases. In my co-authored column Protect Children from Alienation (Providence Journal, 7/8/06)

http://www.glennsac ks.com/protect_ children_ from.htm

I wrote:

"Even in the high-profile cases publicized by critics of PAS, the courts usually had good reason to transfer custody from the mothers to the fathers.

"In one case highlighted by PBS in Breaking the Silence: Children's Stories,
http://www.glennsac ks.com/pbs/ index.php

their 2005 documentary on PAS, the filmmakers claimed that the mother had unjustly lost custody of her daughter to her ex-husband. Yet it was subsequently revealed that a California Juvenile Court had found the mother culpable of multiple acts of child abuse and the court transferred custody to the father to protect the girl.

Read more!

John Murtari: Teri Stoddard on DOTA

Posted by: "Teri Stoddard" shared.parenting.works@gmail.com sharedparentingworks

Thu Sep 21, 2006 3:54 am (PST)

Dads On The Air, John Murtari Update, Shared Parenting Works Additions
September
21, 2006
by Teri Stoddard

I visited with Dads on the Air <http://www.dadsonth eair.net/> in Australia
Sunday about John Murtari.
If you'd like to listen, click this logo.
.
<http://www.dadsonth eair.net/ shows/dota200609 18.mp3>
.
*John Murtari *
.
As John Murtari wrote in his weekly
newsletter<http://www.akidsrig ht.org/archive/ archive2006/ 0040.html>;
the appellate judge denied his stay. He's decided to ask Judge Hedges for a
reduced sentence. If that doesn't work he'll move forward with an appeal.
.
John has a positive attitude and sounds good, but I sometimes wonder if he's
losing his train of thought more than normal. Since that's what happened
last time when he got real sick, it always makes me concerned.
.
I've printed your emails and sent them to John. He wants you to know that if
you asked him to contact you, he needs a street address. He doesn't have
access to a computer in jail.
.
To write to John:
.
John Murtari
POD 5A-9
555 South State Street
Syracuse, NY 13202
.
To assist with his legal bills: (more
info<http://www.akidsrig ht.org/donate_ jm.htm>
)
.
Mr. Charles Keller Esq.
Att: Murtari Legal Defense
9416 Carousel Center Drive
Syracuse, New York 13290
.
We're looking at the end of the month, early October for a press conference.
Please contact me if you're interested.
.
.
* Thanks Carey! *
.
Thanks to Carey Roberts for mentioning John in his September 19 piece called
*Uppity Men* <http://www.renewame rica.us/columns/ roberts/060919> in Renew
America.
.
.

*If you have links or videos to share, I'd love to add them to the new and
improved Shared Parenting Works <http://www.sharedpa rentingworks. org/> **
links <http://www.sharedpa rentingworks. org/links. html>
page<http://www.sharedpa rentingworks. org/links. html>,
and **multimedia <http://sharedparent ingworks. org/multimedia. html> pages. Check
out the videos!*

If you have MySpace, please drop by and say
hi<http://www.myspace. com/teristoddard>
.
.
.
Posted in Vox Populi <http://mensnewsdail y.com/category/ vox-populi/>, Teri
Stoddard <http://mensnewsdail y.com/category/ teri-stoddard/> |
Permalink<http://mensnewsdail y.com/2006/ 09/21/dads- on-the-air- john-murtari- update-shared- parenting- works-additions/>|

Read more!

Men just don't get it -- Barbara Biggs

Barbara Biggs has made an academic career out of her victimhood.
She couches her constant reiterations in well-written, seemingly heart-felt prose, and that has earned her a worldwide reputation as an expert on child protections. Given her own stated history, and how she states it, Barbara Biggs in the Last-person-on-Earth category of those who should be giving advice on raising children. Biggs may be an expert on victimhood, but that is not a worthwhile parental goal last time I looked.

Her own mother sold her into sexual slavery at the age of 14 to a barrister. A parent, in this case her mother, that would do that must have been a superb example during Biggs' formative years.
And Biggs shows the damage to her psyche years later. In the same article, she states that she was with the barrister for only 9 months, then refers to the "Vernon years."
You have to assume that Ms Biggs means from 14 until 27, from the article, if there is any sense to be made from the phrase "Vernon years", which is increasingly doubtful if you read more of what Ms Biggs says in other articles.

BARBARA BIGGS: Yes, of course. Of course they are. When I left Vernon's house - I was only there for nine months, but, um, he used to tell me over and over again that sex is what life's all about and wasn't I great because I knew that. So, I was emotionally needy. And Vernon was very kind to me in many ways. He...he acknowledged me, um... I had hormones running around my body, confusing everything. Um...at that age you're looking for a new adult identity, trying to work out what the adult world is about. I also formed an emotional attachment, "fell in love" with him, which is also...

Biggs chose to become a prostitute in Japan at the age of 18, which pretty much illustrates her state of mind. As she herself admits, some part of her remained 14 (or younger?) for many years. In fact, she admits that this retarded state of personal development has affected her all her life.

BARBARA BIGGS: Because I hadn't worked out at that stage that disassociated sex made me depressed because it catapulted me back into the Vernon years. And I wasn't conscious of that. I...I now have worked it out a bit more now. But, um, that emotional attachment that I felt when I was 14, that was warped attachment, kept resurfacing in my future relationships.

Biggs' whole life seems to be a search for acceptance in warped attachments. She finally found the acceptance she sought in the domestic violence industry. Here, she can use her intelligence and scholastic abilities to promote fear- and hate-mongering without the fear of being held responsible for her words.
In another article, Biggs remarkably states:

For example, there is barely a university in Australia that has a single unit specialising in child sexual abuse for any social work, psychology or criminal justice tertiary qualification. Why is this, when they know that 80 per cent of the clients of these graduates will have been sexually abused as children? People in prisons, alcoholics, family violence perpetrators, drug addicts, prostitutes, people with mental illnesses, the list goes on.

That little play on words is simply fear-mongering.
The same sort of fear-mongering that has plagued the justice and social systems of Australia for more than a decade because there doesn't seem to be one magistrate or political leader who was trained in critical thinking (or just has enough self-esteem to think for themselves?)
Although I might be willing to accept that 80% of the people in prisons, alcoholics, family violence perpetrators, drug addicts, prostitutes, people with mental illness, etc. have been abused, -- these are not 80% of the clients for social workers, psychologists or workers in the criminal justice fields.

There is a paradox here, an ugly one.
People who have not been abused come in contact with social workers, psychologists, and the law enforcement professions in their normal lives. In fact, domestic abuse and violence have been shown repeatedly to affect about 5% of the population. But because of the inferance of Ms Biggs' thinking, the people who have not been abused will be affected by abuse. They will be abused by the social workers, psychologists, and law enforcement professions! -- who are being trained to treat all people as abusers or victims.
This is the social crime of victim feminists like Ms Biggs.

This is a woman who has made the pain of her childhood and the bad choices she made in her early years into a career making people hate one another.

(from "Men don't get it over child abuse", by Barbara Biggs Herald Sun, September 20, 2006)

A judge said he had been unable to find in Queensland court transcripts any examples of badgering and humiliation of child witnesses.

Dr (a senior research fellow at Ballarat University, Caroline ) Taylor did not let the slight go unanswered. She said she had been approached by two Queensland magistrates.

They had told her of recent examples of just such instances in the courts of their colleagues.

A Family Court judge was then asked by Prof Freda Briggs why so many fathers in recent years had been awarded custody of children they had been accused of sexually abusing.

We were told the justification often presented to the Family Court was that the mother was hostile to her former partner.

Biggs has stated repeatedly that she opposes any form of shared custody when men are accused of abusing children or adults. (She repeats the statement in this article.)
Not proven to have abused anyone; or shown to have a history of any sort of abuse or violence; not with any single shread of evidence to support the mother's accusations -- All Biggs requires to remove a father from his child's life is the mother's accusation.

Although Biggs will admit that women abuse children too -- She'd have a hard time not admitting it, considering the actions of her own mother. -- she doesn't see that as reason to remove the mother from children's lives, even with hard evidence and outright convictions.

This a a champion of victim feminism, and one of the best examples why the tenets of victim feminism should not guide any reasonable decision in law or social policy.

They are considered to be acting against the best interests of the child and lose custody.

The anger and frustration of delegates was shown by widespread applause for the question.

...

I came away feeling that the sooner this profession (the magistracy) introduced mandatory education on child sexual abuse, the fewer lives would be further damaged.

There must also be greater accountability of judges and more women elevated to the bench.

Women like you, Ms Biggs? You know in Victoria, Australia, you can become a magistrate. Maybe you should contact Rob Hulls and see if there's another opening in his Justice Department?
It would be a pitiful example of political leadership, but that's common in the Bracks administration in the Hulls Justice Department.

Although I could not agree more that there must be a greater accountability of judges, the idea of women being elevated to the bench based on their qualifications as victim feminists is, frankly, terrifying.
Here is a woman who wants to teach every magistrate in Australia, and I imagine the UK where she lives, to form relationships with the public based on her own warped, abusive experience.

Further, from the same article by Ms Biggs:

But as one famous social activist said, trying to get people to understand a need when their salary depends on their not understanding it is a difficult task.

Why do I have the feeling you are that "famous social activist", Ms Biggs? -- and you were just talking to yourself in the mirror?

Read more!

Emily Rose Hindle

If you have any information regarding the whereabouts of Emily Rose Hindle, please refer to the link on the right. Her father is still looking for her.

Because of the world-wide reach of blogs and podcasts, a new groundswell of resources has become available to resist those who would abuse the courts for selfish reasons.

Requested post for Emily Rose Hindle from her `Daddy´ Karl Hindle in the UK.


My Regards

Mona Lena

____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _



http://www.blog- relations. com/2006/ 09/02/blogs- and-parent- battles/



Blogs and Parent Battles

The fuss over the 12-year-old Scottish girl, Molly Campbell, whisked by her father to Lahore has been high up in the British news. Anything to do with Britains cultural identity crisis in the wake of terrorist plots is bound to fascinate - but there are many other cases of cross-border battles over children.
Naturally blogs and podcasts are becoming weapons in inter-parental wars.

The popular Daddy Podcast, 101 uses for Baby Wipes, has a long interview this week with a British father whose daughter has been taken off to America by his former girl-friend.

The Dad, Karl Hindle, has a blog.
During the interview he makes a number of very serious allegations against the mother and various US officials. I wont repeat them here, but I will say that the BBCs lawyers would certainly have not allowed them to go out on air without extensive checks being carried out first.

Karl sounds very credible and may well be speaking the truth, but its odd to hear this kind of one-sided journalism, without an attempt to get both sides of the story. I have a feeling that one day a podcaster is going to come a cropper in a libel case because of an interview of this sort.

It would be interesting - in a prurient sort of way - to find a child-custody case, or perhaps even a divorce, in which both sides are running rival blogs and attacking each other in public. Im sure it will happen soon, if it hasnt already. The fairy tale ending would be a reconciliation -but then we would all suspect that media interests cooked the whole thing up.
blogosphere children family molly campbell parenting

by Hugh. September 2nd, 2006
2 Responses to Blogs and Parent Battles
Karl Hindle Says:
September 14th, 2006 at 9:50 pm ............ ......... ......... ......... .....
http://emilyrosehin dle.blogspot. com/

http://www.frappr. com/familylawref ormadvocatesanda ctivists

http://www.kidlink. org/english/ general/k/ index.html

Read more!

Proposed flier for event

Make Love - Not Kids

Don't make children, fatherhood is a social risk.

With the divorce rate fast approaching 50%, fatherhood is likely to become a financial and emotional hazard for you. Are you aware of this? Don't just think "This can't happen to me"! Each month thousands of children lose contact with their biological fathers, courtesy of the divorce industry.

More than 30% of kids won't see their dad till they turn 18.

Only 2.5% of kids from divorced or separated parents benefit from shared parenting post split - 97.5% live with their mother alone.

85% of children in jail come from fatherless homes.

Over 60% of youth suicides are from fatherless homes.

All thanks to the Family Law Courts.
Say "No" to marriage.
Say "No" to fatherhood.
Together we need to smash this corrupt system.

Rally in Hyde Park, Sydney, NSW at 10.00am on Sunday 3rd December 2006."

The problems associated with getting groups to action.

The thing I see as the problem is that we will probably see no resolve. We need to get over the fact that we will suffer. Enjoy it, thrive off it, I know that sounds crazy but what else can we do?

We need to decide to really do this for our kids. Enjoy the fact that we are REALLY doing this for our kids. Be proud of it.
It will be our children and our children's children who will benefit from our work. Hold it close to our hearts. I believe it is our only choice.
What else is there but doom and gloom? -- not just for us but if we don't fight it we leave it for our children to fight. I see a huge mess being left for our children. It is something I wish to stand and be proud of fighting.

Our children will see what we have stood for and they will learn by leadership, they will die if we give up. They will suffer worse than us. We can not let it happen.

We are indeed martyrs. We have no choice in the matter. We can not even choose to provide what is demanded from us, as it is unrealistic and too impoverishing or in fact imprisoning.

Look at the life of Mandella, for most of it all he could do was breathe. Now his children breathe free air. OK to a certain extent but that is the reality of life... we can only change things to a certain extent and then it will be up to the next mob.

So lets do the things we can eh?!

Lets design some "ready to print" A4 posters & pamphlets for letterboxing the facts about:

1. CSA
2. Domestic Violence
3. Realities facing young men who may be deciding to have kids.
4. A to do list for men to have in case their relationship is souring.
5. Family court facts/stats/ outcomes.
6. Other related issues.

Put them on the web-site and e-mail to all F4E members so they can choose to print and letterbox or not. Bit of "pass it forward there". We could also choose to e-mail the Posters/pamphlets/ info to other people, post in other groups send to parliamentarians, women's groups, schools etc. Get the word out there and beyond our group.

Also I think it would be great for Yuri and PTP to come up with some speeches for those who will to tout off to men's groups. There are men's groups and community groups around that have informal gatherings where it would be great for those who will, to be able to give community voice to all of our concerns. With solid fact and back up & some pamphlets to hand out.

Let's see what we can do to help the young men of tomorrow. My boys are growing up in this mess and I want them to have what I didn't, INFORMATION when they need it, NOT after the fact.

The media is controlled.
Yet we can walk and talk.
We can make mail box drops.
We can speak up at community meetings.
And we can have pamphlets at the ready to hand to other men, young and old.

======
From a proud Australian in Adelaide:

The choice is yours to participate or not :) and I am sure you will.

To whom you post/poster/ letter box/ pamphlet drive/ speak to etc is up to you.

I think we should send info to womens groups if only to put the wind up them and get them to hassle us out some more.

There's Nothing like being the underdog mate. It's the Aussie institution! They keep hanging the dead beat and bad dad on us... I say give them enough rope :) people I know and I know a few are getting mighty SICK and tierd of hearing the anti violence against women & the BAD DAD campaigns. People are starting to see it for what it is.

WE MUST PERSIST! WE MUST STOKE THE FIRE! I have seen groups of women enraged at the sight of the AVAW ads. It is only the institutions that profit from these ideals that are promoting them. That is where we are different. We are INDEED the UNDERDOGS and the hard done by and the FATHERS of this decades stolen children!

Your feet, your voice, your action. OWN IT & BE PROUD OF IT! :)

We all act and it is a big action. EDUCATING those we think need educating.

Not leaving it to others to decide. Not waiting for others to decide when or how, just a general concensus to act.

Simply I hope those who can supply the facts will do that. Those who can design posters will go ahead and do that with the facts provided. Those who can word process will do that and post to the group. Those who can develop email lists will do that. ANYTHING YOU CAN DO DO IT AND DO IT NOW.

THERE IS NO TIME LIKE THE PRESENT we are HERE !

We need to prepare educational POSTERS, PAMPHLETS, SPEECHES, BACK UP DOCUMENTS for those who take the step of public speaking. EMAIL lists, mailing lists. coordinators. area leaders and contacts. GET IT UP GET IT GOING!

We may not win a vote or make immediate changes but we can INFORM beyond our group and we don't have to do great feats of protest like F4J we can just walk the streets pamphleting. Put up a poster in the local shop or school bulliten board. email all the parlimentarians EVERY SINGLE DAY. Why not it is our right and emails are free. Ok pamphlets might cost a few cents but if you get a good deal at a printing house it could get even cheaper... we could source the country for a good printing deal perhaps find a father just like you and I running a printing business who might do it for cost. etc those sorts of things. WE could send letters to the unions supporting thier actions of unity and struggle against oppression and hopefully win their support and understanding.

Just think about it... you don't have to do anything about it. BUT if YOU do YOU OWN IT AND YOU BE PROUD OF IT!

All I'm asking is if these posters/pamphlets/ speeches etc be made promanent on the F4E site so that anyone can download then print and get the word out there.

Cheers from Dan :)

I'm sick of banging the keys. I want to get out and tell the world all about this shit!

Read more!

Prisons as asylums for the mentally ill

The Herald Sun reported Sunday that prisons were effectively being used as asylums for the mentally ill.
No kidding. Isn't that sort of thing common in third world countries? Since Australia hasn't seen fit to provide a mental health system, there isn't much else for the mentally ill, especially if the person is male.

The question should not be whether prisons are a good place for the mentally ill. Australia has answered that question by example, as the Herald Sun reports. The question should be whether there isn't a better way to treat the mentally ill without perpetuating the myth that they all belong in prison.

The answer to that question was demonstrated over a century ago for other societies. I suppose it does take a while for ideas like that to filter down under though.

Read more!

action figure heaven

action figure heaven
Originally uploaded by Poopypants.

Read more!

Six Questions

James Adams of fathers4equality Australia asked the following 6 questions:

I want your opinions on these questions...

1. Would you advise your son(s) not to have kids?
2. Do you think that "normal men warn each other about having kids?
3. If you had your time again, would you not had children?
4. Do you think that men's "Commitment Phobia" is actually sensible fear?
5. Do you think that Family Law and C$A is an important factor in low birth-rates?
6. If you want, do you have anything to add about fatherhood and fertility (PLEASE MAKE THIS SHORT)

1. 
   

No sane person wants to think of government policy when it comes to such a basic human function as having children, but the Australian government seems to want to force policy into people's lives at many levels. The answers to the six questions above are only one way.
There is still a $3000 bribe to have children - and I understand they're considering raising it to $5000. -- The government seems to be of two minds about things.

The answers to the questions are predictable, considering the purpose of fathers4equality:

1: Would you advise your son(s) not to have kids?
NO. They are a thriving business for women thanks to FLC & C$A .

2: Do you think that "normal men warn each other about having kids?
NO. But starry starry eyes you know. Show them prooof. T.V. ads!

3: If you had your time again, would you not had children?
NO. I would not have children and that is sad because I love my children.

4: Do you think that men's "Commitment Phobia" is actually sensible fear?
YES. And it's about time it started.

5: Do you think that Family Law and C$A is an important factor in low birth-rates?
NO. But they are high factors in increasing 'father' suicides.

6: If you want, do you have anything to add about fatherhood and fertility? (PLEASE MAKE THIS SHORT).
Fatherhood is beautiful and fertility can be terminated. Use a sperm bank, go overseas and get a surrogate mother: until Australian Feminism wakes up to itself.
You can live without a wife and enjoy fatherhood.

I think he expressed a weird sense of patriotism in the first answer (which I think he just misread, but it's fun...) He won't tell his son(s) not to have kids because it would be good for the Australian economy?
Even more fun is that he wants his kids to be shown the truth - on TV ads?!!
He doesn't want kids now, and believes that 'Commitment Phobia' is reasonable.

These issues are so important to anyone who lives, so poignant, so very primal and basic - It's hard not to sound a little like Homer Simpson. And the government seem to want to treat people like they are little action figure dollsm that can be taken out of some dusty closet to buy, sell, or bend in any shape.
It makes you wonder a little if something about having a title reduces people to something less than real. Most of the people on fathers4equality would say it's just the influence of victim feminists, but who knows?

Action figure
Originally uploaded by ImaginaryGirl.

Here are my own answers. I'll add more as more answers when I can.

1: Would you advise your son(s) not to have kids?

I don't have any sons, but I have talked face to face to young lifeguards and young men that I've met. For the most part, the looks I get say, "He's just had a bad break. His words are just sour grapes.", but when I say look into it for themselves, I can see that some of them have.

2: Do you think that "normal men warn each other about having kids?

I would say warning young men about the present prejudiced system is a duty of all men to pass on to younger men, whether they are fathers or not. For a father to fail to tell his children, male and female, of the prejudice in the system is to fail his children.

3: If you had your time again, would you not had children?

When I came to Australia, I intended to have children, if possible, and/or to adopt and raise children. There is nothing that could make me want to raise children in Australia under the current system. I do not want my sons taught that they are brutish abusers. I do not want my daughters raised to be victims.

4: Do you think that men's "Commitment Phobia" is actually sensible fear?

For myself, and for all the men I have met, vicariously or in person, from fathers4equality, there is not "Commitment Phobia". These men are committed to their children and to the future of Australia.
Their fears, like mine, are more correctly called "social anxiety" resulting from the institutionalized prejudice and abuse that we see in the system.

5: Do you think that Family Law and C$A is an important factor in low
birth-rates?

How many ways?
Physiologically, an anxious man is increasingly sterile and unable to perform sexually. Men are human. Impotence is a common result of long term abuse and anxiety. The present system poisons the perception of all people towards their future.
As Dan says in another message, he does not want his sons to face what he has been forced to deal with.
Psychologically, I can cite many studies, but I can also speak for myself. When I was first with my ex, I could hardly keep my hands off her for the first year. As she became increasingly abusive, culminating in her threats to abuse the present system, my interest in her diminished to the point she complained about it in writing!
But she could not reverse the social pressure to be a victim; and she has taught her daughter to the same victim-abuser role in Australian society. Her daughter has already found similar results in her own relationships.

Any man, when he puts aside the concerns of adolescence, looks pragmatically to the world around him. One result of the economic pressures on men and women has resulted in having children much later than in previous generations. The average age of new parents is 28-30 now.
Why would any young man look at the demoralising influence of prejudice in the system and not be influenced? If he is intelligent enough to be a good father, he cannot miss it.
Why would any man have children under such an irresistible pressure?

6: If you want, do you have anything to add about fatherhood and fertility?
(PLEASE MAKE THIS SHORT)

I've heard so many times about the wonders of the short-tailed lizard, which can reproduce without sexual intercourse. If, in the fantasies of victim feminists, this is the future of mankind that they'd like to hurry along, I wish them all the best so long as they stay away from me. The concept of living without the joys of affection and the wonders of sexual differences makes for a pretty bleak world.
But then, in their hurry to force that sort of world, this one is becoming more and more bleak.

Reminds me that Homer Simpson says a few wise, smart things once in a while. Why am I thinking about blind squirrels and acorns then?

Read more!

New Link under Yahoo Groups: Men's and Dads' Info

Men's and Dads' Info doesn't have a fancy homepage. There are no Links, no Files. But this group on Yahoo has a pro-active, positive and progressive realistic look - in the Messages chosen to link to articles from all over the world.

In those articles are the contemporary story of ideas that are documenting the maturing of many countries and societies in the western world. They are not only good news; nor are they bad news. They stories document the human drama, and trauma, with a powerful message.

Annette tells WHY she's talking about it.

Several months ago, CBS presented the movie "Men Don't Tell". It
portrayed the story of a man who was battered and abused by his
wife. He and his young daughter chose to remain silent through the
years of abuse due to the humiliation and shame they felt. I know
that humiliation, I witnessed the verbal and physical abuse of my
father by my mother. But, in my mothers eyes she was the one being
abused. In October 1990, my mother had my father arrested for
domestic violence. It was then I stood up and said "NO More" and
testified against her in court.
...

Marriage & kids at 30 as fulfilling as a successful career

London (ANI) - While for some a successful career backed by a good
qualification is of prime importance, there are individuals for whom
being married with kids at the age of 30 is as fulfilling as a
prosperous profession.

According to a new research conducted in the UK, although many young
people today focus on education and career for a sense of
fulfillment and accomplishment, it may be just as well achieved
through family life.
...

Read more!

Dirigible -- that's an airship, right?

“Precedent, n.
In Law, a previous decision, rule or practice which, in the absence of a definite statute, has whatever force and authority a Judge may choose to give it, thereby greatly simplifying his task of doing as he pleases.
As there are precedents for everything, he has only to ignore those that make against his interest and accentuate those in the line of his desire.
Invention of the precedent elevates the trial-at-law from the low estate of a fortuitous ordeal to the noble attitude of a dirigible (capable of being directed; steerable) arbitrament.”

(Look here for the Devil's Dictionary :
http://www.larkrise.co.uk/ddict.php?letter=P)

That last sentence seems to give a lot of people problems because it contains a couple of strange words used in rare ways. It could be rewritten to say:
"(The) invention of the Precedent aggrandizes a court trial from a difficult experience to find justice to a directable arbitration (of the prejudices of the judge or magistrate.)"

In other words, the guiding principle of Common Law, the eminent Precedent, only serves to allow the magistrate define 'Justice for All' any way he or she wishes on the day.

Read more!

Yes, there are only bad fathers

Yes, there are only bad fathers, please read
(reproduced here with permission from a fathers4equality Australia posting)

Email to federal Minister Mal Brough

Dear Sir

My youngest daughter was born in February 1992 and having already a 3 year old daughter I was the richest man in the world and it was a.lso the start of a nightmare which lasts til today and will last forever.

Upon hearing of the arrival of my little one my parents who live in Holland asked if they could come over for her 1st birthday. I said of course and took the news to my now ex wife (name withheld).

Her answer upon hearing this still is as clear as when it was said at the time, her answer was " NO, I don't want them here, they are to stressful and it is my house!"

I was completely taken back by that comment, because my parents have been nothing but nice and generous to her. I let it rest for a few days and thought it would pass, but it never did. She was adamant they were not welcome, but these were my parents and my daughters as well, plus my house also.

My parents came over anyway and why shouldn't they? It was then how it became clear that (name withheld)would stop at nothing and went even so far that she was overheard telling my then 3 year old daughter to call my mother all sorts of names.

Everyone was astounded by what (name withheld)did, but instead of accepting she did something wrong she turned completely the other way. For the next 5 years, there were off and on periods where she made my oldest daughter say things to me in particular, hurtful things, but I never blamed my daughter for it.

June/July 2000 I took my daughters to see their family in Holland, they were spoiled rotten by everyone.

In August that year it was my turn to drop the girls off to school and I can still see the innocence in my then 8 year old daughters eyes when she said " Daddy, opa and oma are dirt, I never liked my holidays with them" . My world collapsed that day and I loved that little girl even more if that was possible, because I very well knew what happened again.

Upon returning from dropping them off at school, I confronted (name withheld)with it and this is what she said with a smile on her face " Well what are you going to do about it"

I was completely dumbfounded by so much hatred.

To make it short, I thought for this woman to stop this kind of thing, I have to leave. I have to take away the reason in her using her daughter in such a way.

I was wrong in thinking that was enough.

(Name withheld)hasn't stopped, even being separated and divorced since 2000, she still continues using her daughters.

We had shared care as we had agreed on verbally. Everything went well until February 2005. I just came back from Holland and Switzerland with my daughters, where we spend a white Christmas and New Year with my family.

Suddenly I was getting emails from (name withheld)that she wanted more money, even though the amount was set by the CSA based on both incomes and level of care, plus (name withheld)got all the Government benefits.

Then one day when it was my turn to have the girls and pick them up from school, they were not there. I rang (name withheld)house and asked if she knew where they were by mobile phone while I was waiting at the school. She told me she already picked them up and that the girls didn't want to stay with me anymore.

As it turned out later, she told the girls that I had abandoned them and didn't want to look after them anymore and hence their mother had to pick them up.

What ever I did, (name withheld)refused flatly to let me have care of my daughters and whisked them as far away as Victoria (we all live in Adelaide) all in order for me not to have care. It became obvious as of to why later in the year as of to why she did this, because she immediately claimed for sole care with the CSA.

Later that year the girls came back to me again, but then of course (name withheld)had already accumulated enough nights having these girls in her care, so she could claim sole care. CSA immediately gave her that, no questions asked. The moment the sole care level of child support was taken out of my pay, she let the girls come back and things went back to what it was, apart from me having to pay her the full amount of sole care, because
everything is based on previous financial year.

I complaint to the CSA and it was agreed that it would change to substantial level of care, which was still way above the amount of shared care, so I applied for the first time for Government benefits.

The moment I did this, (name withheld)once again with held care and told my daughters things that were simply untrue.

I recently found out that (name withheld)has friends ( both women I saw in a personal relationship) who send her letters and emails with the most foul slander you can imagine.

I received a copy from someone of one of those letters. In those letters, I'm accused of being the cause of women attempting suicide, attempting to steal their houses, beating them up etc. The person who handed me over that copy was absolutely disgusted, because she knew none of it was true and it was just pure slander.

That letter also claimed that I do things to my daughters (name withheld)shows my daughters these kind of letters by her friends in order to "prove" to her children they are better off not being with me and what a nasty person I am.

I can categorically state that I had to pick up my daughters, especially the oldest one from (name withheld)place of abode several dozen times for various reasons. Some being (name withheld)drunk inside the house and spewing all over the place, forcing the girls to go with her to single parties, having (name withheld)drive drunk and scare the girls.

One night my oldest daughter ran away from her house and (name withheld)didn't even know she was gone for several hours and this happened in winter at night, Thank God my daughter was found by a taxi driver who took her to the police. I didn't know anything about this until (name withheld)stood on my doorstep at night with a heavily upset little girl. (name withheld)explained what happened and I told her this won't be mentioned anywhere or to anyone and took care off my daughter by taking days off work.

The following Monday when I dropped the girls off to school I was approached by a parent I only knew from seeing her and was told what a scumbag I am for making my daughter run away from her mothers place.

As things stand now I haven't seen my girls for months because they don't want to be with me after their mother showing them emails and that letter from those friends of (name withheld). My little one had a puppy with me who ran away and somehow (name withheld)managed to convince my little girls that it was all my fault and that I deliberately let that puppy run away which in turn has (name withheld)now claiming I broke my little girls heart.

Police is absolutely powerless and found out the law is powerless as well, I explained everything to the CSA, because I simply cannot keep up with the amount of child support I have to pay, which of course is what (name withheld)is after. The only thing I got from the CSA was, if I behave like (name withheld)it would look bad on my record.

I really am completely stuck and have no other option than just to look on how my daughters are being manipulated, used and abused by their mother. I have completely exhausted every possible avenue and have only one option left for (name withheld)to stop using and abusing my daughters and Government Agencies.

I really have no other option than to return to Holland. I thought divorcing (name withheld)would stop what she was doing but her hatred has no limits and what she is doing is apparently completely legal.

Well I really do prefer to have my daughters hate me and believe I have abandoned them, than to watch by and see them continue being used and abused.

I have been financially and emotionally bled dry and all legally by (name withheld).

I already knew (name withheld)wanted me to leave the country and tried to do so. I really have no other choice in the matter anymore, legally and financially I am completely stuck at the dead end. I cannot find any Government Agency that is will to sit down with (name withheld)and say, stop, that's enough.

And when I told (name withheld)about my intentions, something she was after for years, she ends with, well I make sure the CSA will catch up with you there as well.

Yes I am a real bad father, a father who thanks to the wonderful system in this country is forced to leave his daughters.
And yes this is a real life happening scenario - I have to be gone by the end of the year

Your system let mother like (name withheld)do what they do and nothing gets done about it.

Yes women like (name withheld)get all the help in this country, fathers like me are being driven away from his daughters.

Thanks for nothing

Rene Oldenburger

When I read this letter, it was as if I had written it myself.

In order to respect the possibility that this issue may in the future again be before the courts, the mother in question's name has been replaced with "(name withheld)".

Rene speaks simply and eloquently about what he experienced. I know the tone too well. Once, in the same forced, pain-filled tone, I wrote about my own experience. I wrote about the two long years of abuse, and the mindless brutal prejudice I encountered.
I can tell you the words come hard, from the gut and the heart. They come through tears from trembling fingers, wrenching themselves out of from the gut and the heart one letter at a time.

The words fail Rene as he writes, I know. They do not speak of all the feelings involved.
There is resentment and anger in these words, but the sense of betrayal is largely hidden.
Because of the many betrayals, he may not realize for a while that he has lost faith. Faith in love; faith in justice; faith in his own reasons. I wonder if he will ever find a sense of happiness again. It will be hard.
He will have to search for joy and passions, even interest in beautiful things will take years to return.

The lawyers and the courts reduce it all to ugly fantasms and money. Money is really all they seek. Lives and love become forms to fill out; become unwritten lists to fulfill to keep their jobs. The thinking is the same as the concentration camp guards who checked in Jews at Auschwitz and Burchenaw.
And these sick minds do it all under the veil of "Justice", just as those guards were only obeying the law.

I really don't need to wonder if Mal Brough will answer this email. If he is like nearly all of the ministers in the Australian government, he won't bother. If he sees it, at most he will have a cynical laugh with one of the office staff.
Rene is obviously not rich. It really doesn't matter that he is not an Australian. In the view of the Australian government officials, that means he isn't worth the time to scrape dog excrement off a shoe.
I know.

Rene approached the police for help.

All this is reaching the levels of total absurdity.

The Police Family and Child Protection unit is in possession of that letter that was send to me ex. Letters and emails from mental health professionals regard my ex as mentally abusing my daughters.

And what do the police say?

They sympathise but there is nothing that they can do, I get to hear that I should just cop it all and hope 10 years down the track my daughters will get the picture.

And that comes from the Police CHILD Protection unit. I say boo to my ex and the coppers will be all over me like a rash.

And like literally hundreds of thousands of other Australians concluded:

Yep, although I like to stress, this is not about me. This is about my girls, I do not know what this does to them mentally. It's where the entire system falls down.

Adults can do this to children and it's all legal. I have been told by mental health professionals that what the ex does with the help of her friends in writing those letters and emails is mental abuse, and it is
legal. How will they grow up, how ill they interact later in life when they see their mother getting away with it.

Sick thing about the ex is - reply I got was - "Well, I make sure the CSA will get you there as well."

The hatred is unhealthy, unhealthy for my children.

I have heard that there are even worse cases and that the other parent won't stop until the other party is dead and buried. Now in my opinion that is murder by stealth and it is legal. I'm dumbfounded by so much hatred of the ex and the entire system allows it to happen.

Read more!

Dysfunctional

You cannot build reason by only one fact, twisting all things around it.
What will happen if you try is to trap oneself in prejudice, ignorance, and ultimately leave only love and hate. The problem is, neither you nor anyone else will be able to tell if what you express is love or hate, only the adamant ignorance of prejudice will be clear.
Such thinking is psychotic.

There is no simple, absolute truth.
Reason is a matter of understanding the myriad principles that may impact on a situation, then applying those principles to the unique situation. If the conclusions are too often the same, one has to question the principles being applied. Only mechanical devices act the same way every time. Humans are not machines, unless it can be said that they are dichotomous machines. Machines that react to the same structures and motivations differently for no apparent reason.
If you are religiously inclined, you might say that only God knows all the reasons.

Parents

All parents love their children. Parents are genetically bound to their children in ways we as human beings have yet to find adequate words to describe.
But how they express that love depends on their own life and experience. Some parents love their children in destructive ways.

Not all mothers love their children, at least in the ways we commonly think of love being expressed. Some are too damaged to love them positively. They may be too greedy, angry, or frightened to love their children in healthy ways.
Not all fathers love their children, at least in ways we commonly think of love being expressed. Some are too damaged to love them positively. They may be too greedy, angry, or frightened to love their children in healthy ways.
At any given time, all parents react like that, whether women or men. At any given time, all parents do not.

Children are dependent, and that in itself can be repulsive to some parents. The emotion such people express towards their children is resentment. Anyone who has ever said, "When the children grow up, I can start living again." is expressing such resentment. What they, and generally all of us, refuse to see is that the children know their feelings.

The resulting relationship is dysfunctional.
The children grow up with a confused and frustrated attitude towards their parents, which is transferred to the same attitude towards the world. In their desperation to make sense of the world around them, these people -- like their parents -- cling to ugly simple 'facts' about the world around them.

No amount of peer pressure or spoken wisdom will penetrate this void inside them without years of awareness and effort, or some traumatic event shaking them to their very core. Even then, the tendency to hide behind the easy veil of prejudice may prove too strong.
Because of peer pressure, it may be easier for such people to love the children of others positively while abandoning their roles as good parents for their own children. It is not rational, but it is true.

No law can be written to dictate wisdom. To pretend that such a law can be written is to condemn the society to prejudice. The best a law can do it punish. Punishment is not wisdom, for either childen or adults.

The fear of dominating some small person can be terrifying. Yet the child needs to be dominated, guided, or shown how; or the child will be hurt. Yet some seem to think that they can dominate, guide, and show adults how without any damage.

Roles

The role of a parent is never simple or easy. One answer to every question is not the way. Trying to have an answer to every question can destroy trust (-- There is a telecom ad on TV where the father makes up an answer for his son about the Great Wall of China. --) even if the parent only wants the child to know that he or she can be depended on for all the answers.

The hardest part may be for the parent, of either sex, to be responsible for their own words and actions.
There are those who express their strength by never saying they are sorry. If they cannot say they are sorry to their peers for small things, how can they say they are sorry to those they dominate on anything?
There is a saying: "If you want to know a man (or woman), don't look at how s/he treats his peers; look to how s/he subordinates."

My favorite definition of an adult is: "An adult is responsible for the results of their actions."
It does not matter for good intentions, caution, attention, rules, or the judgment of others. No excuse makes an adult less responsible for the results of their actions. An adult must start from the results, and move forward.

Domination ends

If it sounds hard being a parent, imagine what it means being a child -- who must depend on such imperfect beings for protection, food and shelter, knowledge and wisdom.

Somewhere around the age of 12, the parents' domination ends. About that age, the child decides for him/herself what s/he will learn, in the home and in the schools. Wise parents relinquish the emotional need to protect and dominate, and seek more to guide their children, relying on trust and respect. If the parents have been too pretentious when the children are younger, or have shown too much fear of one another or some other aspect of their world, they will never adequately have their children's respect and trust.
Like all human beings, children remember the failings, and take the successes for granted.

When an outside force in society takes away the authority -- the trust and respect -- of parents from the children, the harm is nearly always permanent. It results in psychotic children. If there is a simple way of describing the failings of communism, this may be it. Communism put the state above the parents.
For a successful democracy, the government must always remain subject to the will of adults, and especially parents.
When the child grows and seeks a penultimate power, a dominant role model to depend on, the child cannot look to government. A child that follows such reasoning will see all people, including him- or herself, objectified, as only pieces in a game beyond their control. -- That is not democracy.
At the end of the day, a successful parent has taught a child how to be wrong as well as right. That is democracy.

How to be wrong

Too often, people are taught to hide or ignore their mistakes, not seek them out as a means to learn from them. Forced to admit a mistake, an error in judgment or oversight, too often people seek someone else to blame.
Parents who teach their children to blame others are 'perfect.' The children learn to be co-dependent and reclusive -- living in denial of what they see with their own eyes.
If this sort of interaction is kept between individuals, they are psychopaths. If the fear that is generated from this confusion includes objectified groups of people, they are sociopaths -- or, more correctly, we hope they are.

The personal is political

Parents, and governments, who teach children to accept and face their errors give the children a wonderful gift: the ability to respect themselves and others without being 'perfect.'
When a person is wrong, the only healthy course is to is admit it, then seek to atone for the errors. This applies to government, individuals, and any grouping of human beings.
In the end, this is an easier way to handle the smallest error or the largest.

The law, which forces atonement through the courts, only teaches that people should never be responsible for their own actions. The law and courts will be the hated symbols of responsibility.
If government follows this attitude, then law enforcement and laws begin to attempt to control too much of everyday life -- in effect, forcing every person to fit within the few rationalized roles that can be defined in law. Essentially, reducing all people to machines.
Such attitudes in the law strip the individual of responsibility for their own words and actions.
Any parent can tell what will happen next. The children become bitter, rebellious, and depressed.

Governments, just like individuals, must pro-actively seek to acknowledge their errors and atone for the results to those who have been harmed.
Governments, like parents, can do harm to whole generations. The most important choice the person in error can make is how to make atonement. It is too easy to simply say that what harm is done is past, and to look more hopefully to the future. That ignores the fact that the future is shaped by the past. But to dwell too long in the past will make it impossible to deal with the present. -- Again, one principle must be weighed against another, and a judgment made that surely satisfies the demands of all.


There are, of course, other words or better terms for what is being said here. Please feel free to explore them. There is no absolute truth here. At best, a few principles are expressed.

PD

Read more!

Do parallel universes really exist?

In the Family Court of Australia

(from one of the assigned observers of the FCoA:)

Strange sensations. Today I entered a parallel universe.
The same Court building, same personnel. Everything was identical to what it had been for many years. But in this parallel universe, I watched Interim hearings.
Strange new words keep ringing out ‘substantial and significant contact’ until I became bored by their repetition.
Family reports being ordered that had to include the concept of shared parenting.

I heard strange and wonderful things.
In an Interim hearing a Father with a Son not yet 3 years of age being giving orders that allowed 5 nights overnight contact every 14 days! Checking. Yes, my watch was right. Daylight. And .. No this was another dimension, -- No Court ever does that.
The Father decides to withdraw his residency application, and the Court orders a Family Report based on Shared Care.

No, no, no .. This does not happen, perhaps it was not a parallel universe. Perhaps I was delusional And perhaps someone had slipped some hallucinogenic drug into my morning coffee.
I watched a couple agree to 3 and 4 day per week split for a 2 year old before going to a Final Hearing.
At one stage my mind connected with the Federal Magistrate and I read his thoughts about what he wanted to say. “Don’t waste any more money on Lawyers; ask me now for 50/50, Stop fighting and I can sign it in now."

This could not be the Family Courts of Australia -- But then I realised it was. It was. Really, it was the Family Courts of Australia.
I was listening to the application of the New Act. In 2 months the world had changed. I realised whatever had gone before was the old World, today was the new one.

Sometimes, after you mop up your own blood off the floor, you can't help smiling.

Read more!

My Letter to the Australian

Posted by: "PartTimeParent" PartTimeParent@pobox.com parttimeparent
Mon Sep 4, 2006 6:35 am (PST)

I was disappointed to see The Australian publish a one-sided piece of domestic violence propaganda. Here is my reply.

(PS Some of you will recognise parts I have copied from other posts... I don't mind anybody using my work for the cause, I hope nobody is offended)

Letters to the Editor

I am disappointed to read Kellie Bisset's one-sided piece, "Dealing with Domestic Abuse" (Australian Sept 2nd). Her article beats the familiar drum about an epidemic of abuse of women. The problem with this is summarised with the old saying, "If you look hard enough for something, eventually you find it".

It is obvious that the most abused thing is not women, but the truth.
Domestic violence statistics are wonderfully rubbery. The misuse of statistics by Feminasties (Nasty Feminists) who have latched on to domestic violence as proof of their theories of men as patriarchal abusers and women as their victims.

In hospitals in Sydney, NSW for instance, women presenting to hospitals with injuries must by law be asked questions about domestic violence. Men presenting with injuries to hospitals are asked no such questions. The results - by law - are therefore completely skewed. This is the source of the figures Kellie quoted.

The recently released Personal Safety Survey by the trusted Australian Bureau of Statistics. Is one of many studies that ask women and men about violence. And guess what? The figures are as you expect, men are more often the victims of violence than women, not the other way around.

Approximately one in 10 men (10%) and one in 20 women (4.7%) experienced physical violence (includes being threatened or assaulted) according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics survey.

This reflects the balanced research from around the world that shows that men and women are pretty much equally likely to be the perpetrator, or victim of domestic violence.

A useful summary of this research examines 189 scholarly investigations: 146 empirical studies and 43 reviews and/or analyses, which demonstrate that women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their relationships with their spouses or male partners. The aggregate sample size in the reviewed studies exceeds 174,300.


The most precious and most vulnerable people in our society are our children. What is really disturbing is the fact the the vast majority of abuse of children is perpetrated by women. No one is condoning domestic violence. But no social problem is solved by the one-eyed misuse of statistics or by the advocacy research of the well funded "nasty feminists".

A useful summary of FemiNasty myths are refuted below (for the full list, email James Adams)

James ADAMS (PartTimeParent)
Media - www.Fathers4equalit y-Australia. org
PartTimeParent@ pobox.com
Ph 0417 258 364 Sydney, Australia

Read more!

Female Friendly Australia

In 1996, the Australian Institute of Health & Welfare first published figures on the gender and biological relationship of the perpetrators of abuse against a child victim: 968 men and 1138 women.

In the following year, 1997, the AIH&W stopped publishing the figures delineated by gender and biological relationship to the child. Other than parent or non-parent there is simply no information on the gender and the biological relationship of child abuse perpetrators. -- e.g., biological mother, biological father, uncle, auntie, brother, sister, step father, step mother etc.

The reason given was at best flimsy, especially considering the period in question is a full decade. The omission was justified on the wobbly basis that only one state (WA) and two territories (ACT & NT) had furnished figures and a lack of publishing space.

I asked the researchers on the fathers4equality for the answer to a simple question after reading study after study from abroad:
Where was the Australian evidence that women are as abusive as men? The answer is in the words above.

That decade corresponds with another significant event in contemporary Australian politics. It is the term in office of John Howard.

No one in a free society wants to believe that their leaders lie to them, although they know that one of the duties of leadership is to withhold certain information from the public. We all want to trust our leaders, and that they will tread carefully and lightly when dealing with the principles of representative government. Principles of informed consent, where an informed public votes for leaders because they believe those leaders will not mislead them.

You can almost hear the whispers

If you listen, can you hear the whispered seduction? The words that may have seduced an average man lusting for power ten years ago...

"If you will abandon the core principle of informed consent, John, and prevent the public from hearing or seeing these facts, we -- the radicals in the feminist movement -- will deliver to your coalition the all-important Women's Vote.' "
"We don't care about the principles of the 'Patriarchy', and neither do you, John. We know that. Women trust us, John, and so do many men, as you know."

"If you and your people can prevent these reports from becoming public, from being discussed in public, .. We will build a power base for women by the same methods that have already proven so effective." A moment here as speaker's and listener's eyes meet and hold; the unspoken threat to turn the same methods against the listener in the quiet.
"We don't care if the primciples of democracy are gone; nor do we care if the core principles of western law disappear. We want power, not equality. -- If we give you power, John, will you give us what we want?"
"We want a 'Female Friendly Australia', John."

Petty cowardice and lust for power have turned average men to treason in the past.

That John Howard lies to Australia about important issues has become common knowledge. He has given too many examples for anyone, even the common citizen, to ignore. The comments are in the paper daily.

Is this the Big Lie that explains why Mr Howard remains the Prime Minister of Australia? Is it not because of a grand lie told publicly, but because of what he has omitted to tell?

And the decade ran its course. Hundreds of millions of government money went into periodicals, websites, and publications to disinform the Australian public, making them believe that women were never violent; that women would never harm their own children; that women always strike out in self defense; and that all Australian men were ignorant brutes.

Money drove the whispers. Family Law became extraordinarily profitable for some law firms. Universities, TAFEs, even secondary schools found that there was always money available to propagate the disinformational themes.
But there was nothing for those who attempted to show differently. Not only was there a dearth of funding, but there were no Australian sources to dispute the radical ideals and ideas.
From abroad -- the US, UK, and Europe -- came literally hundreds of studies disputing the claims, from ever larger sample sizes, longer terms of study, and prestigious universities, institutes, and professionals.
But nothing from Australia.

Slowly, imperceptibly, the cold poison dripped ever deeper into Australian society. At first there was pain -- having to admit that such a beautiful country could be so sick -- then determination on the part of those who sought to right such wrongs, -- from young minds, average people, and into the judiciary and whole universities joined in the effort.

Personal Safety Survey

Then, for reasons still not explained, came the Personal Safety Survey of 2005 -- and the drought lifted from the land. Despite clearly biased submissions from a stream of groups seeking to ignore the harm done to men in Australia, the authors chose to include their own survey information.
It matched almost perfectly with the broad range of international scholarship (over 260 studies) from the past decade.
And it denied the claims of hundreds of millions of dollars of Australian taxpayer money that had been spent to keep Australians disinformed, frightened and angry. It put the lie to the Big Lie perpetrated on the Australian public.
The greatest question is: Why?
Why did it take over a decade for this sort of information to come out? Why is this information in the Personal Safety Survey suddenly? -- Was someone getting too close to the truth?

There is an old saying that real politicians only move when they are forced to move. They stay away from failures and cling to successes. When a success becomes a failure, the real politicians are nowhere to be found.
Is some truth about to be revealed? Is this why Howard and company seem to be dissembling over Telstra and Medibank in such a mad rush? Are there political debts that must be paid before the facts unfold?

What is the tautology of the 'Female Friendly Australia' plan? Who made these decisions within the government? Who are the strategists outside the government who orchestrated and executed this plan?


There is that old saying going around these days: A great society first destroys itself from within.

Read more!

The Dialogue of Rights

It's time to do a little more Myth Busting. Dr Michael Flood is more a propagandist than a social commentator. Fortunately, it isn't hard to see how much he has to stretch the truth to make his points.

From Michael Flood's Factsheet No 3:

Summary

Fathers’ rights groups have attempted to;

Wind back the legal protections available to victims of violence;
Wind back the legal sanctions imposed on perpetrators of violence.

While fathers’ rights groups often claim to speak on behalf of male victims of domestic violence, these efforts undermine the policies and services that would protect and gain justice for these same men.

Fathers’ rights advocates also;

Make excuses for perpetrators;
Act as direct advocates for perpetrators or alleged perpetrators of violence against women;
Use abusive strategies themselves;
Work to undermine and harass the services and institutions that work with the victims and survivors of violence.

As you can tell by this blog, I've been reading a lot about the Fathers' Rights Groups over the last couple of years. And in the literally thousands of articles I've read, people I've talked to face to face, and not once has anyone made excuses for perpetrators, or voiced a wish to be an advocate for perpetrators.
If asking for equal protections under the law -- beginning with the assumption of innocence until proven guilty -- is an abusive strategy or works to undermine or harass services and institutions that work with the (alleged, and more often shown to be false) victims and survivors of violence, then Mr Flood is right.
If these many discriminatory and prejudiced "the policies and services that would protect and gain justice for these same men" were in fact gaining justice for these men, then my own experience with these policies and services would not be reflected across hundreds of thousands of instances for men, women, and families across Australia.
These policies and services do not gain justice for these men, nor their children and new families -- or there would be no need for the rising tide of men's rights and family rights groups.

Otherwise, this is pure horse apples.

This is no "Factsheet"

This is no "Factsheet." It's a propaganda piece. It begins with disinformation, then builds on its own misrepresentations.

And Mr Flood has a mentor and guiding light in its form and strategy: Ross Irvine. You can find Mr Irvine's reproduced on Flood's other site under Newsletters, where he lays out how to use name-calling and disinformation along with Astroturfing.

They come up with: “Call them suicide bombers…make them all look like terrorists… tree-hugging, dope-smoking, bloody university graduate, anti-progress…”
and “Spot the flake. Find someone who would represent the enemy but clearly doesn’t know what the issue is… find a sixteen-year- old” and “distract the activist with side issues… and make enemies within the enemy camp so they spend all their time fighting and that helps to deepen their disorganisation.”

(from "Grassroots versus Astroturf - Discrediting Democracy", by Katherine Wilson -- edited and reproduced as "Activism: How to beat them at their own game" on Dr Flood's website in Newsletter No 4)

Mr Flood is a one-man Astroturfing machine. He has participated in the creation of numerous small organizations and websites portraying disinformation. Whereever you find his name associated with a report or website, the same intellectualization of discrimination against men will appear.
And he does a lot of the work himself. Flood has a growing number of websites and articles. He calls himself a "pro-feminist", yet his writing is not in line with the mainstream feminist goals of equality in society and under the law.

What is Astroturfing?

First, let's look at the attitude behind it:

The PRIA’s David Hawkins says, “The challenge, I think, from what Ross is saying, is… we need to work out how we can break the law to do these things”. ... “What Ross is saying is that we need to be activists too, expand our networks to actually change the legislation”
...
This could be done with what Bush flacks call ‘the firehose method’ — bombarding the media with issues, information and press conferences so they don’t have the resources to interview alternative sources.

This is Astroturfing:

We discuss Astroturfing. Named after a synthetic lawn, it’s the creation of bogus community groups or independent authorities who endorse (the goals of the disinformation strategy), recruit lesser-informed citizens, confuse the debate and make the real community groups appear extreme.

You can find these groups all over the Net.
It makes you wonder though, what will these sincere community activists and even feminists think when they realize they've been duped by false statistics and even funded by government to unfair and even inhumane ends?
You have to wonder how they'll feel when they find they were chosen because they were "lesser-informed citizens", or "flakes."

Mr Flood is asserting here that hundreds of thousands of Australians are seeking to protect "perpetrators" of domestic violence and abuse. Look at your neighbors and friends. Look to all the people you know. Can you find one that wants to do that?

Read more!