Un site ultra anti-feministe contre la misandrie!
masculinisme

"Quand la vérité n'est pas libre, la liberté n'est pas vraie."   Jacques Prévert   








Mettez ce widget sur votre blog

extreme

eXTReMe Tracker

le Podcast de Patschef


Subscribe Free
Add to my Page

 

 

 

techno2

Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide. – John Adams (1814)

False Domestic Violence Accusations Can Lead To Parental Alienation Syndrome

25 Nov 2009
False Domestic Violence Accusations Can Lead To Parental Alienation Syndrome

Source: American Chronicle:  

David Heleniak - October 18, 2007

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=40678   

 

False domestic violence (DV)restraining orders can lead to Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS), a pattern ofthoughts and behavior that can develop in a child ofseparated parents where the custodial parent causes the child to unjustifiablyfear and/or hate the other parent. Parental Alienation Syndrome(PAS) is a pattern of thoughts and behavior that candevelop in a child of separated parents where the custodial parent causes thechild, through manipulation and access blocking, to unjustifiably fear and/orhate the other parent. PAS is more than brainwashing, in that the child comesto actively participate in the degradation of the target parent, coming up withoriginal (often ludicrous) reasons to fear/hate him or her. Domestic violence (DV)restraining orders are a perfect weapon for an alienating parent. Typically, inaddition to removing an accused abuser from the marital home, a DV restrainingorder also "temporarily" bars the accused abuser from seeing his orher children, and "temporarily" gives the accusing parent exclusivephysical custody. And temporary, in the Family Court, has a funny way ofbecoming permanent. Obtaining a restraining orderbased on a false allegation of domestic violence gets the target parent out ofthe house and out of the picture. A father who can't see his kids, for example,is unable to rebut the lie "Daddy doesn't love you anymore. That's why heleft you." Nor can he rebut the alternate lie, "Daddy is dangerous.The wise judge said so. That's why he can't see you." Often, if an accused abuser isallowed to see his or her children, it is in a supervised visitation center. As Stan Rains observed in "SupervisedVisitation Center Dracula," "The demeaningof the 'visiting' parent is readily visible from the minute that a personenters the 'secured facility' with armed guards, officious case workers withtheir clipboards and arrogant, domineering managers.... The child's impressionis that all of these authority figures see Daddy as a serious and dangerousthreat. The only time a child sees this type of security is on TV showingprisons filled with bad people." Not only does visitation in a visitation center send the clear message to the child that the"visiting" parent is a bad person, if children decline to see theirparents under such a setting, they are generally not forced to do so. Moreperversely, if a child is encouraged by the custodial parent to refuse to seethe target parent, there will be no significant repercussion to the targeting parent, and, generally, the child will not be forced to seethe target parent. The more time a child spendsaway from the alienated parent, the worse the alienation will become. Aspsychologist Glenn F. Cartwright remarked in his article "Expanding theParameters of Parental Alienation Syndrome," "the old adage that timeheals all wounds, such is not the case with PAS, where the passage of timeworsens rather than heals the affliction. This is not to say that time isunimportant: on the contrary, time remains a vital variable for all theplayers. To heal the relationship, the child requires quality time with thelost parent to continue and repair the meaningful association that may haveexisted since birth. This continued communication also serves as a realitycheck for the child to counter the effects of ongoing alienation at home.Likewise, the lost parent needs time with the child to ensure that contact isnot completely lost and to prevent the alienation from completely destroyingwhat may be left of a normal, loving relationship.... The alienating parent, onthe other hand, requires time to complete the brainwashing of the child withoutinterference. The manipulation of time becomes the prime weapon in the hands ofthe alienator who uses it to structure, occupy, and usurp the child's time toprevent 'contaminating' contact with the lost parent, depriving both of their rightto spend time together and furthering the goal of total alienation. Unlikecases of child abuse where time away from the abuser sometimes helps inrepairing a damaged relationship, in PAS time away from the lost parentfurthers the goal of alienation. The usual healing properties of time are lostwhen it is used as the primary weapon to inflict injury on the lost parent byalienating the child." Along these lines, Dr. Richard A. Gardner, whocoined the term "Parental Alienation Syndrome" in 1985, maintained:"If there is to be any hope of their reestablishinga relationship with the targeted parent, PAS children must spend significanttime with him (her). They must have living experiences that will demonstratethat the PAS parent is not noxious and/or dangerous." A parent willing to falselyaccuse the other parent of domestic violence would probably be willing topoison a child against him or her. Add to this the problem that a judge willingto "err on the side of caution" by entering a DV restraining orderbased on a dubious false allegation would probably not be willing to do whatwas necessary to prevent the development of PAS. 

PAS is heart-wrenching and,tragically, common. If the DV restraining order system could be reformed sothat only real victims obtained restraining orders and only real abusers werethrown out their houses, I predict that the number of PAS cases would begreatly reduced. Let's tryto get there.

Confronting Matriarchy

25 Nov 2009

Confronting Matriarchy and The False Premise of Feminism

Tuesday, November 17, 2009By zed 
 All of western culture is ruled by a vast and invisible matriarchy operating from the shadows so its actions are nearly invisible. The foundations of this Matriarchy are maternal authority and women’s Superiority Complex. From the moment of birth, men are taught to defer to maternal authority. As soon as they enter public school, they confront almost exclusively female teachers whose absolute authority over the classroom is enforced by what few men are part of the public education system. In high school, young males are usually exposed to a few male teachers whose own exercise of authority is quite different from their female counterparts. Male teachers often handle discipline problems in the classroom at a much lower level than female teachers, who tend to escalate matters to male administrators if their hegemony is challenged.Men who marry usually find their wives expecting the mantle of maternal authority to be simply handed over to them by and from the man’s mother without missing a beat. It sometimes takes many battles for a man to make the point to a new wife that she is his spouse and equal, not his mother. Women who stubbornly insist on being slow learners on this issue set up oppositional and adversarial positions which often will poison the marriage over time. Women expect to be able to make the rules and simply expect men to obey them. Men who assert themselves and demand some degree of regard and consideration for their point of view will often have to fight the battle for recognition over, and over, and over.When feminists realized that they were about to overthrow women’s own matriarchal power base with their initial anti-marriage and anti-motherhood stances, they did an abrupt about-face and embraced motherhood even more fervently than they had rejected it just a few years before.Matriarchy has now taken over the court system as feminist “jurisprudence” has replaced objective facts with female feelings as the relevant criteria for determining guilt or innocence. A woman’s emotional state has even become adequate defense against charges of murder, and women have a multitude of emotional defenses, ranging from the abuse excuse to PMS, which literally allow them to get away with murdering men, children, and other women.Matriarchy depends on shadow power. It must deny its power and function from the shadows. All matriarchal power stems from the maternal role and maternal authority, and the power to grant or deny sex.Foundations of Female Power1. The Mating Dance – Sexual Power2. Maternal Authority – Moral Power3. Control of the Education/Socialization system – Indoctrination Power4. The Male Protector Role – The Power of Weakness5. The Rescue Reflex – Victim Power6. Unfair Fighting – Confusion Power,  Tantrum Power7. Emotional Terrorism and Violence – Intimidation Power 8. Betrayal – Shock and disappointment Power

 

Foundations of Male Powerlessness -1. Denial of Fear2. Fear of Isolation3. The need to convince, have credibility, be acceptable, receive validation.As boys, men are separated from other males; fathers particularly, terrorized and isolated, and told that the only source of emotional sustenance and intimacy is with women and in sexual union. This places a great deal of power in the hands of women, which is difficult to resist the temptation to abuse.As men confront the totally changed male and female roles that are the legacy of feminism, women are going to lose a lot of their historic moral power. Confronting the Matriarchy involves shedding light on its workings – naming the vague purpose behind the behavior intended to confuse and obfuscate.Feminism is based on false premises:* That, historically, men as a group or class had more power than women as a group or class.* That the very structure of social institutions reflected this and gave all men more power than any woman* That what was true of any man was true of all men* That all men were responsible, culpable, and shared the guilt for any and all bad acts by any and all men.* That all women are inherently good and smart, and all men inherently evil and stupidFalse premises cannot lead to anything except false conclusions.  Actions and social policy based on these will not produce the desired results, but rather the opposite or totally unpredictable results.The truth is that power within any society is not divided horizontally, but vertically.  Society is a pyramid structure with the majority of people at the base of the pyramid, and progressively fewer people the farther up one goes.  At each level, there was a subtle, complex, and dynamic balance of power between men and women.From about the middle of the 2nd decade of life, through about the middle to end of the 4th, women have an inborn advantage in power based on the structure of courtship, the human mating dance.  Men must seek and court women’s favor in order to have an outlet for their drives to reproduce and continue the species.  Women are able to demand resources from men in return for this outlet, which implies that they demand for men to compete with other men for control of those resources.  The pea hidden under the rapidly moving shells of this sexual-power shell game is the fact that once men had these resources, they usually turned control of them over to women. Now, women are being encouraged to compete with men directly for these resources, just like men compete with other men, as well as to hold on to the power to make men turn over the resources they have competed with other men, as well as women, to acquire.  It will not work, and it cannot work – because it attempts to deny, refute, and change the behavior and preferences of the majority of women.  First, it simply means that most men just have fewer resources to give to women.  Competition makes it a lot tougher to get them.  Second, the bar has been raised for women to expect MORE, while LESS is what is available.  Women are disappointed.  …Boo hoo.  Grow up and get over it.

 

While the short-term balance of power has shifted in women’s favor, justified by always being able to refer to a distorted interpretation of history to prove that women of today deserve such an imbalance to make up for things “suffered” not by them but by their ancestresses, it will not and cannot remain so for long.  Men will find ways to get their power back – and the number one way has been to decrease women’s power in the traditional ways that females have had power over men:  in sexual interaction and in social pampering of women, also known as “chivalry.”As women invade men’s former spheres of power, and demand equal share, so do men push back against women’s traditional spheres of power – personal, particularly sexual, relationships.  When women bailed out of their traditional roles so did men.  If women had no need of a man to protect and provide for them, they certainly didn’t need commitments from men to do so.Besides, commitments are only binding on one side – the male side.  Women were encouraged to see marriage as a form of “oppression” and leaving it as a form of “self-expression.”  The more astute and intelligent among men thought that just skipping over the “oppression” stage and letting women “self-express” from the get-go made much more sense.  Why cave in to a woman’s demands to get married when she is going to come in a few years to hate the man for allowing her to pressure him to letting him “oppress” her?  Makes no sense at all.  But, then, feminism refutes the very existence of something like sense as “patriarchal” or “androcentric.”As women have gained power in the worlds of business and politics, they have lost it in personal relationships.  The old traditional notions of male-female interdependency were equally binding on men and women, and when women broke those bonds they broke men’s at the same time.  Like the old Joni Mitchell song, “Big Yellow Taxi” says, “you don’t know what you’ve got ’til it’s gone.”  The men who adapted early and well to the new visions of total equality (and uniformity) were perfectly happy to let women support themselves, AND the children.  They gave women what women were asking for.  It just didn’t turn out to be what women wanted.Men, damn fools that many of us are, first ignored feminism expecting it to go away and collapse from its own internal contradictions and refutation of reality.  And, more than a few of them quite liked the idea of free, uncommitted, sex.  What followed was an absolute orgy of pretense and counter pretense; lie and counter-lie; manipulation and counter-manipulation.Today, many women are finally waking up to what they have lost due to feminism.  And, more than a few are calling to have it back.  Sorry, grrls – when Humpty Dumpty fell off the wall, all the kings horse and all the kings men, couldn’t put things back together the way they were, ever again.There has been a fundamental change in social values.  These values reflect the statistical average of the acts based on those values which result from billions of tiny and seemingly inconsequential decisions each day.  A woman, who decides to let man-bashing hate speech fall stupidly out of her mouth in an otherwise empty head, drops one more drop of poison into the well of relationships that everyone must drink from.  A man who overhears her likes women just a tiny bit less.  A man who might have otherwise considered asking her out on a date, decides that he really doesn’t want to date a man-basher, so the opportunity for a positive interaction between them gets passed up.Older men now tell younger ones “DON’T get married.  DON’T EVEN THINK ABOUT IT.”  The anti-male bias in law which has been used to temporarily shore up the loss of social controls of irresponsible male behavior has been used so extensively against responsible men, that more and more they just avoid situations where they might be vulnerable.And, as women get angrier and angrier over having to live up to the demands of the new world that FEMININE-ism has created for them, they just keep escalating their war on men and boys.  And men just keep moving farther away from women, and liking them less and helping them less.For more than 2000 years, Aristotle’s erroneous medical theories, his false premises, led physicians to bleed their sick patients with leeches and instruments.  The treatment itself became the cause of the disease, and more people died from too much doctoring than died from too little.FEMININE-ism is bleeding the life out of society because its premise is false.  Maleness is not the root of all evil, as they say, any more than blood was the source of disease instead of vitality, but the root of at least half the good in the world.  Women are not universally “the fairer sex,” although they probably were more moral when society demanded of them that they be, but are the root of at least half the evil in the world.The result is that FEMININE-ism has blinded society to female evil and male good.False premises cannot lead to anything but false conclusions.  Blindness to evil makes one totally vulnerable to it, and blindness to good removes it from one’s life.   

MRm

24 Nov 2009

Legalizing Misandry

23 Nov 2009
 
Legalizing Misandry

From Public Shame to Systemic Discrimination against Men

Paul Nathanson and Katherine Young

This follow-up to the bestselling Spreading Misandry critiques the impact of ideological feminism on law and government.
nathanson_legalizing.jpg

 
Lurid and sensationalized events such as the public response to Lorena Bobbitt after she cut off her abusive husband's penis, prurient fascination provoked by Anita Hill's allegations about Clarence Thomas, and the exploitation of the mass murder of fourteen women in Montreal have been processed through popular culture since the 1990s to produce pervasive misandry - contempt for men, the counterpart of misogyny.

Paul Nathanson and Katherine Young believe that this reveals a shift in the United States and Canada to a worldview based on ideological feminism, which presents all issues from the point of view of women and, in the process, explicitly or implicitly attacks men as a class. They argue that ideological feminism is silently reshaping law, public policy, education, and journalism.
Legalizing Misandry offers lively and compelling evidence to demonstrate the pervasiveness of this new thinking - from the courts, classrooms, government committees, and corporate bureaucracies to laws and policies affecting employment, marriage, divorce, custody, sexual harassment, violence, and human rights.

Paul Nathanson is a researcher, religious studies, McGill University, and author of Over the Rainbow: The Wizard of Oz as a Secular Myth of America.

Katherine K. Young is James McGill Professor, religious studies, McGill University. She has published extensively on women's issues and ethics.

Phyllis Schlafly

20 Nov 2009
Quote: Debates about same-sex marriage and gay adoptions always include the
argument that a child has the right to both a father and a mother. If that
is true, why is a child usually deprived of that right when heterosexual
couples divorce? It would seem that maintaining the father's love and
authority would be crucial when a child's life is turned upside down by
divorce. Yet, family courts routinely deprive children of one parent,
usually the father, restricting his time with his child to about six days a
month. The courts pompously assert they are invoking "the best interest of
the child," but how can it be in the best interest of children to make them
forfeit one parent?

-----------------------------------------

http://www.bendweekly.com/Opinion/8387.html

Bend Weekly (USA)
20 July 2007

Children's rights should include life with both parents
By Phyllis Schlafly

Debates about same-sex marriage and gay adoptions always include the
argument that a child has the right to both a father and a mother. If that
is true, why is a child usually deprived of that right when heterosexual
couples divorce?

It would seem that maintaining the father's love and authority would be
crucial when a child's life is turned upside down by divorce. Yet, family
courts routinely deprive children of one parent, usually the father,
restricting his time with his child to about six days a month.

The courts pompously assert they are invoking "the best interest of the
child," but how can it be in the best interest of children to make them
forfeit one parent?

We hear many pious comments about the need for fathers to be involved in
the upbringing of their children. This need should be even more important
in times of emotional stress, such as divorce, than the need for fathers to
play ball with their kids in an intact family.

Some states are considering legislation that establishes a presumption of
shared parenting whereby divorced parents divide equally both time and
authority over the children. This enables children to maintain strong ties
to both parents.

When primary or sole custody is given to the mother, the father becomes
merely a visitor in the child's life (that's why it's called "visitation"),
whose only value is to mail a paycheck and be an occasional baby sitter.
The father loses his parental authority and fades out of his own child's life.

An argument is sometimes made that shuttling back and forth between two
homes might be upsetting or a nuisance, but there is no more shuttling with
equal custody (where parents, for example, get alternating weeks) than with
the typical mother-custody/father-visitation schedule (where the father
gets two weekends a month plus some Wednesday evenings). Do the math; both
plans have about the same number of shuttles between homes.

An argument is also made that giving custody primarily to the mother
promotes stability, but the need for stability is really a reason for
shared custody. The stability of parental relationships is a great deal
more important than contact with material things.

Americans have always assumed that parents share decision-making authority
because only parents can determine what is in the best interest of their
own children. As recently as 2000, the Supreme Court in Troxel v. Granville
reaffirmed this principle and rejected the argument that a judge could
supersede a fit parent's judgment about his child's "best interest."

Nevertheless, in what Stephen Baskerville calls a "silent revolution,"
millions of divorced parents have had their fundamental right to decide
what is in the best interest of their own children taken away and given
instead to a vast array of government officials and so-called "experts"
such as judges, lawyers, psychologists, psychiatrists, social workers,
child protective services, child support enforcement agents, mediators,
counselors, parenting classes, and feminist groups.

This shift began in the 1970s after the spread of unilateral divorce was
followed by the creation of a giant federal child support-enforcement
bureaucracy. The notion that this mix of government officials and
government-appointed advisers can dictate what is the best interest of the
child rather than a child's own parents is how liberals and feminists are
fulfilling their goal that "it takes a village (i.e., the government) to
raise a child."

An example of the bias against fathers can be seen in the Responsible
Fatherhood Act of 2007 recently introduced by Sens. Barack Obama, D-Ill.,
and Evan Bayh, D-Ind. The bill mentions "child support" 65 times, but not
once does it mention parenting time, custody, visitation, or access denial.

Baskerville's new book, "Taken into Custody: The War Against Fatherhood,
Marriage, and the Family" (Cumberland House, $24.95), provides a copiously
documented description of society's injustices to children who have been
deprived of their fathers and of fathers who have been deprived of their
children. This book is a tremendous and much-needed report on how family
courts and government policies are harming children.

It is a breakthrough for shared parenting that a noncustodial father,
Robert Pedersen, was recently named runner-up in the nationwide Best Life
Magazine's "Hero Dad" Contest. Pedersen is only allowed 6 to 8 days a month
with his two children from a previous marriage.

Pedersen has devised a novel way to demonstrate the importance of fathers
to children of divorced parents. He is leading an "Equal Parenting Bike
Ride" starting in Lansing, Mich., on Aug. 11 and culminating with an Aug.
18 rally in Washington, D.C.

---

Phyllis Schlafly is a lawyer, conservative political analyst and the author
of the newly revised and expanded "Supremacists." She can be contacted by
e-mail at phyllis@eagleforum.org

Jalousie

19 Nov 2009

Un truc qui m'énerve souvent c'est la féminisation rampante de la société...jusqu'au ridicule!

Voyez plutot: Mon fils voulait visionner la nouvelle cassette vidéo de "Père-Noèl 2"... J'avais quelques soupçons quant au contenu...mais bon passons...Je là loue. Mal m'en a pris! Voilà que le Père-Noèl, pour rester Père-Noèl...(sans commentaires)...doit se trouver une dame...une Mère-Noèl!

Et voilà...ça recommence!...Après SuperMan une Superwoman...Après James Bond...Lara Croft...bref dès que parait un super héro...le voilà affublé d'une superbe "Zhérote". Et c'est peu dire, considérant le fait que ces dérivés d'originaux deviennent toujours de pâles figures qui détruisent même l'idée que les enfants avaient génération après génération de leur héro favori. Mère-Noèl me fait pitier...les féministes poussant à toujours plus de copies carbones des emblèmes masculin de l'occident, finissent toujours lamentablement par les dégrader. Les studios d'Hollywood étant maintenant entièrement à la botte du Politiquement correct Féminazi... il est maintenant impensable de trouver encore quelques idôles, mêmes imaginaires qui n'aient leur pendant féminin.

Vous savez ce que je trouve le plus atroce dans ce déclin c'est le parler faux des médias et des imbéciles qui leurs déploient le tapis rouge.

Dans "Père-Noèl 2" Père-Noèl alias Scott cherche en ville sa future femme et doit en rencontrer plusieurs...Dans un restaurant il fait la connaissance d'une femme "genre ...je sais tout"...l'emmerdeuse parfaite qui s'exhibe en public à sa façon en chantant...il lui répond gentiment qu'il ne pensait pas que c'était l'endroit pour un tel déploiement....Que fait la dame? Elle lui repond ceçi:

Ah...vous êtes cette sorte de type qui ne peut supporter l'ambition d'une femme...dans ce cas...salut...et s'en va.

Que vient faire dans un film pour enfant cette insinuation.?..vers qui était-elle destinée? Allons! nous le savons tous. Il vaut mieux casser ce qui reste d'innocence des tout petits pour faire passer un message feministe....et raciste!

En somme, le féminisme au quotidien!

L'intérêt supérieur des enfants.

15 Nov 2009

L’intérêt supérieur des enfants.

« L’état doit déclarer que les enfants sont le bien le plus précieux du peuple. Aussi longtemps que le gouvernement continuera d’être perçu comme travaillant pour leurs bénéfices, le peuple endurera sans sourciller n’importe qu’elle restreinte de liberté et toutes les privations possible. » Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf.

Comme une odeur de poissonnerie misandre.

14 Nov 2009

Comme une odeur de poissonnerie misandre.

 

 

Gnagnagni gnagnagna … vous vous rendez compte ? Quelles bandes de

salauds ! Ils osent dirent des choses horribles sur les femmes. Quels

misogynes… mon dieu… et Leo ferré et…

gnagnagni gnagnagna …

Ces vieux croûtons rabougris osent manifester leurs mécontentements. On

croyait qu’ils étaient morts. On ne les a donc pas tous assassinés ? Je suis

choqué… que dis-je… outré ?

Seules les femmes ont le droit de se plaindre. Seules les femmes sont des

victimes. C’est comme ça. Ne me demandez pas pourquoi. C’est dans la

bible féministe des lesbiennes marxistes libérées. Nah ! Les hommes

tiennent des propos nauséabonds sur les femmes. Seules les femmes ont le

droit à ces propos. D’ailleurs, mon texte dans cyberpresse, ne l’est pas

assez. J’aurai aussi dû appeler à la pendaison. Non, finalement non, car

avec le droit a l’avortement, uniquement pour les femmes, encore quelques

générations et il n’y aura plus d’occidentaux en Occident. Nah ! Bien fait !

Il ne restera que quelques reproducteurs domestiqués tenus en laisse. Ah

oui, j’oubliais, les peuples du tiers monde nous auront remplacés …

faudrait penser à les féminiser aussi. On a encore du pain sur la planche.

L’émasculation de nos hommes n’est pas encore terminée. Nous devrions

penser à l’éradication. Car, voyez-vous il y a la Burka. Ça aussi c’est la

faute des hommes occidentaux si les femmes orientales la portent. Nah !

D'ailleurs, c’est écrit dans tous les rapports commandés par des groupes

féministes.

Bon, c’est vrai qu’ils n’ont rien demandé ces masculinistes. On est allé les

chercher pour démontrer, preuve à l'appui, qu’il existe encore des hommes

virils. Ce n’est pas une raison ! Ils auraient dû se taire, ces masculinistes.

Un homme, lorsque qu’il a quelques griefs, se doit de se plier au

politiquement correct imposée par l’autre moitié de l’humanité. D'ailleurs,

seules les femmes sont vertueuses. C’est connu ! C’est dans la bible des

féministes. D'ailleurs, le mot humanité ne devrait pas exister. Féminité c’est

mieux. La terre c’est aussi féminin. Nah !

Pour joindre notre chroniqueuse : jesaistout@taisezvous.ca

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.cyberpresse.ca/arts/200911/14/01-921714-comme-uneodeur-

de-misogynie.php

Comme une odeur de misogynie

Nathalie Petrowski

La Presse

L'intelligence des femmes, c'est dans les ovaires, a déjà dit Léo

Ferré en fixant la caméra avant d'ajouter que les pires femmes de

toutes, les plus grandes salopes, étaient les femmes cultivées.

«Celles-là, je ne les laisse plus rentrer chez moi!» a-t-il tonné.

Ce morceau d'anthologie misogyne est ce qui m'a le plus édifiée en

voyant le documentaire La domination masculine du Belge Patric

Jean, présenté aujourd'hui au Musée de la civilisation à Québec et

peut-être en supplémentaire aux Rendez-vous du documentaire de

Montréal. En principe, j'aurais dû être davantage choquée par les

propos misogynes d'une poignée de vieux masculinistes québécois

piégés par le réalisateur qui s'est fait passer pour un des leurs afin

d'obtenir leurs «touchants» témoignages sur les grandes

castratrices que sont les Québécoises. Mais on dirait que je

connais tellement leur discours que je ne l'entends plus.

J'ai probablement tort. Car ces messieurs, qui sont les seuls à ne

pas être identifiés au générique de fin du film, n'ont pas disparu de

la carte comme leur ami et amateur de chimpanzés Léo Ferré. Ils

continuent de sévir chez nous et à distiller des propos toujours

aussi nauséabonds sur «ces féministes pourries» qui leur

empoisonnent la vie et qu'ils tiennent responsables de tous les

maux de la Terre, y compris sans doute de leurs problèmes

érectiles.

Reste que la tentation de ne voir en eux qu'une bande de pauvres

types probablement plaqués par leurs femmes est grande. Sans

compter qu'ils ne sont pas nombreux et que ce sont des marginaux

dont l'influence sur le consensus social est nul. Tant qu'ils broient

du noir dans l'usine de leur ressentiment privé, ils ne sont pas

dangereux, non?

À une autre époque, peut-être. Mais on observe en ce moment un

peu partout dans le monde la résurgence d'une hostilité à peine

larvée contre les femmes, qui donne froid dans le dos et va tout à

fait dans le sens des masculinistes québécois. La montée des

intégrismes religieux qui encouragent les femmes à se voiler ou à

disparaître sous la burqa et à s'effacer de la sphère publique, en

est l'exemple le plus visible, mais certainement pas le seul.

Ainsi, qu'un intellectuel aussi brillant que Tariq Ramadan,

professeur à Oxford de surcroît, préfère demander un moratoire

sur la lapidation des femmes, plutôt que de s'opposer violemment à

sa pratique, a de quoi inquiéter.

Et ce qui inquiète encore davantage, c'est que le mouvement de

ressentiment contre les femmes n'est pas que religieux. Lentement

mais sûrement, il contamine la culture populaire, aussi bien sur les

ondes de la radio poubelle, dans les vidéoclips des rappeurs qui

jouent aux grosses brutes épaisses que sur des sites à la gloire de

Marc Lépine, qui donnent même un numéro de téléphone pour

devenir membre d'une milice pour combattre la terreur que font

régner les «féminazies».

Et quand ce n'est pas de la culture trash qu'émane cette forte odeur

de misogynie, c'est du septième art et d'un grand cinéaste palmé à

Cannes qui a profité d'une dépression pour accoucher d'un film

violent et misogyne. Je parle bien entendu de Lars von Trier et de

son Antichrist qui a pris l'affiche hier au Québec.

Le Danois dépressif, dont la mère était une féministe invétérée, se

défend bien d'être un misogyne. Fasciné par la chasse aux

sorcières, il prétend que pour ce film, il a simplement laissé libre

cours à ses fantasmes et à son inconscient. Mais conscient ou pas,

le résultat c'est que la femme (magnifique Charlotte Gainsbourg)

de ce sanglant cauchemar est une folle dangereuse qui a sciemment

tenté d'empêcher son jeune fils de marcher et qui finit par mutiler

et castrer son mari. Que le cinéaste l'admette ou non, ce film-là

ressemble beaucoup au cri d'un misogyne qui règle ses comptes

avec sa mère.

On a longtemps cru que les misogynes étaient une espèce en voie

d'extinction. Espérons que ce qui se passe en ce moment un peu

partout dans le monde n'est qu'un dernier râlement avant leur

disparition.

Pour joindre notre chroniqueuse: npetrows@lapresse.ca

La tolérance, c’est suffisant !

13 Nov 2009
La tolérance, c’est suffisant !

Par Michel Lizotte, journaliste
Fondateur du mouvement Équité-Famille
Auteur d’un mémoire de maîtrise en préparation sur la question des mariages gais

La lettre ouverte Trop, c’est Trop ! publiée dans La Presse de dimanche en page A-11 et signée par dix-neuf prêtres nous donne un bel exemple de la confusion qui règne dans une partie du clergé québécois autour de la question de l’homosexualité et du mariage gai.

C’est une confusion qui est en partie entretenue par le lobby gai qui s’applique à laisser croire en l’innéité de l’homosexualité (on naît ainsi; on ne le devient pas) dans l’objectif évident d’en banaliser et normaliser la culture, et deuxièmement par plusieurs médias de masse, plusieurs auteurs de téléromans, cinéastes et créateurs de pubs qui paraissent davantage intéressés à suivre la rectitude politique qu’à rendre compte des vérités historiques entourant ces phénomènes. Rappelons-les brièvement :

D’abord, Freud, Jung et Adler, les trois grands pionniers de la psychologie ont unanimement décrit l’homosexualité comme pathologique lorsqu’ils ont eu à l’évaluer à travers leur pratique clinique. De plus, dès 1911 la communauté scientifique a commencé à recueillir des évidences à l’effet que l’homosexualité était une tendance réversible lorsque Freud s’aperçut qu’en traitant avec succès la paranoïa d’un patient ayant des tendances homosexuelles, ces manifestations étaient simultanément disparues.

Depuis Freud, plusieurs psychologues – Stekel (1930), Rubenstein (1956), Bieber (1962), Ovesey (1969), Birk (1974), Pattison and Pattison (1980) Van Den Aardweg (1986) - se sont investis dans la tâche complexe de comprendre l’origine de l’homosexualité afin de développer des thérapies correctives qui se sont montrées de plus en plus ajustées et efficaces. Les recherches les plus récentes (Bene 1965, Biller 1974, Moberly 1983, van der Aardweg 1986) continuent de soutenir que l’homosexualité est plutôt « acquise », est construite en cours de vie, plus souvent qu’autrement à cause de l’échec du processus d’identification sexuelle du jeune fils à son père, suite à une relation dysfonctionnelle entre les deux. Lorsque l’Église se prononce sur l’homosexualité, elle semble donc correctement écouter ce que lui dit la science, contrairement à ce que soutient la lettre des dix-neuf prêtres réactionnaires.




http://v.i.v.free.fr/pvkto/tolerance-suffisant.html
Category: POLITIQUE

Les paroles qui comptent.

12 Nov 2009
Je me suis mariée en mai. Un dimanche. Un peu par défi,
 pour ne rien faire comme les autres. Une semaine avant,
 j'avais invité le prêtre, un ami, à mon enterrement de vie de
 fille. Au milieu de la nuit, un peu émechés, nous sommes
 sortis sur la terrasse du restaurant, face à la mer.

     Je lui ai demandé : "alors mon père, un conseil avant
 le grand saut ?" Il m'a regardé et m'a dit : "oui. Ne pousse
 pas l'originalité et l'anticonformisme jusqu'à nier les
 vieilles recettes qui fonctionnent. Tu veux que ton couple
 dure ? Alors écoute chaque mot que prononcera ton mari."

     Sept années ont passé. Si vite. Nous avons eu un enfant.
 Notre lot de joies et de peines. Puis notre amour, sans que
 j'y prenne garde, s'est émoussé. Je n'avais pas oublié le
 conseil de mon ami prêtre, mais il me semblait que je
 connaissais mon mari presque aussi bien que moi et que
 j'aurais pu prévoir chacune de ses paroles avant meme qu'il
 n'ait franchi le seuil de sa bouche. C'était décevant.

     Un soir, je suis retournée voir celui que, par dérision,
 j'appelais, Mon Père. Je lui expliquais la situation et lui
 demandai son avis. "J'écoute chaque mot qu'il prononce,
 mais je ne vois pas ce que ça change."

     Mon ami se servit un verre et remplit le mien. En
 faisant tinter les glaçons il me regarda : "Tu n'as fait
 que la moitié du chemin. Maintenant retourne chez toi et
 écoute chaque mot que ton mari ne prononce pas."

 ........................................................

     Les paroles qui comptent, les mots les plus importants,
 ne sont pas toujours ceux que l'on prononce de vive voix.
 Savoir écouter, porter une oreille attentive à l'autre,
 c'est d'abord apprendre à faire la différence entre ce qu'il
 dit et ce qu'il pense ou ressent.

     "L'organe de la parole n'est pas la bouche,
 c'est le coeur."
 M. de Cornouardt

Pardon ?

11 Nov 2009

What Happened to Equality for All?

10 Nov 2009

What Happened to Equality for All?

The troubling sexual politics of Obama's Council on Women and Girls

Amidst troubling reports of our nation's economic woes and pressing national security issues, one news story earlier this month received fairly little attention: President Obama's March 11 executive order establishing a White House Council on Women and Girls. While the Council's role is likely to be more symbolic than practical, its creation, and the accompanying rhetoric, suggests that the Obama White House is bringing a blinkered, outdated approach to gender issues—one that, far from transcending ideological divisions, takes us back to a narrow and dogmatic feminist ideology.

According to the White House press release, the purpose of the Council is to "ensure that agencies across the federal government...take into account the particular needs and concerns of women and girls." Specifically, it will focus on "improving women's economic security," promoting policies that help balance work and family, preventing violence against women, and furthering women's health care.

In his remarks at the signing, Barack Obama noted that women have made great strides since the days when his grandmother encountered a glass ceiling after reaching the level of bank vice president. Yet, despite the broken barriers, he argued that "inequalities stubbornly persist": "women still earn just 78 cents for every dollar men make"; "one in four women still experiences domestic violence in their lifetimes"; and, despite being close to half the workforce, women make up only 17 percent of members of Congress and 3 percent of Fortune 500 CEOs.

But are these inequalities rooted in discrimination and fixable by the government? Numerous studies show that when differences in training, work hours, and continuity of employment are taken into account, the pay gap all but disappears. Most economists, including liberal feminists such as Harvard's Claudia Goldin, agree that while sex discrimination exists, male-female disparities in earnings and achievement are due primarily to personal choices and priorities. Women are far more likely than men to avoid jobs with 60-hour workweeks and to scale down their careers while raising children. They are also more likely to choose less lucrative but more fulfilling jobs.

There is an ongoing debate on whether these differences are biological or cultural. Many scientists argue that men in general are innately more competitive and aggressive, while women are more risk-averse, more interested in interpersonal connections, and more intensely bonded to small children. (There are, of course, numerous exceptions to these tendencies.) Others stress the role of socialization, pointing out that people's choices and preferences are influenced by gender stereotypes and cultural expectations from early childhood.

The jury is still out on the nature-vs.-nurture debate; most likely, differences between the sexes are shaped by a mix of biology and culture. Certainly, cultural pressures and double standards persist. A woman is far more likely to encounter societal disapproval if she works long hours and leaves her children in someone else's care—even if that someone else is the children's father. A man is far more likely to encounter disapproval if he is not the family breadwinner.

Yet focusing on job discrimination will not help us address these deep-seated prejudices. Indeed, making work-family policy a part of the agenda of the Council on Women and Girls seems to reinforce the stereotype that family issues are a female domain. (Why not a Council on Families instead?)

As for combating violence against women, it is, of course, a worthy goal. But plenty of men and boys are victims of family violence as well. The same federal study which found that one in four women in the United States have been assaulted by a partner at least once also found that nearly 40 percent of domestic assault victims every year are men. Women face higher risk of injury due to disparities in size and strength; but the problem of abused men, though largely neglected, is hardly negligible.

Nor is it clear why women's health care deserves special focus, given that in many areas of health men are doing worse than women. As a result of women's health activism, medical issues specific to women have already been receiving disproportionate attention and funding since the 1990s.

Indeed, one might ask why the only gender-specific issues that seem to deserve federal attention are ones that affect women. Why not look at the fact that men account for 80 percent of suicides and 90 percent of workplace fatalities (as well as 70 percent of nonfatal on-the-job injuries)? What about the troubling trend of boys and young men lagging substantially behind their female peers in education, with women earning nearly 60 percent of college degrees at a time when a college diploma is increasingly essential in the job market? Why not talk about the marginalization of fatherhood and the fact that many men who want to be involved in their children's lives are denied that chance?

This is not a call for a new federal bureaucracy for "men's issues." However, the discussion of gender equality in our culture needs to include these issues. For the White House to exclude them while calling for a new effort to combat inequality is at best myopic.

The Bush White House was often assailed for building its policies on ideological myths rather than facts and "reality-based" thinking. So far, the Obama administration's initiatives on women are not exactly reality-based.

Cathy Young is a contributing editor at
Reason magazine. This article originally appeared at RealClearPolitics.

Ambiance totalitaire

10 Nov 2009

Dans son livre Être de droite : un tabou français, le journaliste Éric Brunet consacre un chapitre entier à l’ancrage à gauche du milieu enseignant.

Éric Brunet cite les résultats d’une enquête du Cevipof (Centre d’étude de la vie politique française) sur le vote des instituteurs au 1er tour des élections présidentielles de 2002. 16 % d’entre eux ont voté pour un candidat d’extrême gauche et un total de 75 % ont voté à gauche. Il illustre ensuite ces statistiques avec des témoignages qu’il a lui-même recueillis auprès d’enseignants et d’étudiants de droite.

Ambiance totalitaire
Baptiste, professeur de mathématiques dans un collège de Créteil, dépeint ses collègues ainsi : « Leur échiquier politique débutait à la Ligue Communiste Révolutionnaire et s’arrêtait au Parti Socialiste. Leur extrême droite, c’étaient Strauss-Kahn et les libéraux du PS. » Pour avoir imprudemment confié à un confrère que « Chirac n’était pas Hitler », Baptiste fut ostracisé, et une campagne de tracts fut organisée contre lui par le syndicat unique du collège. Revenant dans sa classe après un entretien houleux avec le proviseur, il vit qu’un élève avait écrit au tableau la phrase du communiste Bertolt Brecht : « Le ventre est encore fécond d’où est sortie la bête immonde. »

«Je me limite à Marx. Je ne peux pas enseigner autre chose que mes convictions.» »

Baptiste raconte être passé par toutes les phases : la culpabilité, les antidépresseurs, la haine, la honte. Il ne trouva de soutien qu’auprès de la permanence UMP de son quartier, et prit sa carte du parti. L’UMP lui conseilla d’avouer son « erreur » auprès des autres enseignants, et de faire une autocritique « comme à l’époque des purges du parti communiste » – ce qu’il fit, la mort dans l’âme. Dès lors, les conditions de travail redevinrent acceptables pour lui au collège. Baptiste se souvient que :

« Pendant les manifs, j’allais crier des slogans hostiles à Chirac pour ne pas me faire repérer par mes collègues profs… La nuit venue, de retour dans ma banlieue, j’allais coller des affiches pour l’UMP.»

Cette schizophrénie est, selon Baptiste, une condition nécessaire de survie dans le milieu totalitaire où il exerce.

Syndicats

À 23 ans, Esther s’est retrouvée pour son premier poste dans un lycée de Lyon où le seul syndicat représenté était le Snes-Sgen, la fraction dure de la gauche syndicale. Comme le Snes est souvent majoritaire dans les commissions paritaires décidant des affectations, « nombre d’enseignants de droite mettent leurs convictions de côté et adhèrent au Snes de peur de voir leur carrière enterrée dans les profondeurs d’une sous-préfecture du Nord ou d’une banlieue difficile. » Il y a une négation de la dimension politique de l’individu au lycée pour les gens de droite, alors que les autres l’exacerbent de façon outrancière et intolérante.

Il existe bien un syndicat de centre droit, le Snalc (Syndicat national des lycées et collèges), mais les gauchistes se sont arrangés pour que des rumeurs de proximité idéologique avec le FN circulent dans les rectorats sur des bases totalement inventées… Résultat : on vous regarde de travers si vous êtes affilié au Snalc. Lors de sa deuxième affectation, dans la région parisienne, Esther décida de constituer une liste du Snalc. Elle appela le Snalc, et là, on lui répondit : « C’est courageux de votre part, mais pour vous, pour votre avenir, il serait préférable de monter une liste sans étiquette ! » Elle monta donc une liste indépendante et, faisant fi des réactions hostiles, réussit à se faire élire au conseil d’administration dès sa première année.

Une dernière anecdote racontée par Esther : un professeur de philosophie en terminale avait décidé de conduire avec ses élèves une réflexion sur le travail. Esther lui demanda : « Ah ? quels auteurs leur fais-tu étudier : Hannah Arendt, Hegel, Althusser, Marx… ? » Le professeur lui rétorqua : « Non, je me limite à Marx : c’est mes convictions, je ne peux pas enseigner autre chose que mes convictions. »

Troisième cycle
Autre témoignage recueilli par Éric Brunet : celui de Marie, étudiante en DEA d’études politiques. Dans son DEA, censé étudié les phénomènes politiques, « il était implicitement considéré par les étudiants qu’il était politiquement incorrect de travailler sur la droite républicaine. » Sur 80 étudiants cette année-là, il n’y en eut que deux qui étudièrent des partis de droite, les autres se focalisant sur le mouvement Droit au Logement, Ras l’front, les mouvements de chômeurs, le PS, la LCR, SUD, Lutte Ouvrière, etc.

Éric Brunet rapporte de nombreux autres témoignages :

  • Rachel, institutrice « clandestine », dénonce les dérives idéologiques de gauche dans les IUFM (Instituts universitaires de formation des maîtres) ;
  • Jean-Marc, qui enseigne l’économie aux étudiants de l’École des mines de Paris issus de Polytechnique, constate que ses élèves (pourtant censés appartenir à l’élite) ne connaissent ni ne comprennent aucun des grands économistes français de droite ;
  • Yves, philosophe doublement agrégé, auteur de 11 livres traduits dans plusieurs langues, stagne depuis vingt ans au rang de « professeur d’université de seconde classe » parce qu’il a été membre d’un cabinet Balladur ;
  • Jean-Louis, professeur d’économie de droite, se voit affecté en Lozère, puis se fait attaquer en plein concours d’agrégation par Charlie Hebdo et Le Monde (excusez du peu !);
  • la vie d’Annabelle, étudiante en DESS d’économie de la culture à Dauphine, bascule du jour au lendemain dans l’ostracisme, la douleur et la violence lorsque les autres élèves découvrent qu’elle avait été membre de Démocratie Libérale (parti disparu en 2002 pour fusionner dans l’UMP) ; privée de diplôme, elle se retrouve au chômage.

En résumé, le livre d’Éric Brunet rend la parole à ceux qui ne l’ont plus : les enseignants et des étudiants mis à l’écart parce qu’ils ne sont pas de gauche, ou qu’ils ne font pas semblant de l’être.

http://www.fdesouche.com/articles/78523

Category: POLITIQUE

A Woman's Nation Changes Everything

9 Nov 2009

A Woman’s Nation Changes Everything

Post image for A Woman’s Nation Changes Everything

by Hawaiian Libertarian on November 4, 2009

Welcome to our Brave New World Order folks, because it’s certainly a very different world for everyone than it was just one generation ago. James Brown once soulfully wailed “This is a MAAAAN’S WORLD….but it wouldn’t be nuthin’ without a woman to care!”

My how the times have changed.

We now have Maria Shriver exultantly declaring “It’s a Woman’s Nation!”

Isn’t that special, dear.

The Center for American Progress (Put a CAP in the country, she’s done for!) just released The Shriver Report: A Woman’s Nation Changes Everything.

Jack Donovan has already taken an in depth look at Oprah Winfrey’s epilogue to this piece of femi-nazi propaganda, I’m going to focus on the forward by John Podesta and the first Chapter by Maria Shriver.

Now, the first thing one must notice, is that the tone of this report is one for which many people have been trying to point out for years now – that this is in fact a nation that has certainly become a society that promotes Matriarchal values and denigrates Patriarchal ones.

That masculinity in men has been castigated and demonized for decades now, while masculinity in women has been relentlessly promoted and inculcated into the mainstream, cultural consciousness. And one of the memes that has been relentlessly promoted is this idea that women are oppressed, inequal and downtrodden, which is what necessitates all of the laws, tax-funded programs, divorce court industries and welfare programs…to “fix” all of the problems of a “Male” nation.

On the face of it, it sure seems like they’re declaring victory now, doesn’t it?

But of course not. This is in fact a literal cultural revolution, and this is merely a momentary pause for the social engineers to reflect on their past successes in overthrowing the old world order of Patriarchy, on their ever increasing march towards “equality”

Let’s have a look at what this report is citing as turning points in their campaign to win this gender war…

First, from the Preface, mangina feminist lackey and former Clinton White House member, John Podesta, writes:

Earlier this year, the Center for American Progress decided to closely examine the consequences of what we thought was a major tipping point in our nation’s social and economic history: the emergence of working women as primary breadwinners for millions of families at the same time that their presence on America’s payrolls grew to comprise fully half the nation’s workforce. In addition, we were watching the Great Recession amplify and accelerate these trends. We are in the midst of a fundamental transformation of the way America works and lives.

Indeed, change is what this is all about. From a Patriarchal focused society in which men worked and women raised the next generation, we now live in a nation for which men and women work…and the afterschool program , the minimum wage day care worker, the retired grandparent, or as in many cases, the television and the computer are raising the next generation.

Is this really a change for the better?

When we look back over the 20th century and try to understand what’s happened to workers and their families and the challenges they now face, the movement of women out of the home and into paid employment stands out as a unique and powerful transformation.

Unique? Hardly. Matriarchal cultures are as old as humanity itself. What we really seeing is a decline in civilization, since Patriarchal culture is what built civilization in the first place.

Women becoming primary breadwinners or co-breadwinners changed everything. But, even though we were all witness to this phenomenon’s slow emergence over many years, these changes seem somehow to have snuck up on us. As a result, our policy landscape remains stuck in an idealized past, where the typical family was composed of a married-for-life couple with a full-time breadwinner and full-time homemaker who raised the children herself.

Well that seems to be certainly true. Even though this report celebrates women now comprising 50% of the workforce, 60% of college attendees, and a huge increase in the number of women now serving as the primary breadwinners of their family…divorce laws, child custody and alimony awards are still based on the assumptions that women are economically disadvantaged by their full time homemaker roles…even when they are not full time homemakers!

Of course, I hardly think Podesta is arguing for true “equality” when it comes to Family law…

No, what his argument consists of is to basically make a case for more Government programs to support the continued dismantling of Patriarchal family structures to promote the new ideal “Woman’s Nation.”

  • Updating our basic labor standards to include family-friendly employee benefits
  • Reforming our anti-discrimination laws so that employers cannot discriminate against or disproportionately exclude women when offering workplace benefits
  • Updating our social insurance system to the reality of varied families and new family responsibilities, including the need for paid family leave and social security retirement benefits that take into account time spent out of the workforce caring for children and other relatives
  • Increasing support to families for child care, early education, and elder care to help working parents cope with their dual responsibilities

Updating these government policies so that they account for the reality of the overwhelming majority of today’s workers and families is the challenge we address in the pages that follow.

See, what women are really finding out is that entering the world of work did not make life better or easier. Instead, it gave them a whole new means of stress and responsibilities in their lives, so now we must use the government to ease the burdens of responsibilities that pursuing “empowerment” through careers has given them.

As one goes beyond Podesta’s preface and into the first chapter of the report, penned by Shriver herself, that it becomes glaringly obvious that while Shriver and many other women are celebrating the so-called advancement of women’s “equality,” they are also documenting the ways in which the new reality is negatively impacting both men and women.

Not once does she or any of the other progressives (who are really nothing more than cultural revolutionaries and social engineers) ever stop to consider that the problems they are highlighting are caused directly by the cultural expectations that gear women towards careers rather than homemaking?

No, we must implement MORE government programs to make it easier on women to “Have it all.”

Here’s what Shriver writes:

Together, the results of these efforts provide a fascinating window into the changing American landscape. What we heard loud and clear is that the Battle Between the Sexes is over. It was a draw. Now we’re engaged in Negotiation Between the Sexes.

It was a draw? But you’re declaring victory by calling it a “Woman’s Nation!” If it were a draw, wouldn’t it simply be “A Nation?”

Doesn’t sound like a draw to me. Oh, and what is this “negotiating between the sexes?” You mean where career mom tells her husband if he doesn’t toe the line, she’ll take him to divorce court, enslave him into peonage and take him away from his children? That kind of reality certainly doesn’t look like a “draw” to me.

Virtually all married couples told the pollsters they’re negotiating the rules of their relationships, work, and family. An overwhelming majority of both men and women said they’re sitting down at their kitchen tables to coordinate their family’s schedules, duties, and responsibilities, including child care and elder care, at least two to three times a week. Men said it was more like every day!

Indeed, during my conversation with powerful businesswomen on the West Coast, one told me she and her husband “are constantly renegotiating our agreement about what gets done, who does it—or do we hire somebody as opposed to doing it ourselves.” And a man in Seattle told me he and his wife have to work out “who’s gonna take care of the light bill? Who’s gonna pay for the mortgage? It doesn’t matter who’s bringing the money in. The money is coming in, but decisions have to be made about how the money is going out.”

Isn’t wonderful to see all of this “PROGRESS?” See how a “Woman’s Nation” promotes marital harmony? What a wonderful, Brave New World!

In the Rockefeller/Time poll, more than three-quarters of both men and women agreed that the increased participation of women in the workforce is a positive change for society.

Pay attention folks! The very foundation that is the largest funder of Women’s studies programs and population control policies, the very foundation that is the primary mover in socially engineering this “woman’s nation” has conducted a poll that supports their goals? You don’t say?

Both sexes also agreed that men are becoming more financially dependent on women. And both women and men said they’re still adjusting their lives, their expectations, and their assumptions to the change.

The findings matched what I heard in the street. Everywhere I went, people talked to me about how overstressed and in crisis they feel, especially when it comes to financial security. Women said that never before has so much been asked of them, and never have they delivered so much. Divorced mothers talked to me about trying to make do without child support. One single mother who had just lost her job told me she was utterly dependent on her family and friends just to stay afloat.

This folks is what this report refers to as PROGRESS…but it’s not done yet, we need more of it!

Now, note that one of the themes Shriver and the author’s of this report repeatedly make is the need for the Government to ensure that women get “equal pay for equal work.” Yet the entire premise of that argument rests on the unfounded assumption that the reason for unequal pay is based on “inequality.”

Yet…Shriver reports the following:

And women often define that power differently from men. One woman who had made it to CEO chose to give up the corner office and downgrade to a lower-rung position. She told me, “I will admit, it was fun, it was power, and I was dealing with a bunch of top dogs. But now I get to hang out with my kids when they come home from school. For me the definition of success is not being a CEO and not being the biggest dog and frankly not making the most money. It’s living a balanced life.”

This is the very reason WHY we have the so-called “gender wage gap.” But this is not acknowledged at all. In fact, while the authors of the report are calling for “equal pay for equal work” what they are actually arguing for is MORE pay for women for doing LESS work!

One female corporate executive told me, “Women don’t need equal pay. They actually need to be paid more, because the fact of the matter is that we typically are responsible for more within our families, and we have to pay to outsource more. Most of the men I have competed with for positions have had a stay-home wife at some point and many have had a wife throughout their entire marriage.”

Here we have a female corporate executive, whining about having to compete with a man who has a stay-at-home wife, making it unfair for her to compete with him for positions?

Sorry lady, nothing is stopping you from finding a kitchen bitch husband who would give you the same advantages a full time man has with a stay at home wife!

Nothing that is, except for your own hypergamous instincts which cause you to shudder with revulsion at the thought of being married to a househusband who you’d have to support financially!

Yes Maria…all that you and the elite activists and social engineers that have promoted this cultural revolution, you can see all of the changes that have wrought havoc and confusion amongst so many people…yet you think that all that is being done is a good thing? That we need more of the same?

This report is full of inconsistencies. Women are now more equal than ever…but so much more work needs to be done…sexism is still rampant…but women have succeeded and we are a Women’s Nation now…the cognitive dissonance is readily apparent to the objective reader that understands the full ramifications of the cultural and social upheaval we have all experienced in transforming our society into a “Woman’s Nation.” Just look at Shriver’s conclusion:

As we move into this phase we’re calling a woman’s nation, women can turn their pivotal role as wage-earners, as consumers, as bosses, as opinion-shapers, as co-equal partners in whatever we do into a potent force for change. Emergent economic power gives women a new seat at the table—at the head of the table.

Wait…in the name of “equality,” women now have a seat at the head of the table? This is a case in point for what Orwell pointed out in Animal Farm: “Some animals are more equal than other animals.”  Look at the logical inconsistency of this argument! This is proof positive that the idea of “equality” is nothing but a lie! In the name of pursuing “equality” a Woman’s Nation is about woman becoming MORE EQUAL than men.

Back in 1960, President Kennedy talked about the torch being passed to “a new generation.” Well, five decades later, the torch is being passed . . . to a new gender. There’s no doubt in my mind that we women will lift that torch. We will carry it. And we will light a new way forward.

A NEW Gender?

President Kennedy talked about the torch passed to a new generation…a term which includes both men and women.

But now, Shriver and the elite social engineers that have created this “woman’s nation” have disenfranchised men and they call it progress!

Note the celebrations that women now comprise almost 50% of the breadwinner role…through Men losing their jobs in record numbers thanks to the current recession!

This is progress?

Translation: Woman are “advancing” because men are suffering!

It is indeed a Woman’s Nation…and we are worse off for it – both women, men and especially children.

Les mensonges des féministes

9 Nov 2009

Les mensonges des féministes

S'il y a une chose qui m'enrage à propos des féministes, c'est quand elles projettent leurs pensées à la population féminine en général.

Par exemple:

Rivière-du-Loup, jeudi 5 novembre 2009 – « Depuis l’arrivée au pouvoir des conservateurs, le gouvernement Harper nous a prouvé à chaque occasion que l’amélioration de la condition des femmes est loin dans sa liste des priorités. En fait, depuis leur fusion avec une majorité des députés de l’Alliance canadienne, les conservateurs sont portés par une base militante qui croit que la meilleure place pour la femme, c’est à la maison, et qui s’attend à ce que le gouvernement reflète cette valeur dans ses politiques à Ottawa », a dénoncé aujourd’hui la candidate du Bloc Québécois dans Montmagny—L’Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, Nancy Gagnon, au terme d’une série de rencontres avec les représentantes de plusieurs groupes de défense et de promotion des droits des femmes, aujourd’hui. Les rencontres se sont toutes déroulées dans un climat extrêmement cordial.


Franchement le cliché "qu'ils pensent que la meilleure place des femmes est à la maison" est un discours qui relève des années soixante. Je suis une conservatrice sociale, pis j'en connais pas des gars qui croient que la place d'une femme est uniquement à la maison. Comme si les femmes étaient juste bonne pour faire l la vaisselle. Je milite dans des cercles pro-vie, pis personne n'a jamais questionné ma présence là. Ils sont même très heureux de ma contribution.

Mais pourquoi est-ce que les femmes de la droite, ou les non-féministes en général, ne dénoncent pas ce discours. C'est de la pure mythologie. Ont-elles peur de paraître...conservatrice?

Et les "groupes de femmes" ce n'est pas des groupes de "femmes", c'est des groupes de "féministes". Les média ne sont pas honnêtes quand ils négligent de le mentionner. C'est pris pour compte que l'idéologie féministe correspond aux droits des femme et à tout ce qui est bon pour la femme.

Et voilà:


« Les femmes du bas-saint-laurent sont inquiètesdepuis l’arrivée au pouvoir des conservateurs » – Nancy Gagnon


Qui sont ces femmes? Les quarante pour cent qui refusent de voter? Le grand nombre de femmes qui votent Conservateur?

On voit bien que c'est une petite minorité de femmes qui pensent ainsi. Mais les média parlent comme si les groupes de femmes représentaient les femmes. En fait, c'est faux. Ces femmes représentent uniquement elles-mêmes et leur idéologie.

Mais personne ne disent la vérité.

« Malgré cet engagement, les conservateurs ont multiplié depuis ce temps les décisions allant à l’encontre des droits des Québécoises et des Canadiennes. Ils ont refusé de légiférer sur l’équité salariale;


On sait bien que l'équité salariale n'a rien à voir avec l'égalité. C'est un scam pour dire arbitrairement qu'une femme de ménage vaut autant qu'un concierge, hors tout contexte et circonstances-- de l'expérience, du degré de force et de risque dans la job, etc.

J'ai un conseille aux femmes qui veulent gagner autant que les concierges: Devenez concierges. Et voilà! Même salaire!

Les hommes et les femmes gagnent le même salaire.

ils ont réduit de cinq millions de dollars le budget annuel de Condition féminine Canada;


Qui a été restoré.

ils ont coupé les vivres aux groupes de femmes qui font la défense des droits, de la recherche ou du lobbying et ils ont de surcroît aboli le Programme de contestation judiciaire, un programme qui était extrêmement utile pour de nombreux groupes de défense des droits des femmes », a expliqué Nancy Gagnon.


Groupes de défense des droits féministes.

« Les conséquences de ces gestes ont été immédiates. Condition féminine Canada a dû se résoudre à fermer pas moins de 12 de ses 16 bureaux régionaux et de nombreux autres organismes ont dû modifier considérablement leurs activités, voire cesser d’opérer, en raison des coupes fédérales.


Franchement. Est-ce que les femmes du Canada sont mal prises à cause de la fermeture de bureaux gouvernementales. Penses-tu que ça empêche la femme moyenne de dormir le soir? C'est les féministes profesionnels qui en chiâlent, pas Madame Tout-le-Monde.

Mais, elles projettent leurs souhaits sur la population féminine en générale. Mais PERSONNE dénonce ce mensonge.

Pourquoi personne le dit?

« Les conséquences de ces gestes ont été immédiates. Condition féminine Canada a dû se résoudre à fermer pas moins de 12 de ses 16 bureaux régionaux et de nombreux autres organismes ont dû modifier considérablement leurs activités, voire cesser d’opérer, en raison des coupes fédérales.


Encore un autre mensonge. Mais coudonc, les féministes se préoccupent des mères qui perdent leur foetus par un acte criminel. Ces femmes-là peuvent manger de la marde, la mort de leur p'tit compte pas. C'est l'avortement qui compte!

 

She is awkward and difficult at every turn...

8 Nov 2009

I have been Divorced for a couple of years now after my ex wife decided she wanted to be alone, start a new life and be totally independent.... which in actual fact was a lie because she now lives with a man who was previously a very, very good friend of mine.  How blind and stupid was I?  You see it's not just men that cheat - women are totally capable of adultery as well.  After a few miscellaneous girlfriends I have finally found a decent, honest girl (yes there are actually some out there!) with whom I am happy. Good for me!  My children who are aged 16 and 10 both get on with her very well, particularly my youngest daughter.

My ex wife has always been tricky to deal with.  After the break up she basically took me for everything more or less, and this was due to me trying to do the best thing for my kids.  She has lied her rear end off at every opportunity and as you'd expect, the lies has come out into the open now through natural events.

She is awkward and difficult at every turn...

My major gripe now is the spiteful games she is playing. She treats me like I was the one who ran off with HER friend.  She is awkward and difficult at every turn when dealing with arrangements for our kids.  Our communication is now so low that it is now only by text message or a message from one of the kids.  It feels like she controls my life and I'm paying her for the privilege!  The frustration I feel is massive!

Wedding rings, broken marriage

The law in this country is so one sided when it comes to parents and kids.  My ex wife has not worked for years spends money like water on a shallow life style which she is trying to impart onto the kids (this difference in parenting styles adds to my frustration). Perhaps I may sound a little bitter and twisted?  Yes I most certainly am!  But I need to get out of this downward spiral as it is consuming me.  Does anyone else out there have an ex wife like this?

By: OrangePeel

http://www.weeklygripe.co.uk/a810.asp

NYT Article Nails Many Fatherhood Issues

8 Nov 2009

NYT Article Nails Many Fatherhood Issues

November 6th, 2009 by Robert Franklin, Esq.

Better late than never.  This article could have been gleaned word for word from GlennSacks.com pieces over the past few months (New York Times, 11/2/09).  They didn't mention us, so I'm sure it's all original material.  I wonder if their other writers will read it and remember what it says the next time they're moved to produce the type of anti-dad screed that seems de rigueur at the "paper of record."

It's a good piece.  It even discovers Sara McLanahan and the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing study that I've reported on several times.  McLanahan is excellent herself and everyone should know about the Fragile Families study, so I'm glad the article gave a link to it.

For the most part, it takes off from the recent study done by child psychiatrist Dr. Kyle Pruett and colleagues into parenting outcomes using a particularly rigorous method of involving low-income mothers and fathers in California.  I reported on that study in September here.  And in keeping with Pruett's take on the study's results, the article establishes some basics about fathers and their ways of relating to their children and vice versa.

Without using the term, it deals with maternal gatekeeping and points out that (a) mothers should back off and let children and fathers be together, (b) the fact that dad may do things differently from mom is OK and (c) fathers parent differently from mothers. 

Fathers tend to do things differently, Dr. Kyle Pruett said, but not in ways that are worse for the children. Fathers do not mother, they father.

Dr. Kyle Pruett added: “Dads tend to discipline differently, use humor more and use play differently. Fathers want to show kids what’s going on outside their mother’s arms, to get their kids ready for the outside world.” To that end, he said, they tend to encourage risk-taking and problem-solving. 

So the article lets its readers know that men and women parent differently and each is necessary to the child's ability to become a whole person and one capable of withstanding life's slings and arrows. 

And it goes a bit beyond maternal gatekeeping to the kind found in the broader society.

Uninvolved fathers have long been accused of lacking motivation. But research shows that many societal obstacles conspire against them. Even as more fathers are changing diapers, dropping the children off at school and coaching soccer, they are often pushed aside in ways large and small.

“The walls in family resource centers are pink, there are women’s magazines in the waiting room, the mother’s name is on the files, and the home visitor asks for the mother if the father answers the door,” said Philip A. Cowan, an emeritus professor of psychology at the University of California, Berkeley, who along with his wife, Carolyn Pape Cowan, has conducted decades of research on families. “It’s like fathers are not there.”

The key to good parenting according to Pruett's study is the parent's getting along with each other.  As a practical matter, they need to negotiate parenting styles in non-confrontational ways.

The article is in the Health section of the Times and therefore deals with social science.  It has nothing to say about the law and the seemingly infinite variety of ways it separates children from their fathers.  But for what it is, it's an excellent piece.

Here at GlennSacks.com we spend a good bit of time criticizing the Times, and with good reason.  But the writer of this piece, Laurie Tarkan, well deserves our appreciation.

La tolérance, c'est suffisant !

8 Nov 2009

La tolérance, c’est suffisant !

Par Michel Lizotte, journaliste

Fondateur du mouvement Équité-Famille
Auteur d’un mémoire de maîtrise en préparation sur la question des mariages gais

La lettre ouverte Trop, c’est Trop ! publiée dans La Presse de dimanche en page A-11 et signée par dix-neuf prêtres nous donne un bel exemple de la confusion qui règne dans une partie du clergé québécois autour de la question de l’homosexualité et du mariage gai.

C’est une confusion qui est en partie entretenue par le lobby gai qui s’applique à laisser croire en l’innéité de l’homosexualité (on naît ainsi; on ne le devient pas) dans l’objectif évident d’en banaliser et normaliser la culture, et deuxièmement par plusieurs médias de masse, plusieurs auteurs de téléromans, cinéastes et créateurs de pubs qui paraissent davantage intéressés à suivre la rectitude politique qu’à rendre compte des vérités historiques entourant ces phénomènes. Rappelons-les brièvement :

D’abord, Freud, Jung et Adler, les trois grands pionniers de la psychologie ont unanimement décrit l’homosexualité comme pathologique lorsqu’ils ont eu à l’évaluer à travers leur pratique clinique. De plus, dès 1911 la communauté scientifique a commencé à recueillir des évidences à l’effet que l’homosexualité était une tendance réversible lorsque Freud s’aperçut qu’en traitant avec succès la paranoïa d’un patient ayant des tendances homosexuelles, ces manifestations étaient simultanément disparues.

Depuis Freud, plusieurs psychologues – Stekel (1930), Rubenstein (1956), Bieber (1962), Ovesey (1969), Birk (1974), Pattison and Pattison (1980) Van Den Aardweg (1986) - se sont investis dans la tâche complexe de comprendre l’origine de l’homosexualité afin de développer des thérapies correctives qui se sont montrées de plus en plus ajustées et efficaces. Les recherches les plus récentes (Bene 1965, Biller 1974, Moberly 1983, van der Aardweg 1986) continuent de soutenir que l’homosexualité est plutôt « acquise », est construite en cours de vie, plus souvent qu’autrement à cause de l’échec du processus d’identification sexuelle du jeune fils à son père ( entre d'autres termes: plus le feminisme detruit, plus l'homosexualite grandit... ce que j'ai toujours su ... Patschef), suite à une relation dysfonctionnelle entre les deux. Lorsque l’Église se prononce sur l’homosexualité, elle semble donc correctement écouter ce que lui dit la science, contrairement à ce que soutient la lettre des dix-neuf prêtres réactionnaires.




http://v.i.v.free.fr/pvkto/tolerance-suffisant.html

Lettre ouverte aux cons.

7 Nov 2009
Lettre ouverte aux cons.      À tous les cons.      

Les cons d’Europe et d'Amérique du Nord.    La dictature de la pensée unique et l'intolérance des gens bien-pensants transforment la liberté d'opinion en caricature de cirque.    Les donneurs de leçons et autre psychopathe bien-pensants se donnent bonne conscience en manipulant les faits et les statistiques concernant le mâle occidental.    L'Europe, et en premier lieu la France, se trouve désormais dans une situation particulièrement dangereuse.

La glissade vers la guerre civile semble de plus en plus se préciser. Il ne fait aucun doute, que depuis plus d'un demi-siècle, les socialo-bobos-droitdelhommo-feministo-ridicules, nous ont bombardé de clichés antimâles et antioccidentaux.    La déculottée magistrale que les Occidentaux sont en train de prendre désormais, en Europe de l'Ouest comme en Amérique du Nord, est de nature à rayer de la carte de l'histoire du monde, définitivement, le peuple qui aura permis le progrès.    

Ces poules mouillées qu'ont été depuis 50 ans les féministes et les socialo-communos pros islamistes ont été les précurseurs et les inventeurs du suicide par idéologie.      La France ainsi que le Canada sont désormais dans le caca. Inutile de m'appesantir sur les difficultés des Européens et en particulier de la France concernant leur immigration Islamologue envahissant tous les secteurs de la société civile, réagissant à la moindre interprétation permettant le droit à la conquête.    Les hommes occidentaux ont baissé leurs culottes et se sont agenouillés devant l'indicible. Les femmes occidentales ont depuis plus de 50 ans, utilisés, manipulé, et castré l'ensemble masculin de la population.    

Sous des prétextes fallacieux de droits dérivés, elles ont assassiné leur propre progéniture. Elles ont mis en cage des millions de garçons et d'hommes, qu'elles savaient asservis à leurs besoins. Ce faisant, le monde occidental court à sa perte. La famille n'a plus aucune valeur, les enfants se font rares.    Les cons qui croyaient, il y a 50 ans, donner des droits supplémentaires aux femmes pour leur permettre d'atteindre soi-disant l'égalité, ont permis d'accroître le parasitisme et la déviance.    

Grands cons et petits cons, vous, qui veniez me lire chaque jour pour m'insulter, vous êtes les responsables du désastre qui s'annonce.    

Surtout ne venait pas pleurnicher lorsque, sous votre tchador ou dans vos babouches, vous serez obligés de parler chinois ou arabe parce que vous n'avez aucune famille, et que vous avez fait des choix regrettables.         

Patschef    

Le cas des CHIENNES DE GARDE qui n'aboient plus

6 Nov 2009

Le cas des CHIENNES DE GARDE qui n’aboient plus

La France brûle. Depuis dix jours, de jeunes terroristes musulmans sèment le désordre, l’anarchie et l’incendie.Le président Jacques Chirac émerge de sa convalescence pour offrir les platitudes d’usage : l’État fera preuve de … compréhension envers les terroristes.[2]

Le Président annonce … qu’il a convoqué un conseil des ministres exceptionnel en vue del'application d'un … couvre-feu pour discuter des façons de contrôler unecrise … hors de contrôle.

Entre temps, le dur et nécessaire travail de contrôle et de répression de la gigantesque vague de criminalité est dévolue aux quelques 10 000 « forces de l’ordre » : CRS, escouades spéciales, police ordinaire .... Trente six policiers sont déjà été blessés.

MAIS AUCUNE POLICIÈRE n’a été blessée! Pas UNE! ZERO!

Que dis-je? Il n’y a AUCUNE policière sur la ligne de front, bouclier au bras à s’offrir comme cible aux roches et cocktails molotofs lancés à la tête des policiers par les jeunes terroristes musulmans en colère.

Mais où se trouvent donc les vaillantes(sic) policières qui sont si vite à réclamer l’ÉGALITÉ des femmes à une CARRIÈRE?

Mais confortablement et peureusement postées derrière leurs bureaux au poste de police, voyons ! Il faut bien quelqu’un pour faire le dur et nécessaire travail administratif : remplir des rapports, répondre au téléphone, etc. … ; les « hommes » sont si occupés depuis quelque jours.

Et qu’en disent les arrogantes et méprisantes fémi-sexistes de carrière qui sont si vite a exiger la transformation de la culture machiste des policiers et des militaires, à exiger l’adoption des valeurs féminines ET féministes dans le travail des forces responsable de la sécurité de la nation, à exiger l’imposition de l’égalité des femmes sur les hommes?

RIEN! SILENCE!

MOTUS ET UTÉRUS COUSUS!

Les CHIENNES DE GARDES n’aboient pas!

Elles se gargarisent d’interviews, de critiques des « machos », du mythe de la violence contre les femmes,du voile islamique, de meetings, de supposées insultes sexistes, etc., etc.

Les fémi-sexistes vivent dans cet univers de sécurité où les femmes ont toujours (sous le patriarcat) vécu. Jadis (il y aquelques décennies) les femmes régnaient en tyranelles de bas étage sur leur cuisine et sur leur « foyer ». Depuis, les richesses et la sécurité générées par la société industrielle, bourgeoise, capitaliste et libérale (brillante création des si détestés « DEAD WHITE MALES »)  a permis aux femmes de « voir » TOUTE la société comme une extension de leur pouvoir sur le foyer. Il leur permet également d’ignorer que le véritable travail decréation, de construction et d’entretien de la société moderne est assumé… par les hommes. Les hommes sont TOUJOURS plus de 95% des morts et blessés au travail dans le silence TOTALITAIRE des fémi-sexistes insolentes, méprisantes et exploitantes … du travail des hommes.

SILENCE!         

Les CHIENNES DE GARDE FÉMI-SEXISTES n’aboieront plus!

Gérard Levesque

Article d'actualite a conserver pour l'annee prochaine. Patschef