Nov 302012

 I wanted to alert everybody that I will be appearing today on this segment on female sex predators on Huffington Post Live at 5pm Eastern on Mike Sacks’ show. Feel free to tune in. If you miss it live I am given to understand that the link will still work to see the recorded session afterward.

Some links people may find useful:

Cenk Uygur & The Young Turks pat a victim on the back, says the victim was asking for it. The case of Amie Lou Neely.

A victim who wasn’t believed, a common trait, since most victims of female sex predators are not believed, even though female sexual predators are acknowledged to be at least 25% of the sex predator population and due to under-reporting 25% is almost certainly a low figure.

How sexual predation is considered a bonus when a boy is the victim of a woman.

Also see how female predators groom their victims.

A survey of multiple studies on the growth of female pedophaelia (note: much reason to believe that this “growth” isn’t growth at all, just somebody finally deciding to start taking it seriously and really looking for it.)

A site that seeks to increase awareness of female sex predators.

The cultural siege on men which says that sexual predation is a predominantly male trait is continually eroding. And that’s with good reason: because it’s sexist rubbish.

*Update 2*: How could I forget to mention the men paying child support to their rapists?

Sep 272012

“Children are far more likely to be killed by their mothers than any other category of offender, a new police review of family violence cases shows. In this article, police have released a review of the circumstances surrounding 95 family violence incidents which caused 101 deaths since 2004. It found mothers killed 15 of the 33, or 45 per cent, of the child victims identified in the report – far more than any other category of offender.”
For far too long we have been living in this false pyridine where feminist ideology protect, and therefore encourage and promote, the violence of mothers against their children only for the soul purposes of propagating the narrative of ‘men bad, women good’ myth. The best way to prevent these kinds of tragedies is to have a father present, one with protected rights and responsibilities. But even the deaths of thousands of children mean nothing to this hateful and clearly violent people.

Sep 122012


CHRRPVICTORIA, BC – A recently released policy on infant male circumcision by the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) was condemned today by the Children’s Health & Human Rights Partnership (CHHRP) as being ‘seriously flawed’.

CHHRP co-founder Christopher Guest, M.D. said the new policy makes claims that international paediatric associations reject and he encouraged the Canadian Paediatric Society (CPS) to maintain its policy of deterrence with regard to circumcising otherwise normal, healthy boys.

Citing a continued failure of the AAP to recognize the unique sensory functions of the male foreskin, Guest asserted that “A growing number of medical associations now recognize that an intact penis with a foreskin enhances sexual pleasure for the male and his partner.” According to Guest, in 2010 the Royal Dutch Medical Association concluded “the foreskin is a complex erotogenic structure that plays an important role in the mechanical function of the penis during sexual acts.”

“Circumcision alters the structure of the penis, which inevitably alters function. Long term harm to men from infant circumcision has never been studied” Guest said. He referred to a growing body of anecdotal evidence collected by the Canadian-based Global Survey of Circumcision Harm. Guest said that in the past 12 months over 900 men have answered the online survey to document their harm.

Guest also faults the AAP for relying on methodologically weak African trials claiming HIV is lower in circumcised men. He says the studies also contradict global HIV trends, citing the United States, with a high circumcision rate, yet a significantly higher rate of HIV infection than Sweden and Japan where circumcision is rare. “Even if the African trials are scientifically valid, they cannot be used to justify infant circumcision in North America where the incidence of heterosexual HIV transmission is low.”

Guest cautioned that infant circumcision could never be justified based on the ethical principle of proportionality, because there are more effective and less destructive methods to improve hygiene and prevent or treat disease that don’t involve removing healthy genital tissue. “Soap and water and safer sex practices, including condoms, can prevent disease. New vaccines against penile and cervical cancer can prevent human papillomavirus (HPV) infection.”

Guest harshly criticized the AAP’s failure to note the conflict between contemporary medical ethics and infant circumcision, which he says violates the fundamental ethical principles of autonomy, beneficence and primum non nocere (First, Do No Harm). According to Guest “Medical associations in the Netherlands, Finland, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Germany and other countries confirm there’s no justification for circumcising infants in the absence of medical urgency. Those medical associations are urging an end to the practice due to ethical and human rights concerns.”

He notes that the College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia stated in 2009 that “…routine removal of normal tissue in a healthy infant, is not recommended…[P]roxy consent by parents is now being questioned. …Under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, an infant has rights that include security of person, life, freedom and bodily integrity. Routine male circumcision is an unnecessary and irreversible procedure. Therefore many consider it to be ‘unwarranted mutilating surgery’.”

According to Guest, the AAP has exercised poor judgment in the past. In 1989, the AAP Task Force on Circumcision declared circumcision was “necessary”, but in 1999 reversed its position to declare “There is no valid medical indication for circumcision.” In 2010, the AAP released a statement defending female genital nicking for cultural reasons, only to retract it under pressure from children’s rights groups opposed to circumcision of girls and boys.

“Preservation of bodily integrity is a basic and universal human right that the AAP doesn’t seem to value when it comes to male children” he said. “In spite of the new U.S. policy, we Canadians, as well as our institutions and government, have an obligation to preserve that right for all of our citizens, regardless of gender or age.”

The Children’s Health & Human Rights Partnership was established in 2012 as a partnership of professionals in the fields of medicine, ethics and law, and concerned citizens, to further public education and social advocacy to end non-therapeutic genital surgery on Canadian children.

Christopher Guest, M.D.
Children’s Health & Human Rights Partnership
(705) 728-9090 ext 43466 or (705) 796-6056
2200 Oak Bay Avenue. P.O. Box 42037 Victoria, BC V8R 1G0

Aug 262012

Does Canadian Law Respect The Role Of Fathers? I Think Not!!
In fact, if there is one topic that is at the top of the men’s rights movement that most all peoples throughout our society can agree upon is the disgusting situation we as a culture have allowed that has forsaken our children and totally abandoning men in their rights and rolls of being fathers.

In a culture where we typically favor ideals like affirmative action plans to assist where any group of peoples have an inequality in any particular area, we have all but discriminated against fatherhood on most every level. In Canada, one of the most progressive countries in the world when it comes to human rights, there is still one bigotry that we should all be totally ashamed of… (This article had been posted here before. But because the link had been removed and its relevance and importance to this blog, it is being reposted)

The state of Fatherhood in… O Canada…

Aug 202012
Written by Chris Marshal –>

child abuse

Editors note: Chris Marshal is a father trying to maintain a healthy relationship with his 10 year old son. He is doing so as the Alberta family courts cooperate, and collude with his wealthy ex wife who obstructs him at every step. Mr Marshal will be returning to court on September 25 2012 – continuing a 10 year struggle to retain contact with his son. The judges listed below have demonstrated scant interest in justice or in equitable interpretation of Canadian family law, nor even in the best interests of a small boy, used by his mother and by the court as a weapon and a tool. 

The following are a series of questions, put to Family court judges in the province of Alberta, originally published on October 29, 2010 on

Dear Justice Ged Hawco,

My 9 year old son said he could hardly wait for the weekend so he could show me his
 Halloween costume. He passed the phone to his mother. I asked her if it was ok for me 
to pick our son up that weekend. She said it would be ok. I then apologized for not 
emailing her 7 days before picking up our son as your court order requires. My ex wife
 then said, You did not email me 7 days in advance. Then you do not get to see him. I
 said what about Matthewʼs feelings? He is expecting me. She said he will get over it. I 
asked my ex wife, ”What should I say to our son as an excuse for not picking him up?

What do I tell my 9 Year old son Justice Hawco? Do I say his mother will not let me see
 him or do I say the law will not let me see him?

You are in charge of this case, Justice Hawco. You are the only one that can let a 9 year
 old boy see his dad. My ex wife does not care about my sonʼs feelings or my feelings,
 just her feelings of keeping her son from his father.

What do I do, Justice Hawco? I have been trying to see you since July. My ex-wife keeps
 denying me access and I can not get into your court room to see you. Please set up a date so that we can see you Justice Hawco. Sooner than later, so that 
we can all get on with our lives. It has been 8 years and 62 times to divorce court sir. It 
is my son that is missing out on a normal childhood with his father.

Further Questions for Albertan Justices.

Madame Justice E. Lovecchio, I have a question for you.

On November 14 2009 I asked you if I could vary my support payments to my millionaire ex wife, as I had recently filed for bankruptcy. You told me that you would not vary my support payments, and that I should go deal with Maintenance Enforcement.

They told me that if I did not pay, they would take away my driver’s license and passport. You then fined me $1,000 because I asked you to vary my support payments. Why would you do this? What were you trying to accomplish?

Are you trying to get me that much closer to loosing my driver’s license and job again?

Madame Justice Horner, I have a question for you.

On November 3 2009 I asked you for your help as my ex wife kept denying me court ordered access. You said there was nothing that you could do about it and then fined me $1,000.

You are a highly educated person. How about fining my ex wife the $1,000? When I tried to explain the situation you told me to shut up and sit down. Why would you penalize me, when it is my ex wife who breaks the court order and denies me access to my son? Please tell me why, Justice Horner.
Justice Sullivan

This Judge did not lie or manipulate me. He simply said,”Stop trying to get access to your son or it will kill you.”

I had just spent 30 days in jail for contempt of court and completed my 2nd $3,000 court ordered psychiatric evaluation that stated that I was a warm hearted outgoing man that enjoy’s life and laughs readily.

Justice Sullivan then gave me access to my son 1 day a week with overnights. I live in Vancouver British Columbia, my son lives in Red Deer, Alberta.

This access cost me $4,000 per meeting. I never missed an access.
Why am I doing this? I want to show that judges are people, and people make mistakes. I’m not talking about judicial procedure only.

In reality a family is a complex interweave of emotions that don’t always mesh with the machinery of the Justice System. Judges need to be that human interface of the justice system. They have a responsibility to go beyond the letter of the law. Judges need to look at the whole picture. Too often judges take the easy way out by sticking to procedures to quickly wind up proceedings, so everyone can go home.

Written by Chris Marshal

Jul 052012

by Robert Franklin, Esq.
stopitnow One of the most powerful studies ever has recently demonstrated the importance of fathers to children.  In fact, its authors conclude that, in some ways, fathers may be more important than mothers to a child’s long-term well-being.  Here’s an article about the study (National Post, 6/14/12).

Of course, social science literature is freighted with studies showing the value of fathers to children.  They’ve been building up for decades until, by now, it’s no surprise that fathers play a vital role in children’s lives.  But this is no ordinary study; it’s a meta-analysis of 36 long-term international studies conducted over the past half-century.  The cohort consists of almost 11,000 parents and children, and the results overwhelm any notion that fathers are expendable to their children.

The analysis deals not only with the positives of father involvement, but also with the negatives of perceived paternal rejection of children.  As such, it should be the rock that sinks the current anti-father/anti-child family law system for good.

In a long-term analysis of 36 international studies of nearly 11,000 parents and children, researchers have found that a father’s love contributes as much — and sometimes more — to a child’s development as that of a mother, while perceived rejection creates a larger ripple on personality than any other type of experience.

The power of paternal rejection or acceptance is especially strong in cases where the father is seen by his child as having heightened prestige in the family, as this tends to boost his influence.

“In our half-century of international research, we’ve not found any other class of experience that has as strong and consistent an effect on personality as does the experience of rejection — especially by parents in childhood,” says co-author Ronald Rohner, whose study appears in the journal Personality and Social Psychology Review.

“In many instances, fathers are as important developmentally as mothers. In some instances, they turn out to be even more important developmentally than mothers. And what we find extraordinary is that, sometimes, a mother’s influence drops out altogether.”

Across decades of studies, with a total 10,943 adults and children, perceived paternal acceptance was significantly linked to less hostility; independence; healthy self-esteem; feelings of adequacy; emotional stability and responsiveness; and a positive world view.

By contrast, perceived paternal rejection was significantly linked to problems with anger or aggression; lower self-esteem; feelings of inadequacy; emotional instability and unresponsiveness; and a dim world view.

“There’s a very consistent worldwide effect of impaired psychologically adjustment wherever kids perceive themselves to be rejected by Mom or Dad. And that effect shows up more significantly for dads than for moms,” says Rohner, professor emeritus of family studies at the University of Connecticut.

To wit, a father’s rejection more strongly predicted four classes of child behaviour than a mother’s: behavioural problems, substance abuse, depression and overall maladjustment.

A father’s love, meanwhile, more strongly predicted satisfaction and well-being, and acted as a better buffer against substance abuse and depression.

“We’ve assumed for years that all kids need for normal, healthy development is a loving relationship with Mom, and that dads are primarily there as financial supports for the family,” says Rohner. “We now see how fundamentally wrong that is.”

Gary Direnfeld, a social worker from Dundas, Ont., said he hopes the study will help quell the cultural tendency to treat mothers as both sole hero and villain in a child’s life — alternating between bashing and enshrining them, depending on the youngster’s behaviour.

“We all want well-rounded children. Well, children are a product of two parents and both should be meaningfully involved wherever possible,” says Direnfeld, an expert on family life.

Probably without meaning to, the analysis addresses most of the most egregious failings of family courts.  By taking fathers out of children’s lives via the expedient of the Standard Visitation Order, i.e. every other weekend plus possibly one overnight during the week, courts encourage both children and mothers to view Dad as little more than a wallet.  After all, child support is what the court really cares about and it proves it by rigidly enforcing those orders while largely ignoring orders for contact.  Any child over about five will be able to see who the preferred parent is.  Combine that with the court’s hesitancy to enforce Dad’s modest visitation and little Andy or Jenny will start to see less and less of him.  Children take things personally and it’s no surprise that, when they see less and less of their father, they experience it as his rejection of them.

So courts virtually ensure that children of divorce will experience the negative side of what the analysis discusses – paternal rejection.  And of course it’s dogged refusal to award equal or even close-to-equal parenting time negates any possibility that the children will experience the positive side – a meaningful relationship with Dad.  And all of that assumes the court isn’t ignoring worse maternal behavior like alienation or child abduction which they commonly do.

Just a couple of weeks ago, an Australian judge, Tom Altobelli, honored a mother’s parental alienation of her children by giving her sole custody and limiting the father’s contact to sending birthday cards.  In what must be the most scurrilous and cowardly act by any judge ever, Altobelli then wrote a letter to the children to be opened when they turn 14.  In it he placed the onus on them to contact their father who by then will have become a complete non-factor in their lives.  I wonder what Altobelli would say if he read the study in the Personality and Social Psychology Review.  By his cowardice, he devastated the lives of two children, guaranteeing that they will see their father as having rejected them and, in any event, having prevented every contact between them and him.

It is far past time for state legislatures and family courts to bring themselves into compliance with the clear dictates of social science.  Children need both parents in their lives.  Legislatures and courts must forever cease coming between children and fit fathers who want to care for them.

Jul 012012

But yet, the feminist narrative insists PAS is not valid. Dose not exist, that there is no peer reviewed studies on the topic. Proving once again, Feminism is clearly a hate movement. No matter who is hurt, even mothers, millions of vulnerable children, their only goals are the spread of their propaganda, lies and hatred. It’s time to put an end to this vial contempt and see to it that people like this are put in jails for crimes against humanity.

Mar 222012

by Jeffery M. Leving (Fathers Rights)
JailedFrank Hatley spent the past year in Cook County jail in South Georgia for falling behind in child support payments. However, as the court was aware, he had no children according to court documents. A DNA test even confirmed that there was no chance he was the father.

Walter Sharpe, from Philadelphia, was forced to pay more than $12,000 in child support for another man’s daughter. He spent two years in jail for falling behind in child support payments. Sharpe’s Petitions filed for DNA testing were denied by the judge. However, the paternity order against him was finally overturned after the girl’s mother failed to show up to a court hearing.
Paternity Fraud victims need justice. Our system is broken.

A report issued by the American Association of Blood Banks found that nearly 30 percent of paternity tests conducted in the U.S. reveal that the man being tested is not the biological father. Partially as a result of the availability of DNA paternity testing, thousands of fathers are discovering that “their” child is someone else’s. But, many of these “duped dads” continue to be responsible for the payment of child support or suffer the consequences of jail.

Too many states adhere to an archaic 500-year-old English common-law doctrine that a married man is always legally presumed the father of a child born of the marriage, even if he is not the biological father. Unmarried men can be court ordered to pay child support for children they did not father through default paternity and child support judgments. Such judgments can be court ordered without the alleged father’s knowledge.

Ignoring paternity fraud is not different than ignoring DNA testing showing a convicted murderer wasn’t guilty. It’s time to correct this injustice. Paternity fraud is just as reprehensible as any other kind of fraud from which the public needs protection.
Tony Jackson is a California father who had to work two jobs to pay back approximately $13,000 in back child support for a child proven by DNA testing not to be his. It’s time to release men like Jackson from this blatant injustice.

Opponents of paternity fraud legislation needed to correct this problem say we must prevent “duped dads” from abandoning children that are not theirs biologically. In many cases I’ve seen, the “duped dad” does not want to abandon the child he has come to love as his own. It was the system that drove him off as well as the biological father. For example, in one outrageous case in Texas, the judge ordered a man to pay child support for another man’s three children and cut off his visitation with all of the children.

Who is really hurting the children in cases such as this?

To those who say children will be left unsupported if men are not forced to pay support, I say that the men who should support the children should be the biological fathers. Making men pay child support for children proven by DNA testing not to be theirs is not in the best interests of children and families. It can also deprive children of ever knowing their true biological fathers.

The real fear underlying the arguments of many of the dwindling number of opponents of this legislation is losing a cash cow for agencies and institutions that benefit financially by preserving the status quo. In reality, it has little to do with protecting the interests of children.

States benefit by collecting financial incentive payments from the federal government for child support collected. It is easier for child support agencies to financially squeeze the “duped dad” than to find the biological dad, who may not even know he has a child and would welcome the opportunity to step up to the plate and be Dad.

I encourage all state legislatures to pass fair paternity fraud bills requiring courts to order DNA testing when requested. I also encourage the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the next Paternity Fraud case that comes before it. A correct ruling by the high court would speed justice along for everyone. This is clearly what is right.

Mar 212012

by Jayne A. Major, Ph.D.  (Breakthrough Parenting)

Parental Alienation SyndromeNothing stirs up passions more than the controversy generated when parents are at war over the custody of a child.

A controversy is an issue where evidence on both sides can make a compelling case. It is never black and white, but when people have their emotions aroused, an issue can quickly turn into two polar opposites.

Fear takes over reason, incomplete facts become evidence, and court calendars become jammed with repeat visits to a judge to try to bring sanity to what is unlikely to ever be sane. On top of this, social movements are promoting one side over another in their clamor for justice. Politicians are lobbied to pass laws to bring order to chaos. Gender wars are fueled and lives are destroyed.

My exposure to custody wars came from the mothers and fathers attending my Breakthrough Parenting® classes at The Parent Connection, Inc., an agency that I founded in Los Angeles in 1983.

Many of the parents in my classes were litigating over child custody. Most said that they wanted to settle the case, but none of them would settle by giving up all access to their child, which seemed to be the only other alternative open to them.

It was disturbing to see that in many of these cases, the child was behaving outrageously, to the point of cursing one of their parents, and kicking, spitting, and calling them stupid, mean and horrible.

What can you do when one parent is intractable and vitriolic? What can you do when the child becomes caught up in the fight and starts taking sides? I came to realize that this level of conflict in custody disputes was a fallout from sweeping societal changes.

What has changed? Continue reading »

Mar 122012

ECTAustralian children to be sterilized without parental consent under new eugenics law. “” If you have ever seen the famous 1975 movie One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest, you likely recall several disturbing scenes in which mental health patients are given frontal-lobe lobotomies, or the iconic scene where actor Jack Nicholson’s character undergoes electroconvulsive therapy (ECT). Today, these horrific forms of so-called mental health treatment are considered to be cruel relics of the past, but a new bill in Australia proposes that young children be given these treatments without parental consent, and even be permitted to undergo sterilization procedures without parental consent.

The Government of Western Australia’s Mental Health Commission (WAMHC) has basically conjured up a proposal for new mental health legislation that bypasses parental involvement in the mental health treatment process, and instead tasks children under age 18, and of any age, with making the decision about whether or not to be sterilized, or whether or not to have their brain tissue destroyed with psychosurgery procedures. If a “mental health professional” can convince children that they need such treatments for their own good, in other words, than Australia’s youngest members of society will be open game for the eugenicist agenda.

It almost sounds like the plot of a sick movie, but it is all true and fully documented right in the WAMHC Mental Health Bill 2011, which you can access here: The language is horrifying, but not necessarily surprising. Similar efforts to undermine parental authority are taking place both in the U.S. and around the world.””

Learn more: