Archive | feminism RSS feed for this section

Children’s Aid Society (CAS) Feminist Social Workers Still At It

21 Apr
Justice is blind, or, at least, it should be. (Source: http://www.photo-dictionary.com/photofiles/list/7606/10212statue_of_justice.jpg)

Justice is blind, or, at least, it should be. (Source: http://www.photo-dictionary.com/photofiles/list/7606/10212statue_of_justice.jpg)

Those who’ve followed this blog (and especially those who’ve read the manuscript for my forthcoming book) know my feelings about feminist child “protection” social workers. In the jurisdiction where I live—Ontario, Canada—, child protection agencies are officially known as Children’s Aid Societies, or CAS for short. These odious feminist entities are borderline above the law, and they know it.

As I discovered to my horror back in 2008, feminists have rigged key definitions and practices in the mandatory Child Protection Standards in Ontario regulatory document. Since 2007, if a mother does not win custody of the kids in divorce (and hence the child support payments), then it is considered child ‘abuse,’ especially if mother is a child abuser. This is to rationalize malicious feminist interference in divorce custody on mothers’ behalf via fraudulent child ‘protection’ action on a province-wide scale.

For those who might be inclined to think that I exaggerate in my analysis of Ontario’s Matriarchal feminist child protection system, consider this recent column by the National Post’s Barb Kay entitled “Children’s Aid Societies gone rogue.”

Here are the highlights of this 154 day case:

– In 2010, the London-Middlesex CAS applied to protect three boys (5, 12, and 15) after a parental separation.

– Mother vilified Father, claiming: he had emotionally abused her; that he was a sexual abuser; and that he was a murderer who tried to exploit the kids to try and kill the mother.

– Mother, no surprise, turned out to be unreliable and manipulative. [Nav: Probably covert narcissist or borderline personality disorder]

– The CAS ignored the boys’ repeated reports of Mother’s “… violence, alcoholism and sexual indiscretions.”

– The mother eventually resorted to alleging that the oldest son tried to kill her, which brought the matter to criminal court.

– Luckily, there was a good judge on the case, Mr. Justice Harper (Where were you in 2008!). Justice Harper slammed the CAS as being the driving force behind the trial and being an advocate for mother (remember, a CAS is only supposed to protect children). He stuck the CAS with 2/3’s of the record $1.4M court costs, and assigned mother the other 1/3 ($604,500).

– The London-Middlesex CAS’s notes referred to Mother as their “client.”

– Mandatory CAS document sharing for court was discovered to be running a year late.

– One CAS supervisor, tasked with providing documents to lawyers, removed 475 pages of notes, emails, records, and summaries from the file. This should be a criminal offence.

– Justice Harper felt that the kids were permanently scarred by all of this, and that “This was exacerbated by the actions of the Society, some police officers, some women’s groups, a school board and her employers … many of whom accepted without any level of scrutiny the (woman’s) self-reports.”

– Justice Harper noted that the CAS had acted in bad faith. This means that the CAS workers involved in this case do not necessarily enjoy the “Good Samaritan” clause protection of Ontario’s Child and Family Services Act. [My opinion.]

– Barb Kay gets, on average, one CAS horror story a week.

It is this systemic and fraudulent feminist child “protection” scam that The Mirror, Book One – Welcome to the Evil Sisterhood will be exposing. I suspect that it is going to make for an interesting if unpleasant read for good judges like Justice Harper. God as my Witness, I will expose this heinous practice for all the world to see.

Message to School Principals: Let Kids Be Kids and Boys be Boys

22 Mar
CHILDREN PLAYING. Roman artwork, 2nd century A.D. Credit: Campana Collection; purchase, 1861. Louvre. Source: wikipedia.org

CHILDREN PLAYING. Roman artwork, 2nd century A.D. Credit: Campana Collection; purchase, 1861. Louvre. Source: wikipedia.org

Where did our schools go wrong? When I was a boy, the absolute, guaranteed, 100% certain best things about school were: a) lunch; and b) recess. The reason?

Football, of the North American variety.

Not the organized version of the sport. Just a bunch of boys with a football going out in the fresh air and having a grand time. No safety equipment, and full tackling. We picked our own teams, ensured everyone played fairly, made certain that everyone got to play, and had a blast in the process. We played in the sun, we played in the rain. We played in the wind, we played in the snow.

We ran. We threw. We caught. We lived life to the fullest, as only boys can.

There was the odd bump or bruise, but never a serious injury. We never got into fights, as the game bred friendship and sportsmanship and honour of the good sort, not animosity.

The only school yard rules that we had were simple. No fighting. Stay on the school grounds. Obey the “duty” teachers on the playgrounds during recess. Be nice.

These were unwritten rules, as far as we knew. You didn’t need to have these written down. Everyone understood.

By the time that my sons were of a similar age–I’ll loosely define this as the grades 3 to 8 period–, my reading had suggested that misguided feminism had adversely affected the education system to make being a boy “bad.” When I checked with my boys’ school principal to see if tackling was still allowed, she told that it wasn’t, as it led to aggression. Only it doesn’t, as I know from experience. As Lenin stated, a lie repeated often enough becomes the truth.

Although my elementary school sons were forbidden from tackling or having any such fun on the school grounds, they knew how to change their tampons due to the school’s excellent state-mandated sex education program. This was a Catholic school, mind you. It was either while in grade 6 or 7 that my older son had a great laugh in his deadpan impersonation of his male teacher informing the class about cunnilingus.

I don’t think I learned what that word meant until I was 30.

Parents, do not despair, for all hope is not lost. There exists a single school in New Zealand where one brave principal has the courage to let kids be kids, which means that boys can be boys. In an uplifting article by the National Post’s Sarah Boesveld, we learn of Principal Bruce McLachlan’s brave and unheard of policy to–wait for it–let kids have fun on the school grounds.

Once Principal McLachlan threw out the rule book, so to speak, what he discovered was: “Fewer children were getting hurt on the playground. Students focused better in class. There was also less bullying, less tattling. Incidents of vandalism had dropped off.”

While Ms. Boesveld correctly discussed the fear of getting sued as a culprit behind schools’ taking all the fun out of the playground, there is a deeper problem. The sort of school that Principal McLachlan is running is the sort of school where boys will thrive. Been there, done that, got the t-shirt. This is exactly what feminist education policy makers do NOT want.

Those who doubt this claim are encouraged to read Christina Hoff Sommers’, Ph.D. (and mother of boys), book The War Against Boys – How Misguided Feminism is Harming Our Young Men

Kudos to Principal McLaughlan for compassion, courage, and common sense. Kudos too to Ms. Boesveld and the National Post for a super article.

There is always hope.

International Women’s Day Retrospective, or how to deceive with statistics

14 Mar
Women, this is your life, 2006.*

Women, this is your life, 2006.*

I received this image in an email from someone who knew that I was not a fan of feminism. It shows statistics published for International Women’s Day 2006 by U.K. newspaper The Independent. These statistics appear to show what a terrible lot women in this world face, given the numbers and especially the title: “THIS IS YOUR LIFE (If you are a woman).” The title implies that the article portrays the reality of all women, and that it isn’t a pleasant one.

Those who’ve read the manuscript for my forthcoming book The Mirror know that I recognized the same essential narcissistic personality traits in ardent feminists as those that I lived with for 19 years in the expert-confirmed narcissistic personality traits of my ex-wife. To be blunt, ardent feminists suffer from a form of gender narcissism that results in their pathological need for females being victims of males and society to be “true.” These feminists are pathological liars of a specific type.

Let’s take a critical look at some of the statistics, which are obviously feminist influenced.** Context is everything.

A baby girl born in the U.K. will likely live to 81, but if she is born in Swaziland, she is likely to die at 39. This deals with average life expectancies. While sad, a lower life expectancy is to be expected in developing nations. According to the World Health Organization’s (WHO) “Country Health System Fact Sheet 2006 – Swaziland,” the life expectancy at birth of a boy (2004) was 36 years and that of girls (2004) was, as advertised, 39 years. Men actually have it worse than women in Swaziland, yet the article deceptively presents the information as women being victims. How can women in Swaziland be used as a proxy for all women? How can you compare female life expectancy rates in the UK and Swaziland, and imply that women are victims in the process?

Women comprise 55% of the world’s population over 60 yrs old and 65% over 80 old. How can women be victims if men die sooner? Common sense would argue the opposite.

70% of the 1.2 billion people living in poverty are women and children. Wow, aren’t we men wicked and uncaring? But why didn’t The Independent compare the number of women living in poverty to the number of men living in poverty? Wouldn’t that have been a relevant comparison? Could it be that nearly as many men as women, if not more, live in poverty?

Women earn less at full-time and part-time jobs than do men. This chestnut has been put to bed in authoritative fashion by Warren Farrell, Ph.D., in one of his excellent books:

Writes Farrell:

Men’s choices lead to men earning more money; women’s choices lead to women having better lives.

Men’s trade-offs include working more hours (women typically work more at home); taking more-hazardous assignments (cab-driving; construction; trucking); moving overseas or to an undesirable location on-demand (women’s greater family obligations inhibit this); and training for more-technical jobs with less people contact (e.g., engineering).

Women’s choices appear more likely to involve a balance between work and the rest of life. Women are more likely to balance income with a desire for safety, fulfillment, potential for personal growth, flexibility and proximity-to-home. These lifestyle advantages lead to more people competing for these jobs and thus lower pay.

(http://www.warrenfarrell.net/Summary/, accessed 14 March 2014)

62% of unpaid family workers are female. What does this mean? Are we talking about mothers here, or friends and relatives that look after children while the mother works? Here we see the traditional maternal role and the supportive nature of feminine socialization (per John Gray, Ph.D.) being exploited to portray women as victims. The natural and generous act of Grandmother taking take of her grandkids for her single mother daughter is twisted to fit the feminist need for women to always be victims.

There are women’s issues that I fully acknowledge and support, such as genuine reproductive health (which does NOT include abortion on demand as a “right”) and the reprehensible practice of female circumcision, to name two. The problem with ardent feminists is that they pathologically need all females, and only females, to be victims. Thus, their “research” and “scholarship” and activism will typically be twisted to make the facts support the “truth” they want to see. They will ignore any contrary fact or evidence.

One recent “Freshly Pressed” post entitled “Bad Feminism” by blogger Claire Lehmann decries these ardent, ideological feminists who ignore research and facts as pop feminists. I encourage you to read Lehmann’s rather lucid post.

There are problems with feminism, obviously. These pop feminists–i.e., radical, ideological, gender, or “gynocentric” feminists–pretty much own feminism and the “women’s movement.” (See Christina Hoff Sommer’s, Ph.D., book Who Stole Feminism? How Women Have Betrayed Women.) Much of the entrenched feminist “research” and “theory” is, in effect or in fact, academic fraud; it acts as disinformation. We don’t known what to believe is true, and it disguises the women who are genuinely in need, as well as those men and children who are genuinely in need.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but if something is generally held by feminists to be true, it should be considered a lie until proven otherwise. The indirect feminist reign in the English-speaking world is one of lies and manipulation and control, all of which are hallmarks of narcissism. Feminism as it currently exists has nothing to do with genuine issues of equality and  justice.

The sooner it is brought down, the better for us all.

________
* http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/press/25-years-of-the-independents-front-pages-2366678.html?action=gallery&ino=47, accessed 14 March 2014

** I am not suggesting or implying that The Independent attempted to deceive or knowingly acted in improper fashion in publishing what appears to me to be standard feminist tripe. As Lenin stated, a lie repeated often enough becomes the truth.