Welcome to the blog of the International Fathers and Children Coalition. We take pride in thoroughly researching our articles, checking our sources, and covering news that traditional media deliberately ignores or would not touch. For a full list of published articles see the "Table of Contents" page on the right, under "Pages."

Thursday, March 29, 2012

What Is "Domestic Violence"? – Anything Your Heart Desires, Honey! (A Word of Caution to an American Male)

By Eric Ross, Ph.D.

They do not call it "the American Dream" for nothing    if you are a man who wishes to create a happy family, you are probably dreaming and this is your wake-up call: in terms of lifetime outcomes you are taking on an enormous risk.

The definition of domestic violence by the Obama's US Department of Justice (2011) is,  in part, as follows:

We define domestic violence as a pattern of abusive behavior in any relationship that is used by one partner to gain or maintain power and control over another intimate partner. Domestic violence can be physical, sexual, emotional, economic, or psychological actions or threats of actions that influence another person. This includes any behaviors that intimidate, manipulate, humiliate, isolate, frighten, terrorize, coerce, threaten, blame, hurt, injure, or wound someone.

Read it and weep! “Emotional” and “economic”? – Let me clarify that: this spectacularly all-inclusive, "anything your heart desires, honey" feminist definition of what is violence is oftentimes played out in the Family Courts. More over, U.S. VP Joe "The Fraudster" Biden and Attorney General Eric "Fast and Furious" Holder want to federalize the "crime" of denying your g/f money, when she demands it. Said Biden: "The use of a “a physical, financial or psychological power over you … that is the ugliest sin that man can commit". 

The institution of the Family Court is the brainchild of the Feminist Jurisprudence that completely changed the laws of the United States in the last 40 years. Feminist Jurisprudence replaced the "reasonable man" standard in cases where a woman is involved, with a "reasonable woman" standard, giving women a green light to lie and connive to "punish" a man, usually an intimate partner, for making her angry or unhappy.  What does "DV"  mean?  According to Feminist Jurisprudence, only a man can commit Domestic Violence. According to them, a woman does not have to prove anything, a mere allegation is sufficient. The burden of proof that he is not guilty thus shifts on the man. By now you all should be familiar how this worked out in many rape allegations made by women against celebrities and other multi-millionaires, from Kobe Bryant, to the Duke University Lacrosse team false accuser (later arrested for stabbing her boyfriend), to the DSK case. 


Feminist advocates have been deceitfully focused on the alleged “patriarchal dominance” despite hundreds of studies that debunk this theory.  Gender-feminists used the ploy of “patriarchal dominance” under which a violence by a woman is not at all violence but an act of "self-defense." They declare a man to be a perpetrator of Domestic Violence Abuse without any evidence, on nothing more than a woman's allegation, (usually shouted in all caps in the Orders of Protection handed out to women like candy) when his remark or a facial expression allegedly “humiliated” or “intimidated” or "frightened" his gold-digging wifey or girlfriend. 

A Typical Pie-Chart of How Women's Shelters Define "Domestic Violence" to be Just About 

Anything They Wish, but Never Perpetrated by a Woman.  Their Trump Card: Domestic Violence is Only Men on Women.  When a Woman Kills or Assaults Her Partner or Child it is Not "Violence", it Is Something Else. 

Surprised? You thought you knew what violence was! Well, think again.  Apparently, there are scores of enterprising law-makers out there from the rank and file of "family and matrimonial" lawyers, concerned with cash flows as more and more lawyers join the ranks, fresh from the conveyor lines of the the country's law schools. (The US has more lawyers than the rest of the world combined.)


They and the scores of no less enterprising gender feminists have redefined  you as the abuser, rapist and murderer, based on your genetic differences from those who do not have a penis. Yes, you are a man. In the process, they slated you to surrender at least seventy five (75) percent of you current and future net worth.  You didn't take heed when George Orwell warned you that the new definitions were going to be “War is Peace”, "Freedom is Slavery” and “Ignorance is Strength.” Now, pay the price.

When she declares that he refused to give her the super-sized amounts of money for shopping,  entertainment and her night on the town, and he called for moderation in expenses 
― it is an “economic” form of DV, "to control her". If your budget is shrinking or you are unemployed, it does not matter. Your goose is cooked, dude. While you were working hard to make your American dream a reality, they turned you into a criminal, unbeknownst to you.  As George Carlin, comedian extraordinaire said, "It's called the American Dream because you have to be asleep to believe it." So, here's your wake-up call: All it takes is her word. And we have a large number of court transcripts to prove it.

It is not a matter of the "expansive definition" of "violence" pushed by the US Senate Democrats versus "restrictive definition" asserted by a few among the 31 Republicans who voted against it. Joe Biden and Co force the Orwellian New World Order upon the people by redefining the simplest of notions. 


Said Biden, when pushing VAWA through US Senate:  "The use of a “... financial or psychological power over you … that is the ugliest sin that man can commit". 


The use of "financial or psychological power" in the family is not  "violence", it may not, and must not be adjudicated as "violence." In fact, the states' penal code does not include such vague definitions. Only the Family Courts go through the verbal acrobatics and shameless browbeating of the male litigants, to find them guilty of "domestic violence" when financial or psychological power struggle is involved. It maybe a power struggle for control of finances. Women run circles around men in wielding psychological power and control. Is it violence? -- Absolutely not. Nor is it "violence" when psychological control is exercised by a man, though feminists disagree. Only when the state, through its punitive and coercive apparatus of Courts and Police, uses its "financial power" to starve men by unsustainable spousal and child support orders, does it become "violence", which may ultimately beget an extreme violent response.


The definition of Violence has been for centuries as in the Oxfod Dictionary: "The exercise of physical force so as to inflict injury on, or cause damage to, persons or property; action or conduct characterized by this; treatment or usage tending to cause bodily injury or forcibly interfering with personal freedom. "


Most litigants know little-to-nothing about the fact that the actual Domestic Violence as defined by their state laws, involves much more than an unkind word or an occasional absence of a happy grin on your face. It is... actual violence as we all know it, such as pushing and shoving, kicking and scratching    all the things women do at least as often as men, and men hardly ever complain about for fear of being ridiculed, or worse    arrested as if they were the perpetrators.  VAWA mandates arrests of men, no matter who committed violence, often even when he is the only injured party.  If she slaps you ― leave immediately, if she hits you with a fist or a kitchen implement ― call the police. This "relationship" will never work! Never try to protect yourself unless she's armed and dangerous, never trade punches. If she made a false allegation against you once, chances are extremely high that she will make them again. 


While numerous studies show women to be equally
aggressive in  IPV, the junk-scientists continue to
insist on the "Patriarchal Dominance" model (only men-
on-women violence is accounted), because that's where
most money is made, and it is easy to justify as
a "do good" policy in the Western societies,
where men always protected and took
care of women. 
The  Family Law gives her numerous incentives to lie and connive. There's a big pot of gold for her at the end: your property and future earnings. She doesn't want you, she wants your money. She wants you, but only as her financial slave.  There are numerous cash flows from your pocket into the lawyers participating in this farce, as well. They are not going to give up big money they will reap by asserting false allegations, just to assure your child's happiness. The allegations in the Orders of Protection, which are doled out to women like candy, oftentimes do not rise to the level of violence by a long shot. So, men naively assume that the Judges will see the kind of "nonsense" these allegations are and will treat them as such. So, men often do not take such "off-the-wall" allegations seriously and do not fight them in court ― a major mistake that may ultimately land them in jail, and for a long time.  


Men caught up in the middle of this crazy-making, have to trust their lawyers to get them out of trouble. Little do they know that their lawyers often get them into much more trouble than there was to begin with. There’s much more money to be made this way by lawyers, judges, prison industry, the family courts' probation officers, Legal Aid Society lawyers funded by the money funneled through VAWA, and numerous other state actors, when you’re in a sea of trouble. Realize that you are essentially up against the largest racketeering enterprise in the history of the Human Civilization, and that your lawyer may turn out to be your enemy, even when  you do your best to manage this professional relationship intelligently, gently but firmly. 


Know the law regarding allegations of "domestic violence." In New York it is Family Court Act Section 8. Read it top to bottom. Memorize it. Make your teenage son memorize it. It may save your life, and his. Demand that Judges stick to the letter of this essentially criminal law, deliberately “civilized” so as to allow the bottom feeders among the Family and Matrimonial lawyers unlimited abuse of people, such as yourself, by the Family Courts, where the Judge is also the Jury and the Prosecutor, and enjoys virtually unlimited discretion, along with absolute immunity. 


Do not plea bargain when no physical violence occurred on your part. All of a sudden your beloved Child is your legal "adversary" represented by an extremely hostile Legal Aid lawyer, also secretly assisting your ex, while being paid by the Violence Against Women Act funds and organisations. This Legal Aid monster needs to secure the next year's budget by raising false statistics of DV. They may illegally threaten you that you will never see your child again unless you admit "guilt", such as exchanging unkind words with you soon-to-be ex wife, allegedly within an earshot of your Child (it does not matter that the Child was in school at the time of a row, as the court is busily fabricating their own version of reality, to put you, the man, in a house of pain). Read the applicable law. Devour legal cases decided by the Appellate Court in similar circumstances, as if your life depended on it, because it does. Marginalized, criminalized, dehumanized and destroyed financially, about 30,000 American men commit suicide annually. [Fn-1]  Countless men in America end up dying "of natural causes", homeless. 


The bottom-feeders lawyers of the Family Court system, the "court officers", are getting out of their way to find you guilty of anything, by hook or by crook, often fraudulently, their actions financially incentivized every step of the way. By so doing they want to set you off on a downward spiral of destroying your fatherhood and turning you into a financial slave, while turning your child against you. The courts and the "attorneys for the child" actively participate in alienating your child against you, psychologically maiming the child for life. A concerted effort by the Court System against you is the bottom line. There are several forces here at work, each may become the subject of a separate discussion. But the Family Court laws and the Court System are incentivized top to bottom, to act against men as described herein.

Unless you put a few miles between yourself and your ex, there will be repeat allegations, the second time over turning into some really serious legal trouble. If you have an outstanding order of protection, you may be jailed just because you parked your car within 100 ft from where she parked in the local Supermarket's parking lot. Do not let this lynch mob win. Take any allegation, no matter how  "off the wall" it may look to you, very seriously.



The process of legal abuse is further incentivized by the Federal Title IV (d) Law, dispensing bonuses to judges for screwing you over to the max.  You have a house? – Kiss it goodby. You have a bank account? – Kiss it goodby. Kiss goodby to you future earnings. If you lose your employment and can't pay the spousal and child support, you go to jail. "Slavery is Freedom." Welcome to being a man in America, 2012, my friend.
____________________________


Fn-1: The last data set currently available was published by the CDC (at http://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/LeadingCauses.html ) and was for the year 2009, when 29,089 men committed suicide. Since then, the rates of suicide by men have increased, reaching dramatic levels.  
_____________________________


In this video-clip, a woman admits under questioning on "Dr. Phil's Show" that 
she feels justified in lying about DV, which her former husband never committed. 
She just wanted to punish him, so she sent her husband to jail for 10 months



Thursday, March 22, 2012

The Center for Public Integrity found all 50 States Corrupt, gave New York a "D"

The Center for Public Integrity has released a report detailing the risk of corruption and lack of accountability in all 50 states. If you believe that state governments are transparent, accountable, free of corruption and well- run, think again. Nearly every state received a poor grade.

About the Center for Public Integrity: The Center for Public Integrity was founded in 1989 by Charles Lewis. It is one of the country's oldest and largest nonpartisan, nonprofit investigative news organizations.  Its mission: to reveal abuses of power, corruption and dereliction of duty by powerful public and private institutions in order to cause them to operate with honesty, integrity, accountability and to put the public interest first.

Rampant Corruption and Lack of Accountability

The Center for Public Integrity’s report examined accountability and ethics in each state government. States were graded on 330 separate metrics, which were grouped into 14 major categories. Overall grades are based on the average grades in the major categories, which included lobbying disclosure, political financing, internal auditing, ethics enforcement agencies and redistricting.

No state earned an A, and only five states received better than a B+. More than half the states received a D+ or worse. Scored from 1 to 100, eight states earned failing grades of 59 or below from the project.  New York received a grade of D.



Read the full Report here: When the State Anti-Corruption Committees Are Marked With Corruption and Partizanship.

Monday, March 19, 2012

Listen and enjoy...





The Psychology of Hate
video


Women in Combat
video

A Victory for Dads: Huggies Anti-Dad Commercials Will Not Air

By Eric Ross, PhD, National Writers Syndicate


Huggies, the diaper brand produced by Kimberly-Clark, finally caved in to the pressure from the men’s groups and individual fathers. It changed its “Have Dad Put Huggies To The Test” campaign after the Huggies’ commercials depicting dads as uncaring, sparked public outrage among fathers.
The Huggies’ commercials showed dads so consumed by sports on TV that they neglected to attend to their babies’ basic sanitary needs when the diapers filled up. The commercial’s voice-over claimed that the company put the diapers to the ultimate test “to prove that Huggies diapers and wipes can handle anything”… including uncaring dads, we must surmise. I must add that from my own dad, to myself, to anyone I know, dads are at least as caring, capable, attentive parents as moms. At least!


Dads saw this outrageous father-bashing right through: while claiming to celebrate fatherhood, Huggies used the misandric stereotype of uncaring, infantile dads. Apparently, Huggies commercial were catering to the primitive stereotypes promulgated by gender-feminists. Not surprisingly, dads protested, en masse.


The first wave of protests got the attention of Huggies and its parent company, Kimberly-Clark. “We have heard the feedback from dads concerning our current ‘real life’ dad commercials,” said Joey Mooring, Huggies spokesperson in a statement. “We have listened and learned… We recognize our intended message did not come through and that we need to do a better job communicating the campaign’s overall message… We also realize that a fact of life is that dads care for their kids just as much as moms do and in some cases are the only caregivers,” Mooring adds, “The intention of our Huggies TV ad was to illustrate that dads have an opinion on product performance just as much as moms do.”



Whatever” good intentions” Huggies claim they had, Dads have heard the true message in the commercials loud and clear and won’t be fooled by platitudes. Dads did not mince words when expressing their outrage to the company. When companies engage in men-bashing, public protest is just the beginning – they may have to face a global boycott of their products, a sharp drop in revenues and steep declines of their stock prices.


One would only wish politicians would have to face similar consequences for their misandric demagoguery.

ABC News - Dads Were Not Amused: Huggies Had to Pull Their Commercial






Friday, March 16, 2012

American Savior Industrial Complex

By Eric Ross, Ph.D.


Teju Cole was born in the United States to Nigerian parents, raised in Nigeria, and now lives in Brooklyn, New York. He is the author of two books, a novella, Every Day is for the Thief, and a novel, Open City. Teju Cole, who just won a prestigious award for his novel “Open City“, offered a very short essay, in Twitter format, as a reaction to Invisible Children’s Kony 2012 campaign. Although Teju Cole trendy vision of the world narrows his field of vision to what he sees through the Black-and-White rifle scope, just substitute his “White Savior Industrial Complex” for “American Savior Industrial Complex”, and this observant and witty young man, would hit the problem right on the nail:
1-   From Sachs to Kristof to Invisible Children to TED, the fastest growth industry in the US is the White Savior Industrial Complex.

2-   The white savior supports brutal policies in the morning, founds charities in the afternoon, and receives awards in the evening.

3-  The banality of evil transmutes into the banality of sentimentality. The world is nothing but a problem to be solved by enthusiasm.

4-   This world exists simply to satisfy the needs — including, importantly, the sentimental needs— of white people and Oprah.

5-  The White Savior Industrial Complex is not about justice. It is about having a big emotional experience that validates privilege.

6-   Feverish worry over that awful African warlord. But close to 1.5 million Iraqis died from an American war of choice. Worry about that.

7-   I deeply respect American sentimentality, the way one respects a wounded hippo. You must keep an eye on it, for you know it is deadly.

What the hell is Teju Cole  talking about? What is this 'American sentimentality" and why is it so dangerous? – I dare say, what he sees in his crosshairs is the collective consciousness of the American taxpayer, shaped up by the TV and other "news" media, creating a perception of “Saving the World and Humanity” and bringing the “Light of the Civilization” to the “savages”…  by bombing them into the stone age, if necessary.  All the while, America exports its version of the enlightened mobocracy of the brainwashed masses to the rest of the world, opening more markets for MacDonald’s cheeseburgers and Coca-Cola’s sugar-laced sodas, symbols of the American democracy, prosperity and well-being.  

Bombing of Belgrade
Remember Billy Clinton’s “love affair” with the under-aged, overweight girl Monica Lewisnky?  To detract media’s attention from him enjoying relaxing oval office fellatios, he bombed Serbia into the stone age. Serbs were denounced in the Western media for "massacres" in Sarajevo in 1992, -94, and -95 that UN's investigators later found to have been committed by Bosnian Muslims.  Bill Clinton labeled Milosevic, the Serbia’s leader,  "a new Hitler," while supporting Bosnian President Alija Izetbegovic who was a convicted World War II Nazi war criminal, and Croatian President Franjo Tudjman, who wrote a book (Wastelands of Historical Truth) praising Hitler and advocating genocide. 


Truth in the US is an elusive commodity. You won’t find it in on the pages of the New York Times or on Oprah show. But the war in Iraq and the bombing of Serbia are just isolated examples of the unrelenting stream of misinformation, which makes Dr. Paul Joseph Goebbels, the Reich Minister of Propaganda in Nazi Germany, turn in his grave with envy.  The US Media makes us all part of the American Savior Industrial Complex.  If we bomb the hell out of anyone, it's only for their own good.


video
video


Wednesday, March 7, 2012

VAWA is the Fraud of the Millennia and Must Be Repealed


Eric Ross, Ph.D. March 02, 2012


How did VAWA, the most unconstitutional, sexist legislation, become adopted and why? – In the January 24, 2000 issue of the U. S. News, on p. 12, a syndicated columnist John Leo wrote:


“The Violence Against Women Act slipped into law in 1994 without most members of Congress quite knowing what they were passing. We have Andrea Dworkin's word on this. Dworkin is surely a contender for the North American title of most overwrought, man-hating feminist. She told the New Republic at the time that the only possible explanation for the bill's popularity in the Senate was the 'senators don't understand the meaning of the legislation that they pass.'”


Andrea Dworkin is credited with laying the “cultural foundation, and Catharine A. Mackinnon, “the most quoted lawyer in America” – the legal foundation for this sexist legislation. Both are viewed as the “founding mothers” of VAWA. Andrea Dworkin described her brand of “feminist justice” for men in Mercy (1990, 1991) quite vividly:

Andrea Dworkin
“I keep practicing horse position…and I kick good; I can kick to the knee and I can kick to the cock but I can't kick to the solar plexus and I can't kick his fucking head off… I fucking smash their faces in; I kick them; I hit them; I kick them blind; I like smashing their faces in with one kick, I like dancing on their chests,with my toes, big, swinging kicks, and I like one big one between the legs, for the sake of form and symbolism, to pay my respects to content as such... I like smashing the bottles into their fucking faces and I like taking the knives, for my collection; I like knives. I find them drunk and lying down and I hurt them and I run; and I fucking don't care about fair; discuss fair at the U.N.; vote on it; from which I enunciate another political principle, It is obscene for a girl to think about fair.”[Fn-1]

The legal brain behind VAWA, Catharine A. MacKinnon, was described in the feminist magazine Bust Guide to the New Girl Order (Nina Hartley, 1999) as a “bitter and angry” advocate who “silences women”:

"Don’t even get me started on MacKinnon... Now I’d just look at her and shake my head… and say, “You know what, I’m really sorry you are that bitter and angry,” cuz that’s what it is. Its her fuel. It’s what drives her.
… I do believe she is deluded, and I do believe anger and fear and jealousy and resentment and frustration and out-and-out prudery are what drive her, are her motivating forces... MacKinnon really does feel like she is helping women, while at the same time, she and Dworkin and their ilk silence women.”

The many tirades by Catharine A. MacKinnon, a Yale-educated law professor, whose reputation for being a humorless control freak rivals even that of Dworkin, were summed up by her critics:

“All sex, even consensual sex between a married couple, is an act of violence perpetrated against a woman.”

Objectivity, facts and logic have nothing whatsoever to do with MacKinnon’s brain-child, “feminist jurisprudence,” which resulted in propagation of the “Family Law” throughout the states, and in adoption of VAWA. "Feminist jurisprudence" seeks to eliminate logic and to give women a distinct, pronounced legal advantage to compensate for alleged inequities of the “patriarchal” society, and so MacKinnon demands legal asymmetry favoring women.

Thursday, March 1, 2012

Huggies Anti-Dad Commercials Will Not Air

Huggies, the diaper brand produced by Kimberly-Clark, finally caved in to the pressure from the men’s groups and individual fathers. It changed its “Have Dad Put Huggies To The Test” campaign after the Huggies’ commercials depicting dads as uncaring, sparked public outrage among fathers.


The Huggies’ commercials showed dads so consumed by sports on TV that they neglected to attend to their babies’ basic sanitary needs when the diapers filled up. The commercial’s voice-over claimed that the company put the diapers to the ultimate test “to prove that Huggies diapers and wipes can handle anything”… including uncaring dads, we must surmise. I must add that from my own dad, to myself, to anyone I know, dads are at least as caring, capable, attentive parents as moms. At least!

Dads saw this outrageous father-bashing right through: while claiming to celebrate fatherhood, Huggies used the misandric stereotype of uncaring, infantile dads. Apparently, Huggies commercial were catering to the primitive stereotypes promulgated by gender-feminists. Not surprisingly, dads protested, en masse.

The first wave of protests got the attention of Huggies and its parent company, Kimberly-Clark. “We have heard the feedback from dads concerning our current ‘real life’ dad commercials,” said Joey Mooring, Huggies spokesperson in a statement. “We have listened and learned… We recognize our intended message did not come through and that we need to do a better job communicating the campaign’s overall message… We also realize that a fact of life is that dads care for their kids just as much as moms do and in some cases are the only caregivers,” Mooring adds, “The intention of our Huggies TV ad was to illustrate that dads have an opinion on product performance just as much as moms do.”

Whatever” good intentions” Huggies claim they had, Dads have heard the true message in the commercials loud and clear and won’t be fooled by platitudes. Dads did not mince words when expressing their outrage to the company. When companies engage in men-bashing, public protest is just the beginning – they may have to face a global boycotte of their products, a sharp drop in revenues and steep declines of their stock prices.

One would only wish politicians would have to face similar consequences for their misandric demagoguery.