Tuesday, July 28, 2009

Police: Woman accused of killing newborn ate brain

In the normal course of events I wouldn't post such a heinous article of violence but I'll make an exception. The child was 3.5 weeks old. Just think if this had happened in a late term abortion clinic a month earlier it would have not got any notice. The baby's brain would have been sucked out by a vacuum instead of by her mother. We all want to believe she is insane don't we because women just don't do this. B.S. Remember Karla Homolka - she raped and killed her own sister and two other teens but got a plea bargain because the Crown lawyers thought she was a victim. The dad left. I wonder why. Children are at the greatest risk when dad is gone. As soon has he leaves this monster goes berserk.
Patricia Pearson in her book "When She Was Bad" states, "The operative assumption is that the violent woman couldn't have wanted, deliberately to cause harm. Therefore, if she says she was abused/coerced/insane she probably was."

I have this property to sell you - interested. Patricia clearly debunks many myths about female violence in this book.

Jul 27 02:00 PM US/Eastern
Associated Press Writer

SAN ANTONIO (AP) - A woman charged with murdering her 3 1/2-week-old son used a knife and two swords to dismember the child and ate parts of his body, including his brain, before stabbing herself in the torso and slicing her own throat, police said Monday.

Otty Sanchez, 33, is charged with capital murder in the death of her infant son, Scott Wesley Buchholtz-Sanchez. She was recovering from her wounds at a hospital, and was being held on $1 million bail.
San Antonio Police Chief William McManus said the early Sunday morning attack occurred a week after the child's father moved out. The child's aunt and two cousins, ages 5 and 7, were in the house, but none were harmed.

McManus, who appeared uncomfortable as he addressed reporters, said Sanchez apparently ate the child's brain and some other body parts. She also tore his face off, chewed off three of his toes and decapitated the infant before stabbing herself.

"It's too heinous for me to describe it any further," McManus said.

Officers called to Sanchez's house at about 5 a.m. Sunday found her sitting on the couch "screaming that she killed her baby," police spokesman Joe Rios said. They found the boy's body in a bedroom.

Police said Sanchez said the devil told her to kill her son.

"It was a spontaneous utterance," McManus said. "She said she was hearing voices."

Sanchez does not yet have a lawyer, police said, and was hospitalized in San Antonio. The police declined to identify other family members.

No one answered the door Monday at Sanchez's home, where the blinds were shut. A hopscotch pattern and red hearts were drawn on the walk leading up to the house.

Neighbor Luis Yanez said everyone on the street was appalled by the news.

"Why would you do that to your baby?" said Yanez, 23, a tire technician. "It brings chills to you. They can't defend themselves."

Copyright 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

Monday, July 20, 2009

In Western OZ ~ More reports of WA mothers mistreating children

Comments that were left on site.

The data are consistent with those published by the USA government for a great number of years. The victim oriented feminist, Angela Hartwig, being quoted here is trying to deflect the fact the child abuse in almost all cases occurs in single parent female environments and also can be exacerbated with the live in boyfriend. The DV excuse is just that. In most countries including Canada and the USA intimate partner abuse is pretty much equal. In one peer reviewed study by the Center for Disease Control in the USA 71% if the initiators of violence were females. The safest plac
e for children is in a two parent biological family, in a shared/equal parenting environment of the bio mom and dad or with dad. Its high time the propaganda elicited by people like Hartwig was debunked.

I made a followup on July 21, 2009 in response to a myth often entertained by victim feminists.

Ashakara has trotted out the old canard used in North America that more contact = more abuse. Fathers are mostly kept out of the lives of their children by gatekeeping mothers and family courts whose judges are the largest group of social engineers on children in most western style democracies. To deduce more contact = more abuse requires peer reviewed studies and I suggest you are trying to produce another myth out of thin air. The fact that children do more poorly on a wide variety of social parameters, not just abuse, in single family female homes is statistically significant but does not apply to all of that cohort. Many children thrive and do well in single parent homes for a variety of reasons. Here are a few of the other negative social outcomes in single parent female households validated by peer reviewed studies. These are from North America: 63% of all youth suicides, 70% of all teen pregnancies, 71% of all adolescent chemical/substance abusers, 80% of all prison inmates, 60% of all rapists, 72% of juvenile murderers, 90% of welfare recipients are single mothers. and 90% of all homeless and runaway children came from single mother homes. This is a just small portion of the problems. Shared and equal parenting, 50-50 where appropriate including residency has to be the standard.MJM

Nick Taylor

July 18, 2009 06:00pm

THE number of WA mothers reported for abusing their children has leapt in the past two years.

Figures from the Department for Child Protection, obtained by The Sunday Times, show the number of mothers believed responsible for "substantiated maltreatment'' has risen from 312 to 427. In the same period - 2005-06 to 2007-08 - the number of fathers reported for child abuse dropped from 165 to 155.

A breakdown of all family-based child abuse shows and increase from 960 to 1505 last year.
Michael Woods, of the University of Western Sydney, said the data ``debunked a common misconception about fathers and violence''.

Dr Woods, who is also a co-director of the university-based Men's Information and Resource Centre said: ``The figures undermine the myth that fathers are the major risk for their children's well being.

``The data is not surprising. It is in line with the international findings regarding perpetrators of child abuse.''

He said previous practices of lumping together de factos, live-in boyfriends and overnight male guests with fathers as male carers had ``skewed beliefs'' about who abused children.

Angela Hartwig, executive officer of the Women's Council for Domestic and Family Violence Services WA, said the increases were a concern, but child abuse, neglect and domestic and family violence could be reported in several ways.

``Because the woman is so often the primary care-giver she is held as being responsible for the neglect,'' she said.

``This could also explain why there is such a high number of neglect cases against women, as the data only shows the first person believed responsible.

``The statistics do not show the strong correlation that where there is child abuse there is often domestic and family violence and the women may be the victim of the abuse.

``If she is a victim of domestic and family violence, a woman has very little power to change the situation.

``It is difficult for a woman to provide for children when living with an abusive partner who has total control of all decisions made, which includes controlling the finances.''


In Western OZ ~ Dads not the Demons

Author: Micheal Woods

20 July 2009

Recent data from the Department of Child Protection in Western Australia (WA) has debunked a common misconception about fathers and violence. The data shows that natural mothers are far more likely to abuse children than their natural fathers, other than in sexual abuse, where mothers were responsible for only 13% of cases.

The past practice of lumping together de factos, live-in boyfriends and overnight male guests together with fathers as "male carers" has led to skewed beliefs about who abuses children. In releasing these recent figures that identify natural fathers separately, the DCP has provided a clearer picture of who is likely to abuse children.

The figures - obtained under Freedom of Information provisions - provide a clearer picture of who is likely to abuse children in families. The data show that there were 1505 substantiations of child abuse in WA during 2007-8.

Natural parents were responsible for 37% of total cases. Of these, mothers are identified as the perpetrator of neglect or abuse in 73% of cases, including over 50% of cases of physical abuse. The accompanying graph shows the breakdown of parents responsible for each form of abuse.

Child Abuse - Proportion of Mothers or Fathers as Perpetrators (by Type of Abuse), DCP, WA, 2007/08
Chart: Child Abuse - Proportion of Mothers or Fathers as Perpetrators by Type of Abuse

Micheal Woods, an academic from the University of Western Sydney, said:

"The data is not surprising - it is in line with international findings regarding perpetrators of child abuse. And the figures do undermine the myth that fathers are the major risk for their children's well-being".

The release of this data is timely, and shows the need for solid evidence in developing legislation and policies affecting families. Recently, some radical groups have attacked the Family Court for its role in encouraging shared parenting after separation, claiming that this placed children at risk from violent fathers. Selected instances where fathers have harmed children were used to suggest that this is a common occurrence, and that shared parenting legislation placed children at increased risk.

However, this newly available information demonstrates that while there are some abusive fathers, there are in fact a larger proportion of violent and abusive mothers. This should not mean that children are automatically placed into the care of fathers to reduce risks of abuse, but rather that unrepresentative anecdotes of violent fathers should not influence legislation and policies designed to protect children.

The difficult task faced by the Family Court in trying to ensure the best interests of children should not be compounded by irrational fear mongering, but rather by a considered examination of the evidence. Shared parenting may be inconvenient for one parent, or even unwanted, but with changing social roles many more men after separation want to be actively involved in their children's lives. And in the vast majority of cases, their children will be very safe in their care.


Related Article: 'More reports of WA mothers mistreating children'

Please also read the related article published on the weekend in PerthNow:

More reports of WA mothers mistreating children, by Nick Taylor

Friday, July 3, 2009

A judge who resigns on Principle? ~ DISPOSABLE DADS.

Comments left on the CNN site with some info on scholastic achievement by gender. CNN did not publish the comments. They are very Left/Liberal and probably thought they would offend their left leaning readers and watchers so I'm not surprised. They worship at the alter of their Messiah Obama and indeed are one of the leading media outlets cheer leading the wave of Obama mania. It is too early to tell but so far all I see is a leftward leaning tax and spend politician who is more celebrity than substance and in a sense he is scary. We need to watch him carefully as his term gets longer because in America and elsewhere celebrities can get away with a lot more than mere politicians before the fans wake up. Just look at the wave of euphoria over Michael Jackson's death. Here is a man/child obviously suffering a serious disorder on how to deal with affections for children elevated to a status undeserving of his behaviour.

Find this article at:


I am so sorry to hear about your brother. Suicide by marginalized dads is an epidemic that flies under the radar of everyone. Compare the differential rates for suicides by moms and dads (not just men and women) and what you will find may shock you. In Canada there is a 3x's difference. Many of these are a result of dads being marginalized by family court judges. I would ask you to become an advocate for equal/shared parenting with co-residency after separation/divorce with stronger rules of evidence for allegations of abuse.

The term gender apartheid sounds very strong but when one analyzes the downturn in the valu
e of men and boys it applies. Note just the following from Mark Perry's research at the U of Michigan: Perry shows that men are now on the wrong side of the degree gap at every stage of education.

Here are his figures
for the class of 2009:

Associate’s degrees: 167 for women for every 100 for men.

Bachelor’s degrees: 142 for women for every 100 for men.

Master’s degrees: 159 for women for every 100 for men.

Professional degrees: 104 for women for every 100 for men.

Doctoral degrees: 107 for women for every 100 for men.

Degrees at all levels: 148 for women for every 100 for men.

The pendulum has swung way too far to the left of centre, much of it based on feminist mythology of oppression at the hands of the patriarchy. The above doesn't look too oppressive to most scholars.MJM

Thursday, July 2, 2009

A comment on Equal/Shared Parenting and the Victim Feminist role in Family Law

The original article on which I commented is here. http://fathersmensrights.blogspot.com/2009/07/imfc-ereview-equal-parenting.html

We are seeing a more balanced perspective in this newsletter. Given the IMFC roots are on the religious right of the political spectrum it is clear they are pro-marriage but given some of these unions will fail other aspects that are fair to the children and both parents must prevail. Note the stats in the article indicating only an 8.5% rate for dads getting sole custody. The rest are either joint or sole custody to the mother. Joint custody is the manner in which family court judges across Canada offer bread crumbs to fathers but still give physical custody to moms.

The study by Professor Kruk, quoted in this article, also shows children and parents need at least a 40% amount of contact to maintain a parental bond. If this is not the case, these bonds diminish over time and children suffer causing the access parent and child to drift further apart. The normal contact given by family courts is 14%. (about 4 days a month). Superior Court Judges in Canada are responsible for this social engineering nightmare causing undue emotional trauma and poverty to children. This era, looked back on from the future, will be viewed with people shaking their heads and wondering how it could have been tolerated for so long.

I would recommend more research in the area of how a presumption of equal shared parenting with co-residency will reduce divorce rates. This has been noted in some jurisdictions. The following are some older references: (Dr. Margaret F. Brinig, Notre Dame Law School, Notre Dame, Indiana; Dr. Douglas W. Allen, Burnaby Mountain Professor of Economics, Department of Economics, Simon Fraser University, Vancouver, British Columbia; Dr. Sanford Braver, Department of Psychology, Arizona State University, Tucson, Arizona, Divorced Dads: Shattering the Myths, 1998; F. H. Buckley, Associate Dean, Foundation Professor of Law, George Mason School of Law: Executive Director George Mason Law and Economics Center, George Mason University, Arlington, Virginia.)

Also note that during this recession divorce rates will show a drop. Divorce is as much a function of economics as it is about interpersonal relationships. The vast majority of the demise of these unions are started by the female. One web site shows the applicant in 75% of Canadian divorces as the woman. In the USA it is 66%. Why? In the no-fault era are the pastures looking that much greener elsewhere? If so the dream of these pastures fails the litmus test of satisfaction in the vast majority of cases as second marriages or co-habitations have a higher rate of failure that the first time. Real abuse is only prevalent in a small number of cases.

Since the era of feminist inspired no fault divorces and the move from the equality notion of feminism to the current view of all women are oppressed by the patriarchy and, therefore, all men are abusers and oppressors, a cult of ideology has inspired, or rather brainwashed, many women into believing they are better off without their husbands. This may again be the oversimplification of these somewhat and somewhere mystical greener pastures. The true manifesto of these hardcore victim feminists are a woman can only be free if they take up with another woman. Its an interesting scenario given the DV rates between Lesbians is 40% higher than hetero couples. We are now seeing science fiction come to life in movies of two women getting sperm from their own stem cells. Spare me the incredulity of this scenario in which men are not needed. I did a little piece in my blogs with ideas from a commenter in creating a fictionalized feminist country in Africa where they don't need men and under UN auspices the country was protected for 10 years (by men mostly by the way). At the end of 10 years the protective mandate ended and they had their own Victim Feminist Defence Force (VFDF). I had set up odds in Las Vegas for the betting crowd to guess how many New York Minutes it would take for African Tribal Politics to overtake these Victim Feminists and truly oppress them. In any event it would prove that some parts of the Patriarchy are still needed and some elements of the biological differences are indeed not to be feminized.

It is my view that the whole idea men should be feminized and be more like women is to quote an old street slang saying "out to lunch." How many soldiers, police officers, firefighters, construction workers, miners, sailors, air force, et al are feminized. In the above roles not many feminized men or indeed feminists would last and they would be washed out very quickly. Those women who do try these roles fast become part of the masculine culture or they are not going to survive psychologically. One could say they are masculinized! They are still in every sense a woman, have their feminine attributes but in carrying out their role in these physically and psychologically challenging jobs have to adapt in a Darwinian form and manner to achieve success. In this case the adaptation would be first mental and then physical. Has anyone done a study on the relative levels of Testosterone in women in these kinds of jobs relative to the general population of females. Do they rise while performing their duties? If there is a rise is it diurnal, weekly, monthly, permanent while undertaking the job. My experiences with parenting full time for 10 years would suggest we are a highly adaptable species and just as adrenaline is produced in times of "fight or flight" perhaps our hormone balance can adjust when necessary. I will also posit not one victim feminist would ever apply for these jobs. They are also then Life Boat Feminists as they want to get in the lifeboats with the children to avoid the dirty work or jobs, that by the way pay more, or indeed if the metaphorical ship is sinking. Can you just picture these brave and heroic Victim/Lifeboat feminists on the deck of a sinking ship saying no I'll stay behind with you patriarchal oppressors. Not likely.

I was a stay-at-home dad for 10 years and I will put my nurturing skills up against any female any where on the planet. No one had to feminize me. Nature took its own course and I will posit Testosterone dropped and adapted me to this role while keeping me "manly." This mythology of oppression is bought hook line and sinker by law makers, judges, the media, advertisers, TV producers et al. It is, of course, rampant in the DV industry and it permeates magazines - which females buy by the thousands - to catch a whiff of their dreams. It says you should be empowered and stand on your own not next to your man. You can do better with your life if you are currently unhappy by getting rid of the oppressive man and piece of paper.

The dragon of feminist mythology is spreading throughout the world and has landed firmly in India, the second most populous nation on earth. So there you have one of the more fervent enemies of marriage and it is everywhere, not just as individuals but as an ideology and it will be tough to slay if it ever can. It is most prominent in the halls of higher education in women's studies courses, social worker courses, and there seems to be a preponderance of feminist female law professors (and male acolytes) who have no problem in lying to students, as Christina Hoff Sommers has reported, even in law course text books. Holy smokes how can that be the case?

Changing the Divorce Act to one of a presumption of equality and sharing is but one big step in that direction. It will be fought by these feminists as they believe they are, by divine right, the only proper carers for children and they will lose out on perceived entitlements like child/spousal support and all the government cheques. The latter will be the real reason not the best interest of the children.
They will also use tax payer dollars to do so and are well funded. True feminists of the old school of equalism, drowned out by the most recent wave, will be less visible but many will agree its time has come. In Belgium it was a feminist minister in the government who steered equal/shared parenting into law.

Other factors enunciated by me elsewhere in this blog and more comprehensively by Dr. Jayne Major, in The Macabre Dance of Family Law Court, Abnormal Psychology, and Parental Alienation Syndrome can help to salvage marriages. Clearly a first step after a party decides they want a divorce is individual counselling first followed by joint counselling, if appropriate. Given the serious social context of divorce and its cost to the nation this would be compulsory.MJM

Wednesday, July 1, 2009

$4 billion abuse industry rooted in deceptions and lies

July 1, 2009
By Carey Roberts

Erin Pizzey is a genial woman with snow-white hair, cherubic cheeks, and an easy smile. It wasn't always that way. The daughter of an English diplomat, she founded the world's first shelter for battered women in 1971. To her surprise, she discovered that most of the women in her shelter were as violent as the men they had left.

When Pizzey wrote a book revealing this sordid truth, she encountered a firestorm of protest. "Abusive telephone calls to my home, death threats, and bomb scares, became a way of living for me and for my family. Finally, the bomb squad asked me to have all my mail delivered to their head quarters," she would later reveal.

According a recent report, the domestic violence industry continues to engage in information control tactics, spewing a dizzying series of half-truths, white lies, and outright prevarications. The report, "Fifty Domestic Violence Myths," is published by RADAR, Respecting Accuracy in Domestic Abuse Reporting: http://www.mediaradar.org/docs/RADARreport-50-DV-Myths.pdf

How often have you heard the mantra-like claim, "domestic violence is all about power and control"? That's code for the feminist dogma that domestic violence is rooted in men's insatiable need to dominate and oppress the women in their lives.

And the obvious solution to partner abuse? Eliminate the patriarchy!

I know it all sounds far-fetched, but that's what the gender ideologues who get their funding from the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) believe. And no surprise these programs have been an abject failure. As Dr. Angela Parmley of the Department of Justice once admitted, "We have no evidence to date that VAWA has led to a decrease in the overall levels of violence against women."

Once you blame the whole problem of partner abuse on patriarchal dominance, the women who proudly call themselves the "VAWA Mafia" find themselves compelled to dress up the fable with a series of corollary myths.

Here are some examples: When a woman attacks her boyfriend, claim she was only acting in self-defense. Shrug off her assault with the "He had it coming" line. Aver her short stature prevents her from ever hurting her man. Or assert she grew up in an abusive household, as if that somehow lets her off the hook.

Above all, the ideologues will never admit that partner violence is more common among lesbians than heterosexual couples. Just consider the case of Jessica Kalish, the 56-year-old Florida woman who was stabbed 222 times last October with a Phillips screwdriver wielded by ex-girlfriend Carol Anne Burger. But no one dared call it "domestic violence."

Once you begin to play tricks with the truth, you need to invent ever grander prevarications. So sit back and get ready for a good chuckle, because there's not a shred of truth to any of these claims regularly put forth by the domestic abuse industry:

1. A marriage license is a hitting license. (Truth is, an intact marriage is the safest place for men and women alike.)

2. Domestic violence is the leading cause of injury to women. (The leading causes of female injury are unintentional falls, motor vehicle accidents, and over-exertion. Domestic violence is not even on the list.)

3. The March of Dimes reports that battering is the leading cause of birth defects. (The March of Dimes has never done such a study.)

4. Women never make false allegations of domestic violence. (That's the biggest whopper of all.)

5. Super Bowl Sunday is the biggest day of the year for violence against women. (Will the abuse industry never tire of its demagoguery?)

These are just five of the 50 domestic violence myths documented in the RADAR report. As former Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan once deadpanned, "You're entitled to your own opinions; you're not entitled to your own facts." Hopefully the $4 billion partner abuse industry will begin to pay attention.

© Carey Roberts