“Terry, you realize that no matter what legislation is passed, the battle for the children and on how long an ex-husband must pay spousal support is over only when an ex-wife says it’s over…. so Good Luck….!”


I apologize for this somewhat lengthy comment of mine but the information contained therein can be reproduced and utilized by any member of our group, with my full permission, in order to further our quest for real justice and equality (which are non-existent at this time) for all of our children, and for all the members of our families. I sincerely hope that it helps all of you.
In October of 2006 I wrote to Michael Bryant, the Ontario Attorney General and my two letters to him are inserted as Items 2 and 3 below. Item 1 is Bryant’s response and personally I believe that it should have been written on some ‘other form of paper’.
However, we all know that many people will often talk absolute nonsense just to keep their jobs while they stash away outlandish financial profits from their self-serving deeds. Anyway, I’ll let you be the judge on Bryant’s comments but he cannot fool me.
I have also attached below other correspondence from former Prime Ministers and other MPs and they are listed as Items 4 (Irwin Cotler), 5 (Stephen Harper), 6 (Vic Toews), 7 (Stephen Harper Leadership Campaign Office -Meredith should have used ‘spell-check’), 8 (Former PM Joe Clark), 9 (Dennis Mills) and 10 (Former PM Jean Chrétien).
Responses which I have on file from former PM Tony Blair’s office in the UK are the same old stuff and it is abundantly clear to me that these letter-writers must be employed by both the Canadian and the UK governments for the same purpose.
Countless lawyers, judges and Members of Parliament continue to laugh at both us and those poor souls who have committed suicide out of sheer exasperation after losing everything that they had, including their hope for change……..
I have met only a couple of MPs, MPPs and Senators over the past 25 years whom I actually liked because of their honesty. The rest were a bunch of jerks who emulated so many judges and lawyers, continuously filling their pockets with our hard earned cash while our children and grandchildren are left to die, often in poverty, and/or requiring medical help for deplorable and untreatable mental illnesses which have resulted from the years of unnecessary fierce acrimony, and purposely generated hatred in our court-rooms.
It’s really outrageous and shameful since we live in a country that continually brags to all the other countries in our world about how wonderful Canada is when it comes to ‘equality’ and ‘justice’ but the real truth is, neither of these exist.
A couple of MPs and MPPs did whisper in my ear (off the record) saying, “Terry, you realize that no matter what legislation is passed, the battle for the children and on how long an ex-husband must pay spousal support is over only when an ex-wife says it’s over…. so Good Luck….!”
I wish to add of course that there are some cases where good mothers have also been treated in a shocking manner.
Doesn’t all of this quagmire give you that “warm fuzzy feeling”?
Due to my shocking experiences of having dealt with the ‘family’ courts over the past 25 years, and knowing the high divorce rate statistics, my sad message to single men who are contemplating marriage now is quite simple.
I say to them, “If every other plane crashed, would you fly?
P.S. Bryant’s link in his e-mail no longer works but this one might help: http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/navigation?file=home
and Canada Court Watch can be found at:
Attorney General Procureur general
McMurtry-Scott Building Edifice McMurtry-Scott
720 Bay Street 720, rue Bay
11th Floor 11 etage
Toronto ON M5G 2K1 Toronto ON M5G 2K1
Tel: 416-326-4000 Tel: 416-326-4000
Fax: 416-326-4016 Telec: 416-326-4016
Jan 24, 2007 Our Reference #: M06-08582
Mr. Terry Lear
PO Box 22004
300 Coxwell Avenue
Toronto, ON
M4L 3B6
Dear Mr. Lear:
Thank you for your hand-delivered e-mails dated October 15, 2006 and November 13, 2006, concerning the operation of family law and the court system in Ontario.
I am committed to a family justice system that treats all participants fairly and which operates in the best interests of any children involved. I believe that Ontario’s family courts consistently meet this standard. As I am sure you understand, family law is a complex area within which the needs of many different individuals must be met.
In response to your query as to my support for legislation which would promote equal parenting, I would draw your attention to a current provision in the Children’s Law Reform Act which states at section 20.(1) that “Except as otherwise provided in this Part, the father and the mother of a child are equally entitled to custody of the child.” This statute is available online at:
In your e-mail, you also express concern about the duration of spousal support payments. In determining the amount and duration, if any, of support, the court is required to consider the needs of the dependent spouse in the context of all of the circumstances of both of the spouses. This is done without any consideration of gender. In ordering support, the court seeks to recognize the spouse’s contribution to the relationship and the economic consequences of the relationship for the spouse; share the economic burden of child support equitably; make fair provision to assist the spouse to become able to contribute to his or her own support; and relieve financial hardship if this has not been done by orders providing for the division of property.
I appreciate that you have concerns about the outcomes of some specific judicial proceedings. However, it is a principle of our democratic system of government that the judiciary be free from government influence. This freedom is necessary to ensure a fair and impartial legal system. As such, neither I , nor my officials, may comment on a specific legal case or court order.
Complaints about the conduct of a judge of the Ontario Court of Justice should be directed in writing to the Ontario Judicial Council. The Council has the authority to investigate complaints against provincially-appointed judges. You may contact the Judicial Council at:
The Ontario Judicial Council
PO Box 914
Adelaide Street Postal Station
31 Adelaide Street East
Toronto, ON M5C 2K3
Fax: (416)327-2339
In relation to your concerns about the operation of Children’s Aid Societies, I would encourage you to contact the Honourable Mary Anne Chambers, Minister of Children and Youth Services, as this issue falls under the mandate of the Ministry of Children and Youth Services. Minister Chambers may be contacted at:
Ministry of Children and Youth Services
14th Floor
56 Wellesley Street West
Toronto, ON
M5S 2S3
Fax: 416-325-5191
I very much appreciate the time you have taken to share your concerns about Ontario’s family law system. Please be assured that your comments will be forwarded to those in the Ministry responsible for family law in Ontario.
Once again, thank you for writing.
Yours truly
Michael Bryant
Attorney General
c: The Honourable Mary Anne Chambers, Minister of Children and Youth Services
—– Original Message —–
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 12:40 PM
Dear Minister,
I have not yet received any response from you regarding my e-mail (inserted below) dated October 15, 2006.
How do you propose to deal with both the past and present multitude of complaints identified in the Canada Court Watch web-site?
When responding, would you please also answer the following questions:

1. Would you support legislation for “Equal Parenting” as in “50/50 Joint Physical Custody” of Children with both good parents after separation and divorce?

2. Ex-Husbands are constantly discriminated against in “Family” court and ordered to pay spousal support INDEFINITELY. Will you support legislation to end indefinite spousal support? How many years of spousal support, absolute maximum [and not in any way connected to child support] would you recommend for a marriage that lasted 18 years?


3. Do you support the elimination of hatred against Men via the Internet? Please see:




 4. Do you support any move to eliminate the constant reckless Anti-Male Bias in the Divorce Courts?

I look forward to receiving your answers prior to November 30, 2006.
Yours sincerely
—– Original Message —–
Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2006 11:10 AM
Dear Minister,
On September 25th., 2006, I attended a Canada Court Watch meeting in Burlington, Ontario.
The Chairperson was The Most Reverend Dorian A. Baxter, Lord, Archbishop of Yorke. The Guest Speaker was Mr. David Witzel.
I was more than horrified to learn at this meeting of the completely unacceptable “Day-to-Day” operations of the CAS and the shocking Justice system related cases spanning many decades.
Why has this been allowed to happen, and continue on, without any corrective action by our Provincial Government?
I urge you to immediately read the information supplied at the Canada Court Watch web-site identified as follows:
Based on the information supplied in this web-site, I believe there is no alternative but to order an immediate Public Inquiry into the operations of the CAS and the Justice system, commencing with those cases identified in the Canada Court Watch web-site.
To avoid either corruption and/or bias, it is recommended that an independent body of people should be selected to investigate and report on their findings to the Canadian public.
Would you please respond to me by e-mail prior to October 31, 2006, to advise me of what action you are planning to take personally regarding this extremely serious matter?
Yours sincerely

Minister of Justice Ministre de la Justice
and Attorney General of Canada et procurer general du Canada
The Honourable / L’honorable Irwin Cotler, P.C., O.C., M.P./c.p., o.c., depute
Ottawa, Canada K1A 0H8
May 12, 2004
Mr. Terry Lear
P.O. Box 22004
300 Coxwell Avenue
Toronto, Ontario M4L 3B6
Dear Mr. Lear:
Thank you for your correspondence regarding your concerns about family law. Your member of Parliament, Mr. Dennis Mills, has also written to me on your behalf.
I sympathize with the difficult situations that arise as a result of family separation or divorce, particularly when children are involved. However, I hope that you will understand that as Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, I am not in a position to help resolve individual legal matters, nor am I able to comment on or otherwise become involved in individual cases. Similarly, neither departmental officials nor members of my staff can provide legal advice to private individuals.
The breakdown of a family often gives rise to complex and emotionally charged situations. Determining parenting arrangements is among the most painful and contentious issues in any divorce proceeding, and I sympathize with the distress experienced by all parties involved in such cases. The best interests of the children, as the most vulnerable parties, must be the primary concern in deciding matters relating to parenting arrangements and child support.
Please be assured that the Government of Canada recognizes the important social role of the family justice system in Canada. In 2002, the Government announced the Child-centred Family Justice Strategy, part of our continuing commitment to help parents focus on the needs of their children following separation and divorce. As you may be aware, one of the components of the Strategy, a Divorce Act reform bill, had not been adopted when parliament was prorogued on November 12, 2003. The Government will determine how and when it wishes to deal with these reforms in Parliament.
Promoting positive outcomes for children and their families during separation or divorce is a continuing priority for this government, and I would like to assure you that the views of all Canadians will be taken into consideration on this important issue.
In your correspondence, you recommend a presumption of shared parenting after separation or divorce. The Government recognizes the benefit to the child of developing and maintaining meaningful relationships with both parents. However, the Government does not support any legal presumptions regarding parenting arrangements because we believe that every child is different and has different needs. Instead, we encourage both parents and the courts to make flexible parenting arrangements that are tailored to their child’s best interests, without imposing one type of arrangement on every child.
Grandparents and other members of an extended family often play a valuable role in children’s lives. The Government of Canada recognizes that these relationships are important and believes that they are a factor that should be considered in determining parenting arrangements. However, we need to remember that the main purpose of the Divorce Act is to address issues directly related to divorce. For this reason, the Act requires that non-spouses obtain the leave of the court to apply for time with a child. This is in keeping with the important objective of building a less adversarial justice system.
As Minister of Justice, I am committed to providing gender equality before the law. Gender-based analysis is an integral part of our overall approach to developing policy, programs and legislation. This may be most evident in relation to family law, where the distinct circumstances of men, women, and their children are not just considered, but rather provide the context for deliberations. That being said, the best interests of the child remain the core principle of family law.
The current Divorce Act directs the court to make decisions on parenting arrangements based only on the best interests of the children. In this regard, I want to assure you that custody and access may be awarded to either parent in making this determination.
Your correspondence raises the issue of spousal support. Spousal support is an extremely complex subject; many factors are considered in the determination of spousal support, including the length of the marriage, each spouse’s role in the marriage, and the parents’ obligation to support a child of the marriage. The Department of Justice Canada has asked Professor Carol Rogerson of the University of Toronto and Professor Rollie Thompson of Dalhousie University to lead a discussion on the feasibility of voluntary spousal support guidelines. The goal of the informal guidelines would be to reduce the amount of uncertainty and conflict that currently exists in this area.
I would like to emphasize that this project is in its very early stages. It may be that spousal support guidelines, even on a purely informal, voluntary basis, are not possible because of the number of factors involved in arriving at an amount of spousal support and period of time during which it is to be paid. Still, I hope that this project and discussions with family lawyers and mediators on the problems involved in determining spousal support may provide divorcing spouses with greater guidance.
I am committed, as Minister of Justice, to promoting positive outcomes for children and their families during separation or divorce. The Child-centred Family Justice Strategy reflects the important social role of the family justice system. I believe it will result in an improved, less adversarial system that will have important benefits for children and their families, as well as long-term benefits for Canadian society.
Thank you again for sharing your concerns.
Yours sincerely
Irwin Cotler
c.c.: Mr. Dennis Mills, M.P.
Toronto – Danforth
March 31, 2004
Terry Lear
PO Box 22004, 300 Coxwell Avenue
Toronto, ON M4L 3B6
Dear Terry Lear:
Thank you for your letter of February 26 regarding revising the Divorce Act. I would like to take this opportunity to respond to your concerns.
As you may know, the Conservative Party of Canada is in the midst of a renewed policy development process. We have just completed the first step in this process with the release of our interim policy document. This document is a melding of those policy areas where the Canadian Alliance and the federal Progressive Conservatives had agreement. Unfortunately, this policy document does not include a position on family-related issues like divorce and shared parenting. This policy is still under review.
A final review of policies will be carried out at a convention with duly elected delegates from all ridings. To be adopted at a first convention, policies will have to be approved under the double majority formula (a majority of delegates voting and a majority of delegates from a majority of provinces). I would therefore encourage you to follow the policy development process of our new party, especially as it pertains to the issues raised in your letter.
Should you have any further questions or concerns about this matter, I would encourage you to contact our Justice critic, M.P. Vic Toews. You may reach Mr. Toews by writing to him in care of the House of Commons, Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 0A6.
Thank you once again for taking the time to write.
Stephen Harper, M.P.
Leader of the Opposition
Leader of the Conservative Party of Canada

Minister of Justice Ministre de la Justice
and Attorney General of Canada et procurer general du Canada
The Honourable / L’honorable Vic Toews, P.C., Q.C., M.P./c.p., c.r., depute
Ottawa, Canada K1A 0H8
August 28, 2006
Mr. Terry Lear
300 Coxwell Avenue

P.O. Box 22604
Toronto ON M4L 3B6
Dear Mr. Lear:
Thank you for your correspondence regarding your concerns about the family justice system.
I sympathize with the difficult situations that may arise as a result of separation or divorce, particularly when children are involved. The breakdown of a family often gives rise to complex and emotionally charged situations, and determining parenting and support arrangements can be painful and contentious issues in any divorce proceeding.
I intend to carefully study the report of the Special Joint Committee on Custody and Access, For the Sake of the Children, as well as to engage in discussions with my provincial, territorial and Cabinet colleagues on Divorce Act reform.
As you are likely aware, many aspects of family law fall under provincial and territorial jurisdiction, and the Government will work with the provinces and territories with a view to resolving the many complex issues that arise both during and after family breakdown.
Thank you again for writing.
Yours sincerely,
Vic Toews

—– Original Message —–
Sent: Friday, March 19, 2004 3:46 PM
Subject: Response from Harper Campaign
Dear Terry:
To begin with, I apologize profusely for the tradiness of my reply. With regards to your question on the issue shared parenting, Stephen Harper is a strong proponent of Conservative MP Jay Hill’s private member’s bill the purpose of which is to ensure that courts grant custody of a child of the marriage to both spoues unless there exisits evidence that to do so would not be in the best interests of the child.
I hope that this answer addresses your concern.

I would like to thank you for taking the time to write Mr. Harper’s campaign.


Meredith McDonald

Volunteer Correspondence Secretary,

Stephen Harper Leadership Campaign

—– Original Message —–
Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2002 2:50 PM
Dear Mr. Lear,
Thank you for your e-mail. I appreciate your taking the time and the effort to write to me and share your story. I was sorry to read of the difficulties that you have been experiencing.
  I am extremely concerned about the way this government has handled the consultations on proposed amendments to the 32-year old Divorce Act. It is troubling that a parliamentary report, created by a 23 member Special Joint Committee of both the House of Commons and the Senate, representing every party, could be allowed to languish for four years. The government’s ignoring of the report, For the Sake of the Children, shows a disturbing lack of respect for Parliament, a trend that is evident among many of the current government’s ministers.

The needs of children must be the most important guide for all involved. If the new Minister is committed to creating positive outcomes for children, action is required. This government prefers to hold endless consultations instead of taking much needed actions to improve the situation of children and families facing divorce and separation.

After three years of ongoing consultations, the Minister stated that any custody and access changes would be minimal at most. It is very troubling that this government has so easily ignored its own commitment, made in the Throne Speech in January 2001, to introduce changes. This reversal has prompted even Liberal Members of Parliament to voice their concerns.

If this government believes that the report created by the Special Joint Committee is flawed, then the Minister must take steps to table draft legislation with his own vision, so that it can be openly discussed and debated.

Thank you again for your correspondence.

Best wishes,

Joe Clark



—– Original Message —–

Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2004 1:23 PM
Dear Mr. Lear
Thank you for your letter and excellent questions.
Have you sent this to the Minister of Justice? Because they are the ones who change these laws. If you have not sent your letter to them, may I do so with a covering letter of support from myself?
Let me know.

—– Original Message —–
From: “Prime Minister/Premier ministre” <pm@pm.gc.ca>
Cc: “Martin Cauchon” <mcu@justice.gc.ca>
Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2003 8:17 AM
Subject: Family law-20

Dear Terry Lear:

On behalf of the Right Honourable Jean Chrétien, I would like to thank you for your recent e-mail.

Please be assured that your comments have been noted and that they will receive due consideration from the Minister, who has already received a copy of your correspondence.

L.A. Lavell
Executive Correspondence Officer
Agent de correspondance
de la haute direction

Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (12)
Recent Activity:
FACT MEMBERSHIP: FACT has two levels of membership: Associate member $ 10 — Full member $ 40. Join and help kids keep both parents!
FACT’s regular meetings are on the 1st and 3rd Tuesdays of the month at 7PM ($4 non-member fee). Meetings are at the All Saints Kingsway Anglican Church (2850 Bloor St. West, Etobicoke).
More information is available on our website at http://www.fact.on.ca.
Use http://www.yahoogroups.com/list/fathers_are_capable_too to change options.
To unsubscribe, send a message to fathers_are_capable_too-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com


<!– #ygrp-mkp { border: 1px solid #d8d8d8; font-family: Arial; margin: 10px 0; padding: 0 10px; } #ygrp-mkp hr { border: 1px solid #d8d8d8; } #ygrp-mkp #hd { color: #628c2a; font-size: 85%; font-weight: 700; line-height: 122%; margin: 10px 0; } #ygrp-mkp #ads { margin-bottom: 10px; } #ygrp-mkp .ad { padding: 0 0; } #ygrp-mkp .ad p { margin: 0; } #ygrp-mkp .ad a { color: #0000ff; text-decoration: none; } #ygrp-sponsor #ygrp-lc { font-family: Arial; } #ygrp-sponsor #ygrp-lc #hd { margin: 10px 0px; font-weight: 700; font-size: 78%; line-height: 122%; } #ygrp-sponsor #ygrp-lc .ad { margin-bottom: 10px; padding: 0 0; } #actions { font-family: Verdana; font-size: 11px; padding: 10px 0; } #activity { background-color: #e0ecee; float: left; font-family: Verdana; font-size: 10px; padding: 10px; } #activity span { font-weight: 700; } #activity span:first-child { text-transform: uppercase; } #activity span a { color: #5085b6; text-decoration: none; } #activity span span { color: #ff7900; } #activity span .underline { text-decoration: underline; } .attach { clear: both; display: table; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12px; padding: 10px 0; width: 400px; } .attach div a { text-decoration: none; } .attach img { border: none; padding-right: 5px; } .attach label { display: block; margin-bottom: 5px; } .attach label a { text-decoration: none; } blockquote { margin: 0 0 0 4px; } .bold { font-family: Arial; font-size: 13px; font-weight: 700; } .bold a { text-decoration: none; } dd.last p a { font-family: Verdana; font-weight: 700; } dd.last p span { margin-right: 10px; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: 700; } dd.last p span.yshortcuts { margin-right: 0; } div.attach-table div div a { text-decoration: none; } div.attach-table { width: 400px; } div.file-title a, div.file-title a:active, div.file-title a:hover, div.file-title a:visited { text-decoration: none; } div.photo-title a, div.photo-title a:active, div.photo-title a:hover, div.photo-title a:visited { text-decoration: none; } div#ygrp-mlmsg #ygrp-msg p a span.yshortcuts { font-family: Verdana; font-size: 10px; font-weight: normal; } .green { color: #628c2a; } .MsoNormal { margin: 0 0 0 0; } o { font-size: 0; } #photos div { float: left; width: 72px; } #photos div div { border: 1px solid #666666; height: 62px; overflow: hidden; width: 62px; } #photos div label { color: #666666; font-size: 10px; overflow: hidden; text-align: center; white-space: nowrap; width: 64px; } #reco-category { font-size: 77%; } #reco-desc { font-size: 77%; } .replbq { margin: 4px; } #ygrp-actbar div a:first-child { /* border-right: 0px solid #000;*/ margin-right: 2px; padding-right: 5px; } #ygrp-mlmsg { font-size: 13px; font-family: Arial, helvetica,clean, sans-serif; *font-size: small; *font: x-small; } #ygrp-mlmsg table { font-size: inherit; font: 100%; } #ygrp-mlmsg select, input, textarea { font: 99% Arial, Helvetica, clean, sans-serif; } #ygrp-mlmsg pre, code { font:115% monospace; *font-size:100%; } #ygrp-mlmsg * { line-height: 1.22em; } #ygrp-mlmsg #logo { padding-bottom: 10px; } #ygrp-msg p a { font-family: Verdana; } #ygrp-msg p#attach-count span { color: #1E66AE; font-weight: 700; } #ygrp-reco #reco-head { color: #ff7900; font-weight: 700; } #ygrp-reco { margin-bottom: 20px; padding: 0px; } #ygrp-sponsor #ov li a { font-size: 130%; text-decoration: none; } #ygrp-sponsor #ov li { font-size: 77%; list-style-type: square; padding: 6px 0; } #ygrp-sponsor #ov ul { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 8px; } #ygrp-text { font-family: Georgia; } #ygrp-text p { margin: 0 0 1em 0; } #ygrp-text tt { font-size: 120%; } #ygrp-vital ul li:last-child { border-right: none !important; } –>

Refuting 40 years of lies about domestic violence / A voice for men.

Refuting 40 years of lies about domestic violence | A Voice for Men

Pizzeyoanarking in refuges; that’s standing outside.

Dean: Standing outside or picking women up and driving them places…yes.

Erin: Not as staff though; not working in the refuge. In my refuge, half the staff are always men because they’re so important for children who haven’t known good, kind men…and some of their mothers.

Dean: I understand. That makes good sense. I see from your memoir for example, that in the early 60’s you had to show proof that you intended to get married just to get contraception from your doctor.

Erin: Yes.

Dean: Women couldn’t apply for mortgages… and so I presume it’s that sort of thing that made you interested in the Women’s movement in the first place.

Erin: Yes, absolutely. And I had such a vision, and partly the refuge because–I know all about violence. Both my parents were violent. My mother was particularly violent to me because I looked like my father. And the other two; my twin sister and my brother were much more like her. And my whole concern is, it is generational violence, and if we don’t save this generation of children we simply have more and more violent people. Because, until we understand we cannot blame men for everything. Women have to look at themselves and be honest about their own violence. And also, to understand what you do to a child’s brain when you actually fight each other, scream, yell and hit children, it causes brain damage. And we know that now from MRI scans. They can see what it does, particularly to the frontal lobe, the right frontal lobe, which is the seat of all our emotions.

Dean: There was a psychologist in Canada who recently published a piece asserting that the stereotype that we seem to all accept now of the helpless, innocent woman who is beaten on by a brutish, thuggish man and needs to run away represents perhaps only 4 or 5 percent of all domestic violence cases and that almost all other cases are more complicated than that. Would you agree that that sounds about reasonable?

Erin: Yes, of the first hundred women who came into my refuge, sixty percent were as violent as the men they left. Or, they were violent and the men weren’t.

Dean: They were violent and the men weren’t?

Erin: Yeah! And that’s why I tried to open a house for men almost immediately after I opened the refuge for women and my problem was – and this was a great shock to me – I was given a house at a Peppercorn Rent by the Council; and then I asked men who had actually given money for my refuge for women and children (they were millionaires) to give me some money for the men’s house, and none of them would give a penny!

Dean: I happen to know that in Canada there’s exactly one men’s shelter and it can’t get any funding. It’s almost impossible…it’s running on a shoestring budget. I’ll have to make sure to let people know about it after I finish talking to you. But I see from your memoir you actually said your first experience of wanting to open a shelter for women was that you encountered a woman who was beaten and bloodied and bruised. And you said you immediately flashed to your own experience of having been beaten by your mother?

Erin: Actually no, it was worse than that. It was a bit like Psycho. When my mother died of cancer, I was seventeen – my twin sister and I, and my brother was fourteen – my father refused to bury her body, and he had it in the house on the dining room table. And we had to go and look every night, it was hot there, it was about six days before he allowed her to be buried. This is the point though: everyone in the village knew what was going on. The woman across the road who was a family friend, I ran across and begged her to help me. She didn’t. The doctor was called by my father and he came out and examined my mother’s dead body and came out and said, “This shouldn’t be happening to a dog.” He did nothing. So I sat there at the age of seventeen thinking “I have asked for help, but nobody, nobody will help three terrified children.” So when Kathy said to me – used the words, “No one will help me…”, that’s when I knew I had to take her in and look after her.

Dean: So you feel you were abused by both of your parents.

Erin: Yeah, all three of us were.

Dean: Oh…I’m sorry that happened to you.

Erin: No, you have to remember that’s why I know what I know and that’s why I can do what I do.

Dean: So it would be your firm opinion then that work by researchers like Murray Strauss and whatnot that…

Erin: Yeah and Richard Gelles

Dean: …that most domestic violence is…

Erin: Consensual.

Dean: Concensual, mutual…

Erin: One way or another. There’s no pattern for this because each person is unique, and why and how they make relationships is unique. But they do need… if they, I think… I’ve said this often to very violent women: “Look you’re with a very violent man – that was your choice. But now you want to break that cycle, think of him as your heroin pusher. If you stay away from him, just like cold turkey, long enough, that need for him will die.” Freud said a long time ago that in time to come all emotions will be found in chemicals of the brain and he’s so right. And, that’s why I call it an addiction. Just the same way as an alcoholic is for his bottle, a drug addict the needle, and a violent relationship for some people. But, it can be broken.

Dean: What about women who are the predominant aggressors? You’ve run across those as well, I take it?

Erin: They were in my refuge. And we had long-term therapeutic care. We had the mother house, the big mother house, and then we had shared accommodations in houses. And we also had many houses across England. And the Palm Court hotel, that was the second stage. That had seventy four private suites. And we started that, and you could stay there as long as you liked until you were ready to move back into the community.

Dean: I find when I speak about domestic violence issues, and I have written and done some work in this area for more than ten years – you were a bit of an inspiration there by the way – in any case, people–and sometimes it’s people who call themselves feminists, but often it’s people who call themselves conservatives or maybe even Tories (like you’d call them) or just everyday, not very political people–either become enraged with me or look at me as if there’s something very silly about me when I say there is a serious problem with violent women and that perhaps a quarter of domestic violent relationships, it is the woman who is mostly the violent one and probably in half or more it’s both of them who are violent in one way or another. You’re nodding, I think you agree that that sounds about right?

Erin: Yes.

Dean: But, people become either frightened or enraged or laugh when you suggest that there are violent women. Where do you think that comes from?

Erin: Most people who are violent don’t think they’re violent because it’s been their reality from a very early age. That’s why I don’t even go out to dinner now. I sit down at the table and I can look at people mostly and know what they’ve been up to. A lot of it’s defensive. A lot of it.

Dean: What do you mean, it’s defensive?

Erin: They know within themselves how they behave and they don’t want to hear about it.

Dean: You mentioned feminism is a sort of liberal leftist movement which I think it was originally; although you do have women who consider themselves…

Erin: Yeah, at some point, try and read Susan Brownmiller’s book, because she sent me her books on rape in the very beginning. I couldn’t read them, bless her heart, but she has since recanted. And that was an amazing thing. I was also at the American Embassy when Betty Friedan recanted what she’d said and she said, “I apologize. We, as women have gone to the male, for the throat over economics and that isn’t what we should have done. We should have built the relationship between men and women.”

Dean: Betty Friedan said that?

Erin: Yes, she did, in the American Embassy about 1980, ’81. And I just remember looking at her and thinking, “look at the damage you’ve done with what you’ve said over the years!” It’s all very well everybody recanting, but, the damage is done.

Dean: Well, and where is the knowledge that they’ve recanted? Susan Brownmiller published a simply horrible screed about rape and how…

Erin: No she has since then written a book…we’re friends, I know her…she’s since then wrote a book and just said, “I was wrong.”

Dean: Really?

Erin: Yep.

Dean: That’s actually good for me to hear, because her original writings on rape about it being this… I don’t know… men have been raping women for millions of years and… very upsetting stuff! It’s good to hear that you’re friends and that she’s recanted her views on that. I’d probably like to talk to her some time. But, it seems to me as if people either want to see women as exclusively victims or as somehow angelic figures.

Erin: That’s mostly men. Women know. We know each other. And privately, they’ll say what they really believe. But an awful lot of men will not hear a word about violent women. They like women on pedestals. It makes them feel safe.

Dean: So then, it’s not just the feminists, although the feminists appear to be part of it. The feminists get angry and the men become derisive or protective. They don’t want to believe there can be violent women. Seems like.

Erin: No, but once you start saying that any group like radical feminists, “look, we have a problem that we need to resolve among women.” You’re talking about almost saying, possibly, there is a million dollar industry out there. You have to share it with men because men and women can equally be violent,” and you’re actually talking about money and they aren’t going to give up on that. They’ve built an empire over forty years, very, very powerful. And we have women in very powerful situations, Canada, Australia, and here, because at one point officials list that the Attorney General in this country was a woman–Harriet Harman is a woman who does huge amounts of damage. And she’s been the Women’s Minister. And I have awful problems with her and several others because they are now very powerful. They’re powerful in the judiciary, they’re powerful in Social Services… particularly in Canada, that’s one of the worst countries in the world.

Dean: Harriet Harman, she’s a Member of Parliament there in Britain, yes? From what I’ve read about her, she seems very hateful. She is a feminist, yes?

Erin: Well, I tried to reason with her once. We were both at the conference and I just said to her, “Look Harriet, you’ve simply got to accept the figures about violent women.” She just swung around on me and her face changed. She said, “The amount of men who are beaten up is miniscule.” And I just looked at her, and I thought, “There’s nothing I can do with you because your mind is closed.”

Dean: Well the government’s own figures don’t even show that to be true, do they?

Erin: Yes, the British Home crime figures show virtually equal between men and women, domestic violence.

Dean: Wow.

Erin: It doesn’t matter how often you say this, or you point it out. You tell a lie long enough, Goebbels said, you can brainwash the entire community. And that’s what’s happened here.

Dean: Now there are those who be accusing you of being a conspiracy theorist or some sort of crazy person to suggest the domestic violence industry is a billion dollar industry.

Erin: That’s not too difficult. Just look at the figures, if you can get your hands on them.

Dean: Like what figures?

Erin: How much V.A.W.A., I think that’s what you call it, gets every year.

Dean: The Violence Against Women Act in America?

Erin: Yeah.

Dean: Yeah, there’s an incredible amount of money the government funds, and it goes to these shelters. And it’s not accounted for so far as I know.

Erin: Yeah. But I’ll bet a lot of it doesn’t get near the shelters. Most of it will go to all the administrative and all the legal battles that the feminists… it pays… look, it’s always funded the women’s movement. Everywhere.

Dean: Really?

Erin: Yes. That’s why I wrote the book. Because somebody’s got to say it. Loudly!

Dean: That there is a problem, particularly with the feminist movement at this point because of the money they get from governments and…

Erin: Yeah.

Dean: …private charitable donations?

Erin: Yes.

Dean: Would you say they also rely on people’s perhaps instinctive need to protect women without thinking rationally about…?

Erin: Well, now just imagine, I mean, two people on my board–well three or four of them–were millionaires. Yeah, and they were very protective of women. And when you present them with the fact that men equally need protecting, they’d sew up their pockets. What I did then – I couldn’t keep the house open because none of us had any money. What I did… a very nice woman created charity shops and we called them Men’s Aid and that employed a man to go and see every single man who wanted to see us.

Dean: I see, but you haven’t been successful in continuing that sort of thing?

Erin: No, I managed to open the house and some men were ready to come in, but I couldn’t get a penny from anybody.

Dean: You couldn’t get a penny from anybody – for helping men? Still can’t really?

Erin: No you can’t.

Dean: It’s horrible. Something should be done…. All right, you recently were quoted–I saw this on a video somewhere, and you just said something earlier–the most frightening country in the entire world is Canada?

Erin: Yes.

Dean: Now, that seems a bit hyperbolic, and it might out of context because…

Erin: No it’s not.

Dean: Well I think people from places like Saudi Arabia or North Korea might wish to take issue with you. But I take it you mean that in the area of domestic violence, feminism, laws against men, that sort of thing?

Erin: Yes. I do. I did a six week tour, with Senator Anne Cools, all across Canada. And there were some wonderful (there was one in Windsor was wonderful) uh, men’s groups, just struggling to keep going. And as we traveled and talked to men’s groups, we realized how terribly dangerous it is because it’s almost as though the entire government and the judiciary–the same people–had been infiltrated by very radical feminists out to get men. And I talked to people all the way across Canada. You know my mother was Canadian, and I’m half Canadian, and it hurt actually. See I was a child in Toronto, and my feeling as we went through is real fear. I remember I was working with Anne in the Senate and I walked in to the lift, and this man who was in the lift with me was cowering over in the corner. And I came out and I said to Anne, “What on earth was that about?” And she said, “Men are frightened. They just don’t know when they’re going to be told they’re sexually harassing somebody.”

Dean: I’m sure there are Canadian and other men who are scoffing at this because they’ve never gotten into that situation, but I’ve…

Erin: Those men scoff all over the world, because it’s not their situation. Where is the humanity in men for each other? We women have it naturally with each other, but men don’t seem to have the same ability to discuss emotional issues.

Dean: That’s an interesting thing, because I noticed on Facebook, you said something, I don’t have an exact quote, but you were despairing that men’s groups never seem to go anywhere or get any traction. Are you still finding that to be true?

Erin: Yes, I do find that to be true. I really do. And it’s a great sadness because the only way we’re going to heal what’s happened between the anti-male, misandry, and ordinary normal people in loving relationships, is for men to take their lead in what’s happening and make their opinions known and stand up as otherwise there’s this deepening divide in relationships between men and women.

Dean: Well, there is a growing men’s movement I think you’ll be happy to hear, I know I do a lot of work on A Voice for Men, and with others, and it does seem to be growing all of a sudden. It seems to be predominated by people who are in their 20s, 30s and 40s who grew up in the wake of all the family destruction that we’ve seen since the ’70s. So, I think there’s hope there. But I hope people listen to your words and are galvanized by them. Men do need to be less fearful of speaking up. And more compassionate. I mentioned this to you in private conversation, but I’ll mention it again: a year or so ago, here in the United States, there was a man named Thomas Ball who was accused of molesting his child [editorial correction: accused of slapping his child once] and went through 2 or 3 years family court hell [editorial correction: it was over 10 years of Family Court Hell], having been accused, and eventually doused himself with gasoline and set himself on fire in front of a courthouse and the press, to the extent they reported it at all, either behaved as if it was a bizarre mystery or, it was a terrorist incident. What does that say about our country when you have that reaction to a man in that much pain willing to do something so horrible?

Erin: All I can say is… for a start, relationships are probably, when they go wrong, the most devastating thing that can happen: the woman usually gets to keep the kids and the man is suddenly out of the family. And he’s kept outside. He’s kept outside by the law, by the usual people and I think the big tragedy of all this is that at the moment, nobody’s listening. But I do take your point about it getting better, because I think your analysis is correct. And I think that there will come a tipping point when we’ll get to where the truth of all this will come out and all we can all do, those of us who are working this work, is to keep going and to keep going. And I hope in my lifetime we will see refuge and comfort and care for everyone, particularly children, because it’s generational. And if we don’t save the children of this generation, we create another generation of violence and desperate people.

Dean: Well, I know that even here in the States it’s quite common for most refuges not only to refuse men, but they’ll refuse boys if they are over the age of 12 or 13.

Erin: Twelve here.

Dean: Twelve there. So what are you teaching those young boys when you do that to them, do you think?

Erin: Well there was a case the other day – I was talking to the mother. She was completely bloody after she’d been beaten up. She got to the police station with her children. Her boy was 16 and… when women’s aid came to collect her, they said, “You can’t take your 16 year old son.” She said, “What can I do then?” “Well you’ll have to make accommodations.” She said, “I left my son in the police station for the Social Services to collect him because I knew I couldn’t cope after finding my own accommodation and I wouldn’t be protected.” I said, “You’re quite right. How would that poor child… he’s only 16 and seeing his mother beaten up, how many times he couldn’t count – left.” That’s as far as I am concerned, cruel.

Dean: It seems to be and also may be teaching him a message to internalize his father’s anger and his father’s violence and think, “Well this is just what men are.” Right?

Erin: Yes.

Dean: On the other hand, I have a good friend, obviously I won’t name him…he was in a relationship where his wife was very violent with him and very violent with his children and he stayed in that relationship even though it was going on for years because he feared to call the police for help. He was certain he would be arrested.

Erin: He’s right.

Dean: He was right wasn’t he? Almost any man would be.

Erin: Listen to this: Who trains the police? Women’s Aid.

Dean: Women’s Aid.

Erin: Yeah. All across for 40 years, they have been doing educational packages which they then sell to, whether it’s to the police or social services, and the message is always there: it’s all men, it’s all men, it’s all men.

Dean: And it’s a lie, isn’t it?

Erin: It’s a massive lie. Yes. And it’s a very, very, very – a lie worth telling because you get billions out of this. This is more about money than it is about caring for anybody.

Dean: Because it’s both about government funding and charitable funding. Somehow you say, women need help and purses open, checkbooks open. You say men need help and what happens?

Erin: Men don’t need help, we all know that men are violent brutes because they’ve got a Y chromosome and women don’t.

Dean: And that’s just so horribly a sexist thing to say, isn’t it?

Erin: Isn’t it? When they picketed, they used to have these pickets when they were picketing me saying, “All men are bastards!, “All men are rapists!” Well my sons aren’t, for a start.

Dean: …and your own mother was quite a violent person, so you said.

Erin: But then you see, both sides – I can trace violence back for three generations. For every women who came into the refuge–and we used to take about a thousand mothers and children at the height of when we were working–We did the first hundred, as an example: we did a three generational questionnaire. And it answered itself. Women who came in who were innocent victims of their partner’s violence didn’t come from violent relationships, but the women who were victims of their own violence, that’s where you saw the generational violence.

Dean: What do you mean “victims of their own violence?”

Erin: Well, look at it this way: Baby P was a big, big case here just recently, a child, a beautiful little boy… was hideously battered by a violent mother and her boyfriend. He was taken into hospital and he died. Everybody across the country was weeping over Baby P, because it made the newspapers. And I said then, “right, when this man grows up, this child, had he been able to grow up, he probably would have been a monster and then you would hate him.”

Dean: I think I see what you mean there. Plus would you say that women who get violent are in many ways victims of their own violence because…

Erin: Absolutely. Yes. What I’m looking for when I take care of people who are victims of their own violence is a way that they can transcend. I was saved by my mentor, Miss Williams; without her; that’s why my original memoir from my childhood was called “Infernal Child,” because I was a very, very violent, dangerous child.

Dean: Were you?

Erin: Yeah.

Dean: It’s almost as if we’re afraid to see women as human beings with the same flaws as men.

Erin: Isn’t it awful? Because it’s so condescending to tell all women they’re victims. I’m not a victim. I made my choices and I take the consequences. And I used to often say that to a woman. I’d say, “Look, you chose that man, you knew he was violent, you chose to have children by this man even though you were being beaten up. Now you take some responsibility for this.”

Dean: Well and one of the patterns I’ve seen and read about is that you’ll get these women in violent relationships and they’ll be the ones who actually start the hitting.

Erin: Yes, they do, because the majority of violent women bank on the fact that most men don’t hit women. And they don’t.

Dean: And most men don’t hit women.

Erin: Yeah then…

Dean: And so then a woman will hit, and hit and hit… and then finally he loses his mind turns and punches her, and now she gets to be a victim right?

Erin: Yeah. Sometimes she doesn’t even have to wait to provoke him to where he loses it. She bangs her head on a wall and calls the police.

Dean: Now that’s going to make some people angry. You just suggested women will intentionally injure themselves.

Erin: And some men. I mean, it’s not just women or just men; it’s what you learned in childhood. A lot of these women I deal with have severe personality disorders. As do the men. And whoever gets involved with them, even by accident mostly, is going to get… it’s a train crash. Because it takes time for the loving partner to realize what they’ve taken on. And an interesting thing about men, when they see what they think is a very, very – what would the word be? A very fragile woman. And this is a classic. A narcissistic exhibitionist–there’s the woman, the whole crowd at the party are looking at her. She’s usually very well turned out because she’s narcissistic. She looks good and she’s incredibly warm. It isn’t until he gets deeper into the relationship that he realizes that there’s nothing inside that woman. What he saw was… the harmed child in the woman and he wants to make it better. He wants to defend her and take care of her, and then suddenly he realizes that the mask of sanity… he sees through it and it’s too late.

Dean: Because everybody else sees her as…

Erin: Wonderful! Life of the party! And he’s drawn in by that! Men love to have the woman on their arm that everybody else would love to own.

Dean: Vivacious, pretty, etc…

Erin: Like my mother, narcissistic exhibitionist, and they’re very, very dangerous and there’s no treatment.

Dean: There was a famous case here in the States, Bobby Kennedy, Jr…

Erin: Yeah

Dean: …got a divorce and his ex-wife, well, shows all the patterns of being either a narcissist or what they call a Borderline Personality. When she killed herself, everybody blamed him. And then it came out that she had Borderline Personality Disorder and Bobby Kennedy, Jr., you know, was at least somewhat vindicated. They ceased to accuse him of being abusive, but nobody really apologized or acknowledged the fact that she had been violent toward him and his children and nobody wanted to… it was like that part of it kind of got elided. “Oh well, she was mentally disturbed,” and…

Erin: She wasn’t, she had a personality disorder – that’s not mentally disturbed. She knew damn well what she was doing. And her final, final act of outrage to make sure he got even more damaged, was to kill herself.

Dean: So you’re saying a Borderline personality isn’t mentally disturbed?

Erin: No.

Dean: Because, their personality…?

Erin: This is what I’m going to say now and I know its ahead of the game because MRI scans are only starting to be studied: most borderline personality disorders and also narcissistic exhibitionists are damaged, because they have witnessed or been part of violent parenting or dysfunctional parenting. And it’s actually damaged the way information goes to the brain. They can now tell you when children who’ve been exposed to toxic violence and sexual abuse…. they can now see in the right frontal lobe how the neurons, and the damage that’s down there… that’s all to come because it’s now happening and there are big studies going on looking at children’s brains who are already violent.

Dean: And yet people still seem afraid of it; they seem afraid of the feminist movement. Do you think the feminist movement can reform itself and become something better or is it time to just…

Erin: No, I think, again this new generation coming up who are in their 20s now have seen a lot of the damage even in their own parenting in feminist households. And I think they will grow up to be far more inclusive. And, I think in about 20 years perhaps – I don’t know if I’ll still be alive – that we will look at these last 40, 50 years as the dark ages for human relationships.

Dean: Because it should be Humanism that we’re talking about and…

Erin: Yes. Love.

Dean: …helping each other…

Erin: Love, compassion… all the things that that… we need, we need to love and be loved. It’s as simple as that. And this radical feminist movement really highjacked everything from the equity feminists. Essentially it is a hateful movement. It just hates a whole group of people and wishes them ill.

Dean: You use the phrase, “equity feminism.” Are you using that to describe women who think of themselves as feminists, but really only want fairness and equality?

Erin: Yes, absolutely.

Dean: Perhaps even the word “feminism” isn’t right at this point for them. They’re really more humanists and don’t realize it?

Erin: Yeah. I think that’s right. But then you see we’ve had nearly 50 years now of brainwashing, and this lie has been standing out there. But I do see more and more people realize… and there were two conferences in America; one in Sacramento… I went to the one in Sacramento, and it was the first inclusive conference and it was such a joy to be there. Maury Straus was there.

Dean: Really?

Erin: …and Charles Cory… he’s wonderful, and Edward. There’s a whole load of people who have been there from the very beginning. Then there was a second one in L.A. and one of the women from a University said, “I couldn’t let anybody know that I was here from my university or I’d lose my tenure.” And she’s right, she would.

Dean: Lose her tenure?

Erin: Yep.

Dean: I thought that would be nearly impossible.

Erin: Yeah.

Dean: But, it’s almost like this radical feminism is underground, people don’t know that it’s there. And you try to tell them and [they say you think] it’s a conspiracy. But it’s not a conspiracy, is it? It’s just reality of what’s in the university and a lot of these government departments, right?

Erin: That’s where it came from. That’s where it all started. And it’s interesting though because many of those Women’s Studies are being shut down.

Dean: Well, it’s funny, and they seem to be getting more and more desperate. I mentioned this to you earlier, but not on camera. Warren Farrell, you know him, yes?

Erin: He’s a great friend.

Dean: Very sweet gentleman, and, there is a growing movement, A Voice for Men is a big part of it. But Warren Farrell was to give a talk at the University of Toronto and feminists, people calling themselves feminists, so I suppose anybody watching this that says, “Well, I’m a feminist and I’m not like that,” well listen up, there are women who are calling themselves, working in your name, and men, doing this. They were getting extremely violent, locking arms, trying to bar people from getting in to see Warren Farrell speak. Some of them wound up getting arrested [editorial correction: I thought there had been arrests. I was mistaken]. Calling people names, horribly abusing men who were trying to get in there. But it was all caught on camera and this time some people were arrested, and I see that as positive in two ways: A) it’s getting some coverage and B) the police actually were willing to make an arrest or two. [Editorial comment: I was wrong, there were no arrests that we know of.] Didn’t you say early on, 40 or 50 years ago, the police wouldn’t arrest violent women?

Erin: No… when I first started police weren’t allowed to do anything to protect women, or men, because it was called “a domestic.” That’s one of the first things we had to change. And now, the problem with that is, yes they can go in and arrest, but, in most cases they will only arrest the man.

Dean: I seem to recall you mentioning something about how perhaps 40, 50 years ago in the 70’s there were violent women protesting you and the police told you they were afraid of them?

Erin: That’s absolutely right. I was at a luncheon for Women of the Year at the Savoy, and there was all this shouting. I had to get through the pickets. And the funniest one was “Pizzey is the pits!” But they also had the ones, “all men are rapists” “all men are bastards” and I went down to the police and said, “Look, if this was men, you’d arrest them all.” And there’s a great big copper and I said, “Why aren’t you arresting them?” He said, “Well it’s women,” and there’s a terrified look on his face. And I had to have a police escort all around England.

Dean: And you had to have a police escort because why?

Erin: Death threats. Listen, police don’t give you an escort, because it costs a lot of money, unless they’re worried about it.

Dean: And why were they threatening you?

Erin: Well, for various reasons. I suppose the major one is that I was talking out at the time when the money was starting to come in, and I was telling the truth as loudly as I could. That’s probably why. And I must remind you that Senator Anne Cools and myself were to go to Vancouver to speak, and…

Dean: Senator Anne Cools is a Canadian Senator?

Erin: Yes. And she supports men. And… there was death threats and police said to her, “Do you want to go in and get on with this or should you just cancel it?” And we both said, “No, no, were going to go.” It was very nerve wracking.

Dean: And they hate you for saying that women can be violent or that domestic violence is often or usually mutual?

Erin: Yeah. And also that I say that it’s a fact that it’s a multi-million, billion dollar industry. That’s one that absolutely outrages them, because they don’t want anyone to know how much money they’re getting.

Dean: It’s funny, and I happen to know that even in the States there is no accounting for where that money goes. I guess it’s marked as going to women’s shelters and that’s it – it’s like a black box.

Erin: Well, it’s not even going to women’s shelters. It’s going to keeping the empire going. Great big offices, loads and loads of staff – that’s what happens.

Dean: Because the people in most of these houses are volunteers, or being paid hardly anything, right?

Erin: Yeah.

Dean: That’s been my experience as well. So, you think the rage comes… Well, I might disagree with you a little, only in the sense that I know there’s a lot of money involved, people don’t believe it but there is, but I also think there’s this… I’ve seen it in people who have no stake in it, they become enraged with me when I say women are half the problem in domestic violence. That just suggesting women are violent makes people extremely angry, and I don’t know where that comes from, but…

Erin: I think you’ll find it’s particularly those sort of women because they’re violent themselves, and they know it. And men.

Dean: And yet what you’ve just described, too, there’s also this also this protective instinct in men. In the men’s movement, we call it the “White Knight” impulse – the White Knight impulse.

Erin: Yeah. I call it the… to me it’s the… oh what’s the word? It escaped my mind now, but there is a gene in men I think, that is put in there to take care of their children, and to be gentle with their women. I think men have that.

Dean: I think men are, contrary to the stereotype, actually, generally fairly gentle creatures.

Erin: I think that’s true as well, and much much simpler than women. It’s much easier to talk to men, because men… men explode with rage, right? I can deal with that. Well some men. It’s women implode. And women will actually, ’tis true, they will sit quietly and they will plot for what they want. And that’s very female because you implode with rage. Different chemicals.

Dean: So, you think men and women are wired or are chemically somewhat different from each other then.

Erin: Well, it’s been the MRI scans shown men’s brains, women’s brains… women’s brains have scatter all across the brain, because women actually can do many things at once. Whereas a man’s brain, when they look at the MRI scan, it’s much more linear – straightforward.

Dean: So… interesting, interesting. So we’ve evolved to be different, and perhaps we’ve evolved to want to protect women.

Erin: Of course, that’s what you’ve done since the beginning of time. The woman has actually evolved to nurture the children and to nurture a family setup. That’s why she collects the food, on the ground food, but not plowing… men go out, from early days, and bring home the bacon, whether it’s a piece of bear or whatever. What isn’t healthy though, is, it takes… you know in an ideal world the mothering and the fathering under one roof with the children is the best way a child can grow up – being nurtured by each parent. Yes, other people can nurture a child but that biological bond between the mother and the father is the best that you can offer your child.

Dean: I think the nurturing impulse in men is underrated. I think men have a very strong nurturing impulse too.

Erin: They do. No but, interesting is that I lived for six years on a farm in Italy. And the men did all the working outside, they did all the actual backbreaking work on the farm and the women did all the cooking in the home and looking after the children, but the fathers were equally… they’re there, the fathers were there all day with their kids. And it was a very happy setup.

Dean: You know it’s funny, I’ve often thought that it’s been since the Industrial Revolution that the family has actually really started to struggle because that’s where you saw, you know, Father leaves and is gone all day, and comes back after twelve hours, and I’m not sure that’s how we evolved. I’m not sure that’s really the most natural arrangement. But perhaps I’m getting us off topic. Would you be will to talk to me again and do another interview?

Erin: Certainly. Yes.

Dean: I’m not sure what we should close with here. But do you see reason for hope in the future as to people getting more realistic about what domestic violence is, and women’s culpability, and that sort of thing?

Erin: I hope so. I pray every night that this is going to happen. That we’re going to recognize that the family is under serious threat and it’s everybody’s job to do something about it…to come together and make changes.

Dean: All right. Well, thank you so very much for talking to me Erin! Again everybody, this is Episode 2 of the Honey Badger files. My guest has been Erin Pizzey. Her book is, “This Way to the Revolution – a Memoir” from Peter Owen publishers. Thank you so much, Erin. I hope to talk to you again soon.

Erin: Thank you.

I would like to dedicate this interview to Kay Hymowitz and William Bennett, conservative traditionalists who’ve done so much to say “man up” to shame and demonize young men without saying much to or about women, to female triumphalist Hanna Rosen, to Jessica Valenti and the crew over at Feministing, to Amanda Marcotte, and most especially to Kate Harding and the rest of the crew over at Jezebel, whose tireless work has provided endless inspiration for what I do here on A Voice for Men. I strongly encourage all readers to tweet, Facebook, email, and otherwise spread this interview around as much as possible. Links to a lot of supporting material will be supplied in later updates to this posting. But I more seriously dedicate it to Erin, with love. Please buy and read her book.

Transcript services by Sharon Leslie-Clarke.

All readers are invited to subscribe to my YouTube channel, by the way. –Dean Esmay

*Update*: Upon request of some readers/listeners, click here to see references to as many things as I could find that Erin talked about, at least in some fashion:

This Way to the Revolution:


Scream Quietly or the Neighbours Will Hear by Erin Pizzey:


Other books and articles by Pizzey:


Tientsin/Tianjin Campaign:


UK Foreign Office (now the Foreign & Commonwealth Office):


Feminist Collectives have been around for decades, and are still active:


A paper by a Marxist feminist on the intersection and history of feminism as it relates to Marxism:


Pictures of Erin’s first refuge house and early work:


National Coalition for Men:


Info on ignored and abused Male Domestic Violence victims:


An old women’s coverture document:


Psychologist & Professor Don Dutton, “Let’s stop playing the gender blame game,” Vancouver Sun:


Family of Men Support Society:


MASH*4077 / One Brick Short campaign:


Professor Murray A. Straus: Multiple papers and other information on domestic violence


Richard James Gelles, PhD, Joanne & Raymand Welsh chare of Child Welfare and Family violence: reearch, links to scholarly papers


Linda Kelly: Disabusing the definition of domestic abuse: how women batter men and the role of the feminist state:


Sigmund Freud: “CONSCIOUSNESS is energy received and decoded by a STRUCTURE. In human beings, the receiving-decoding structures are neuro-chemical.”


PM News: Man’s Embarrassing Secret In Court: My Wife Beats Me Up


Susan Brownmiller: Rape is “nothing more or less than a conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear.”


Susan Brownmiller: I cannot at this time verify that Brownmiller ever said she was wrong. But her web site is here and if someone can verify the recanting I will reference it.


Domestic Abuse Hotline for Men and Women


Who Needs Feminism.org photos:


Betty Friedan: Cannot verify the recanting but Friedan was quoted in the 1970s as saying “Men weren’t really the enemy, they were fellow victims”


Catherine Kieu Becker, Woman cut off husband’s penis, put it in disposal


Harriet Harman:



Joseph Goebbels: “The English follow the principle that when one lies, one should lie big, and stick to it.”


VAWA Funding: TEPA programs


Violence Against Women Act: History and Federal Funding:


“The most frightening country in the entire world is Canada” rhetoric


Senator Anne Cools


Riding the Donkey Backwards: Men as the Unacceptable Victims of Marital Violence:


Thomas Ball, found innocent, kills self over family court abuse:


British Prime Minister criticizes absent fathers, Pizzey says there are as many feckless women as men and that women frequently won’t let fathers see their children:


Suicide Rate Greater Among Divorced Men, Research Finds


More than 40% of domestic violence victims are male, report reveals


Shelters routinely refuse men, boys over the age of 13


Men and boys presumed guilty when accused of abuse:


Baby P.:


Infernal Child: World Without Love by Erin Pizzey


The number of women who hit first or hit back is “much greater than has generally been assumed.” Deborah Capaldi, Ph.D.


Deborah Capaldi, PhD, Research Scientist, Oregon Social Learning Center


Women that provoke men to abuse them


RFK JR, Bobby Kennedy Junior, Mary Richardson Kennedy:


Visible effect on brains of children from abusive homes:


Leaving the Sisterhood: A recovering feminist speaks by Dr. Elly Tams


Charles E. Corry, Ph.D.


Historic Domestic Violence Counference Includes Male Victims (Erin references someone named “Edward,” at this time I cannot confirm if she means Edward Bartlett, Ph.D. from this conference:


Edward E. Bartlett PhD, President of Stop Abusive and Violent Environments:


Warren Farrell Protest at the University of Toronto, StudioBrulé


Warren Farrell’s home page:


Dr. Charles Corry, Police arrest men who report violence, men should not report:


Wikimedia commons:


MRI Scans: Girl Brain, Boy Brain? How much is “hard wired” and how much not?




Written by Dean Esmay

75 Posts in Total See Them »

Dean Esmay is Managing Editor for A Voice For Men. He blogs frequently about other topics on a regular basis at Dean’s World. He encourages people to look at issues through the lens of compassion for men who deserve it, and respect for women who deserve it. He is the author of the critically-acclaimed novel Methuselah’s Daughter.


TOPEKA, KAN.—A sperm donor in the U.S. is fighting an effort to force him to pay child support for a child conceived through artificial insemination by a lesbian couple.

Sperm donor fights effort to make him pay child support to lesbian couple – thestar.com


Sperm donor fights effort to make him pay child support to lesbian couple

Published on Wednesday January 02, 2013


Jeff Davis/AP William Marotta is being asked by the state of Kansas to pay child support after providing sperm to a same-sex couple.
The Associated Press



TOPEKA, KAN.—A sperm donor in the U.S. is fighting an effort to force him to pay child support for a child conceived through artificial insemination by a lesbian couple.

William Marotta told The Topeka Capital-Journal newspaper he’s “a little scared about where this is going to go, primarily for financial reasons.”

When the 46-year-old donated sperm to Angela Bauer and Jennifer Schreiner in 2009, Marotta relinquished all parental rights, including financial responsibility to the child. When Bauer and Schreiner filed for state assistance in Kansas this year, the state demanded the donor’s name so it could collect child support for the now 3-year-old girl.

The state contends the agreement between Marotta and the women is not valid because Kansas law requires a licensed physician to perform artificial insemination.

“If a sperm donor makes his contribution through a licensed physician and a child is conceived, the donor is held harmless under state statue. In cases where the parties do not go through a physician or a clinic, there remains the question of who actually is the father of a child or children,” Angela de Rocha, a spokeswoman for the Kansas Department for Children and Families, said in a statement.

A hearing on a motion by Marotta’s attorneys to dismiss the case is scheduled for Jan. 8

Bauer and Schreiner have said they fully support Marotta’s efforts to fight the state’s request. When Bauer was diagnosed in March with what she calls “a significant illness” that prevents her from working, Schreiner sought health insurance for their daughter from the state. The DCF told Schreiner if she didn’t provide the sperm donor’s name, it would deny any health benefits because she was withholding information.

Marotta said Monday he doesn’t resent Schreiner for giving the state his name.

“I resent the fact that Jennifer was pressured into doing that in the first place,” he said. “That was wrong — wrong by the state.”

Marotta and his wife, Kimberly, have no biological children but care for foster children.

Sperm donor fights effort to make him pay child support to lesbian couple – thestar.com

Barbara Kay: Women’s Federation sells fear and hatred in place of facts

Women’s Federation sells fear and hatred in place of facts | Full Comment | National Post

Barbara Kay: Women’s Federation sells fear and hatred in place of facts

Barbara Kay | Dec 6, 2012 8:55 AM ET | Last Updated: Dec 7, 2012 10:36 AM ET
More from Barbara Kay | @BarbaraRKay

Wayne Cuddington, Ottawa Citizen
Wayne Cuddington, Ottawa Citizen A 2010 vigil for the loss of lives during the 1989 Ecole Polytechnique massacre in Montreal.

In his National Post column today, “Amish lessons in Mourning,” Jonathan Kay compares two different reactions to tragic killings of women and girls. In 1989 a lone psychotic gunman killed 14 young women at the Montreal Polytechnique. In 2006 a lone psychotic gunman killed five and wounded five young Amish girls in a Pennsylvania schoolroom.

The Amish grieved their losses and moved on with their lives. By contrast, here in Canada, ideologues produced a “violence against women” industry that has become increasingly mired in what Kay describes partially as “political tribal fury against men.”

How right he is. The anniversary of the Montreal Massacre is to the violence-against-women industry what the Superbowl is to cars and Pepsi. Instead of actual products, though, women’s advocacy groups are selling emotions to women: in particular, the emotions of fear and hatred. For example, in the video below , produced in July, and now making the rounds, is the 2012 rollout of the Canadian Women’s Federation contribution to the fear-and-hatred campaign.

It opens with a charming scene of an “It’s a girl” baby shower in progress. A circle of women, young and old, are drinking tea and enjoying themselves. A prettily wrapped gift is passed to the mother-to-be. The camera focuses on her happy face. She opens it and holds up a black strap with an object at the end of it. Her anticipatory smile dies down and is replaced by a puzzled look.

“What is it?” someone asks. The camera zooms in on the gift-giver, an older woman, whose smile fades as she solemnly responds, “It’s a rape whistle.” The merry chatter dies down. The mother-to-be furrows her brow in sombre contemplation of her daughter’s grim future. A young girl peering at the rape whistle smiles innocently, clearly ignorant of the gift’s implication. On the screen we see the stark statement: “1 in 2 girls will be physically or sexually abused.” What? The Canadian Women’s Federation is saying that 50% of women will be the victim of an attempted or real rape? Well no, that was not their statement…exactly. But the visual of the rape whistle packs a punch and not by accident gives that exact impression.

Let’s revisit the actual statement that 50% of women are at risk of physical or sexual abuse [by men]. On the Canadian Women’s Federation website, they say that their 50% figure comes from “The Violence Against Women Survey” by Statistics Canada in 1993. There are two things wrong with this source. One is that it is almost 20 years old. Since then sexual assault has gone down by 69% and physical abuse by 20%. The other thing wrong with this source is that it is not a study of actual abuse, but a survey of women’s own perceptions of abuse. In other words, it is basically an opinion poll, and might have included questions like, “Have you ever had sex with someone after they gave you alcohol?” or “Has your partner ever yelled at you in anger?” An answer of “yes” to these and other such vague and leading questions will put a woman “statistically” amongst those considered at risk of “abuse.”

Surveys about perceptions are not science. As any expert in intimate partner violence will tell you, real physical abuse between intimate partners – both heterosexual and homosexual (lesbian inter-partner violence rates are higher than heterosexual) – is mostly bilateral. The actual intimate partner violence victimization rates for domestic violence in 2011 are 18.8% for women, and 19.8% for men. In other words, about one in five women will suffer abuse at the hands of men, and about one in five men will suffer abuse at the hands of women. And by abuse I do not mean rape: I mean everything from psychological control (bilateral) to pushing and shoving,  up to flinging objects and knifings, which men and women do to each other in equal numbers. Most women will not be subject to rape or attempted rape in their lifetime.

About 67 women a year are killed by their intimate partners; so are about 40 men a year. In a nation of 35 million people, this figure is not indicative of an alarming or widespread social pathology.

But that is not the message the Canadian Women’s Federation is spreading with this meretricious video. This ad promotes needlessly elevated fear for their safety amongst women and, more reprehensibly, promotes hatred of men as a group. Watch the video, “dislike” it, as I did, and tell them why.


National Post


What is ‘misandry’ and what is ‘anti-misandry’?

Read the rest of the article here.

What is ‘misandry’ and what is ‘anti-misandry’?
Misandry is the hatred of males as a sex, as opposed to misogyny, the hatred of women; or misanthropy, hatred of the human species. Misandry comes from misos (Greek μῖσος, “hatred” + andr-ia (Greek anér-andros, “man”. Those holding misandric beliefs can be of either sex. Thus it holds to common sense that Anti Misandry is to work toward removing misandry from our culture.

Can you give me some demonstrations of misandry?
 Sure. Have a look at the second-wave feminist view of men for an example. Valerie Solanas, the radical feminist who shot Andy Warhol in 1968, provides a famous example of misandry in her self-published SCUM Manifesto. In case you’re wondering, SCUM is an acronym for ‘Society for Cutting Up Men’, practically a call for gendercide, the culling of men. Quite literally, Solanas expressed her desire to “institute complete automation and destroy the male sex.

Wow, this is pretty bad stuff – what can I do about misandry? For one thing, you can stop accepting it as a ‘way of life’. Once upon a time, respect was a two-way street. These days it is more a one-way street where men are demanded to be respectful to women (even those who do not earn, or even try to earn it) while simultaneously disrespect of men is expected, condoned, perpetuated and even taught. You can make a difference by refusing to live this way.

Did you just say misandry is ‘taught’? Yes, that’s right! The next time you switch on the television, count how many programmes have the token ‘stupid boyfriend’ or ‘abusive husband’ or ‘paedophilic father’ figure. Switch over to a children’s channel / time window and watch how many cartoons or programmes reflect ‘silly daddy’ characters or ‘bullying big brother’. Don’t forget, of course, nearly all the women in these same programmes will be smart, sexy, sassy and full of beans, capable of juggling a career lifestyle with children, a husband and a social circle – let’s not forget that she’s undoubtedly a wonderful cook and always remembers everybody’s birthdays. If these images are being constantly spread out over our airwaves, what does that tell our children who are growing up watching & learning daily, hourly, that men are just so stupid, abusive and … well, useless?
definition of feminism
So is it more feminism’s fault, or the media’s fault?
A lot of both, but neither would be able to indoctrinate our youth without the support of…. the government.

Ahh – yes. The government. Tell me about their involvement?
Well, they positively support and enforce feminist programmes of anti-male bias.

Uh? Think ‘Violence Against Women Act‘ – notice something wrong in that? Notice how violence against men or children is not mentioned? VAWA implies, through it’s title alone, that men are the primary perpetrators of violence – despite 30 years of research and in excess of 130 scientific studies proving that intimate partner violence is roughly mutual. Time and time again, the resultssay the same “men and women are equally violent towards one another”. And yet, when feminists demand preferential treatment or additional ‘rights’, the government promptly delivers, like a good boy.

antimisandry.com http://antimisandry.com/articles/what-misandry-4.html#.T6u06FImySo#ixzz1uTBOhZQr

Violence Against Women Act – The Real War on Women » SAVE: Stop Abusive and Violent Environments

Violence Against Women Act – The Real War on Women » SAVE: Stop Abusive and Violent Environments




Violence Against Women Act – The Real War on Women

By Robert Franklin

November 5, 2012

For months now we’ve heard about the “War on Women” that’s sometimes called the “Republican War on Women.” While close inspection of the claim reveals the WOW to be little more than an election-year bid to keep female voters in the Democratic fold, there is a real war on women and up until this year, it’s been bi-partisan. It’s called the Violence Against Women Act.

How could VAWA, long touted by the domestic violence establishment as vital to women’s welfare, in fact be anti-woman? Let me count the ways.

1. When police are called to the scene of a domestic violence incident, VAWA encourages them to make an arrest whether or not they have probable cause to do so. VAWA funding goes to train police in this mandatory arrest policy, but the result is the opposite of what VAWA advocates imagine. Mandatory arrest policy actually increases a woman’s chance of being injured or killed by a domestic partner. Why? In a domestic violence incident, a woman must decide whether to call the police or not. If she does, she knows her husband or boyfriend will be arrested, jailed, charged and ordered to stay away from her, their children and their property. Faced with that, many women opt out of the system, preferring to remain with their partner and try to handle the situation themselves. That increases her chances of injury at his hands. A 2007 study at Harvard found mandatory arrest policies increase a woman’s chance of death by an intimate partner by almost 60%.

2. One of the leading causes of injury to women in domestic violence incidents is their own initiation of violence. She hits first and he retaliates with far greater force. Dr. Sandra Stith of Kansas State University has called it “a dramatically more important factor than anything else.” Studies conducted for the Centers for Disease Control show about 70% of reciprocal DV to have been initiated by the female partner. Meanwhile, about half of non-reciprocal violence is committed by women. But VAWA is based on the political ideology that men alone commit DV. The unsurprising result is that female perpetrators find it all but impossible to get the treatment they need to stop the behavior that often results in their own injury.

3. If a woman is assaulted by her partner, one of VAWA’s “solutions” to her problem is the issuance of a restraining order against him. He’ll be ordered to stay away from her, his house, his children, her place of work, etc. But are restraining orders effective at stopping domestic violence? Many studies say they’re not and some find they actually increase the likelihood of injury or death. Those studies are corroborated daily by the headlines on domestic violence. The great irony about restraining orders is that they’re most effective against men who aren’t really a danger to their wives or girlfriends. Contrary to VAWA’s ideological assumptions, the vast majority of domestic violence is (a) non-injurious and (b) situational, i.e. unlikely to recur. Men who commit that type of violence are likely to obey a restraining order while those bent on murder are not. After all, if the penalties for homicide don’t deter him, will a restraining order?

4. When domestic violence occurs, VAWA prioritizes separating the man from the woman. That’s because the political ideology underpinning the act holds that, contrary to massive amounts of social science on the issue, intimate partner violence is a “cycle” than only escalates. But men still tend to be the major breadwinners in families, so, with him gone, women and their children struggle financially. Indeed, the Institute for Women’s Policy Research found that single women with children are the most financially stressed people in American society. Median earnings for that group come to barely $23,000 annually, meaning many of those women with children live deeply mired in poverty. As social scientists are coming to realize, single motherhood is one of the most important factors in the widening divide between haves and have-nots. The United States government has no business pushing women toward poverty, but sadly, VAWA does exactly that.

5. VAWA advocates and stakeholders tirelessly promote the shelter system as one of its greatest achievements, but even casual scrutiny reveals serious flaws. Most important is the fact that a woman doesn’t have to be a victim of domestic violence to be accepted at a domestic violence shelter. The simple fact is that shelters do little-to-nothing to verify a woman’s claim of DV victimization. As one former shelter director said in 2007, “Most persons think of women in an abuse shelter as victims of severe physical abuse, bloodied and broken. In our shelter, however, only about one in 10 women had experienced any kind of physical injury… So the great majority of women were there because they claimed to have been subjected to verbal or psychological abuse. We did not verify the claims of new residents – if the woman answered the questions correctly, we basically believed what she said. There is no question that some women, many of whom were on welfare, were gaming the system to benefit from the many services our shelter provided.” With shelters packed with uninjured women, real victims of domestic violence are turned away, about whom we read every day.

If VAWA actually worked to reduce violence against women, all of the above might be defensible, but it doesn’t. In fact, domestic violence expert Dr. Angela Moore Parmley of the U.S. Justice Department has said, “We have no evidence to date that VAWA has led to a decrease in the overall levels of violence against women.” VAWA promoters themselves implicitly admit as much when, in their drive for ever higher levels of funding, they cite the increasing “epidemic” of domestic violence. If what they were doing worked, would violence levels continually rise?

The truth is that we know a lot about domestic violence. After almost 40 years of research, we have good ideas about what it is, who does it, when and why. We also know how to deal with people in violent relationships. The problem is that VAWA acknowledges none of that. VAWA pours billions of dollars a year into programs that can’t reduce violence or protect women for the simple reason that they’re based, not on science but on political ideology.

Until we scrap VAWA and replace it with fact-based interventions and treatment, women will continue to suffer at the hands of their intimate partners. Into the bargain, they and their children will continue to lose their loved ones and be dragged toward poverty.

If that’s not a War on Women, what is?

Source: ifeminists.net