Wednesday, January 25, 2006


Berlin firm developing male contraceptive pill

Berlin: Berlin-based pharmaceutical company Schering is working on a contraceptive pill for men and success seems not far away.

The male contraceptive, which comes almost 45 years after Schering developed the female contraceptive pill, is just skin deep - in the form of an implanted hormonal capsule and an injection given every few months.

This project is headed by a slightly-built 53-year-old woman, Professor Ursula-Friederike Habenicht, who runs the global Gynaecology and Andrology Research sector for Schering.

"This is just an initial step, just getting a foot in the door," says Habenicht, who has long been considering possible approaches to male contraception.


Does it ever end?

When will the men in Western civilization stop their slide into utter and complete uselessness?

Can someone explain to me what use are these men now as potential mates for women, since they have decided to temporarily sterilize themselves through the period of our reproductive lifespan? Because that's what it will be, as I guarantee that most men won't feel the need to even think about children until they are 40 or so. AND let's face it for many of them this temporary state will become permanent sterilization; as many men will never agree to stop using contraceptives and have children once contraceptives are available for them. Just like the article said, "This is just the initial step".

We'll have entire categories of men like David Letterman and Stephen Bing, never wanting to marry, never wanting to bother having kids unless forced, just feeding off our society and everything that was built by preceding generations. Previously women could overcome this by just getting pregnant and negotiating a marriage after the fact. Well now that won't even be able to happen. Thus, the Hugh Hefnerization of our society will continue.

Men don't want to work to support families now, which let's face it, that was the only useful thing they contributed to the whole 'father as social construct' to begin with. Women are vulnerable when they are pregnant and for a time thereafter and having a partner who provided for them while they were in this condition made the whole thing workable. Men now deciding they do not want to continue this construct is the motivation behind 99.9% of these custody wars going on, with men attempting to get custody to avoid paying child support. But at least with women having more access to the educational institutions and labor force today; that was a hurdle most mothers could overcome.

But now this. It's like the final straw already...

I mean even that nutty Osama Bin Laden is married with kids. He's fighting a full-time war attempting to destroy Western civilization, as we know it, living in a cave somewhere, YET he's still married AND procreating...

Meanwhile, our guys are sitting in front of the tv set in their 30s, watching Monday Night Football, too lazy to even get up and change the channel; yet still claiming they are too young, have too much to do, don't want to be tied down, etc., to bother with a family.

Like the dinosaurs of old and gender neutralized feminists of the modern age, I predict a slow slide into extinction for Western man, if he continues down this current path...

Sunday, January 22, 2006

Others Just as Guilty, Still Free

Rhodes gets 31-to-life

Goshen - Lisa Colon looked across a courtroom and asked Christopher Rhodes why he stabbed her 7-year-old daughter, Jerica, 16 times, why he pierced her heart and her lungs and left her to die in a school bathroom.

The guy who called himself Jerica's father had no answer for Colon as he was sentenced yesterday to 31 years to life in prison.

But Rhodes told a prosecutor the same thing that he's said since Jan. 27, 2005, when Jerica's body was found at Sacred Heart of Jesus School in Highland Falls: He didn't do it, regardless of a jury's guilty verdict late last year.

"You are right - a child, 7 years old, does not deserve to be stabbed 16 times. I agree with you on that. But I'm not the man you're looking for," Rhodes told Assistant District Attorney David Byrne, who vigorously cross-examined Rhodes when he took the stand in his own defense during the trial.

Byrne pointed out to Orange County Judge Jeffrey G. Berry that when Rhodes testified, he never shed a tear at the mention of Jerica's name. DNA tests during the investigation showed he wasn't her biological father.

"The only time a tear fell from his self-interested body was when he talked about going home," Byrne told the judge. "Christopher Rhodes is about nobody but himself."

Byrne talked about Rhodes' criminal record, disclosing for the first time yesterday that the former James O'Neill scholastic basketball star's rap sheet dates back to a weapon offense he committed in 1992 in Texas, when he was a 15-year-old juvenile.

He pointed out that Rhodes was ordered into a class for batterers after an incident of domestic violence involving another woman who bore his child. Byrne also observed that Rhodes was on probation for a previous misdemeanor drug-possession case at the time he was arrested last year and that police found more than a pound of marijuana stashed in a sofa in Rhodes' Highland Falls apartment when they executed a search warrant in the wake of Jerica's murder.

And finally, Byrne said that in May 2005, Rhodes cooked up a scheme to blame another Orange County Jail inmate for Jerica's murder. Rhodes confessed during the trial that he wrote phony letters to his parents, Linwood and Linda Rhodes, that purported to be from Edward Nash, who was awaiting trial for murdering his wife in Middletown. Rhodes also mailed the letters to the Times Herald-Record, knowing that prosecutors and police would be forced to investigate their authenticity.

"The defendant's life has been one of self-interest and violence," Byrne told the judge. "He is a dangerous person."

Berry called Jerica's murder the worst he'd seen since he began presiding over murder trials in 1991.

"This one is the most heartbreaking, this one is the most insensitive, this one is the most brutal," Berry said, speaking softly as he looked at Rhodes.

The judge's voice got louder as he described Rhodes' scheme to frame Nash for Jerica's murder. He called it, "the most unbelievable form of narcissism that I have ever seen in my life”.

He then sentenced Rhodes to the maximum 25 years to life for the murder, plus more time for the felony marijuana charge and felony evidence-tampering and forgery charges related to the fake letters from the jail. Rhodes will be in his late 50s when he's eligible for parole, but District Attorney Frank Phillips said his office will urge the state Division of Parole to keep Rhodes behind bars.

Rhodes vowed to appeal.

Lisa Colon, who now lives in central New York, said justice was served in the legal sense.

But as she left the Orange County Courthouse yesterday, Colon wept as she said that at times, she felt like she was the one on the stand, although she and Rhodes split up years before Jerica's murder. She said it took her a long time to stop finding fault with herself for Jerica's murder.

Rhodes' lawyer, Sol Lesser, succeeded in keeping Colon from testifying against Rhodes as a prosecution witness.

"My daughter's justice will never be served," she said.

Oliver Mackson

Well it’s over.

Just as I suspected, in the end there was no real insight given us.

The only new item here is that Christopher Rhodes has been in trouble with the law from the time he was 15 years old, YET no discussion on how or why this career criminal got custody of someone else’s five month old baby to begin with, since he had a record as long as your arm. That’s what’s lacking, punishment for all the others who enabled Rhodes to be in the position to murder this kid in the first place. That’s what’s been missing from this story, right from the beginning.

AND in the end, it’s still missing.

The news coverage of this crime was very insufficient. In my opinion, it actually tried to steer the reader (and thus potential jurors) into sympathy for Christopher Rhodes by continuously focusing on who Jerica’s father was. Can somebody explain to me WHY this had anything to do with her murder? I never heard of a murder case where the parentage of the victim was continuously focused on. What does someone’s parentage have to do with them being murdered?

In short, NOTHING...

This was nothing but a red herring by the defense, Sol Lesser, to try to get the jurors to sympathize with Christopher Rhodes, acting like he was a victim or something. In this, the news media tried to help Rhodes by focusing on this fact as well, when it meant absolutely nothing. This is the same reason why the defense fought (and won) to keep Lisa Mason, Jerica’s mother, from testifying against Rhodes, btw. Sol Lesser didn’t want the jury to hear the truth about his client. That, in fact, Christopher Rhodes was not the good and loving father that people tried to falsely paint him as, but a monster quite capable of murder. After all, Rhodes literally abducted this child while she was a nursing infant from her mother and subsequently prevented her mother and her siblings from ever seeing her again.

Christopher Rhodes had the help of the police officers who responded to the initial 911 call seven years ago. Rhodes continued getting assistance from his parents, a family court Judge and other assorted family court officers in keeping this child away from her mother, even through Rhodes had a long history as a career criminal committing crimes from here to Texas. Once again, the news media aided and abetted Rhodes in this instance as well, never focusing on the custodial and alienation/abduction aspects of the story, which would have shown that the hate agenda against mothers and motherhood of the mens/fathers rights movement is what led to this man having custody to begin with.

NONE of these ENABLERS has been punished as yet. Whatever happened to the Endangerment laws of this State? If they don’t apply here, they don’t apply anywhere since this guy had many people, including his own parents, aiding and abetting him for seven years.

YET not ONE OTHER PERSON has been indicted on related charges.

Last point: 31 years was a very insufficient sentence. Rhodes could be out in 10 or 15 years if you factor in good time. It’s an outrageous sentence for a man who not only murdered a child but tortured her mother and siblings for years by keeping them away from her. Everyone who aided and abetted this monster in doing this should be punished as well. Additionally we need to open the files of the Family Court Judge in this case and see how many other mothers and children he has placed in similar situations by his custody rulings favoring fathers (or hate crimes against mothers as I would call them). Not to mention that if he has any common decency he would have immediately resigned from the bench as soon as Christopher Rhodes was found guilty.

I guess common decency like common sense is very uncommon these days.
F4J Continue their Sad and Demented Campaign to have Men in Charge of Everything Again

Online SUN News

Sunday, January 22, 2006

In the name of the Fathers

Crime Editor

SPECIAL Branch cops smashed a plot to kidnap little Leo Blair while monitoring a small band of fanatical dads, The Sun can reveal.

They stumbled across the startling plan as they investigated the activities of men on the lunatic fringe of the Fathers 4 Justice group.

Tony Blair and his wife Cherie were told about the threat to five-year-old Leo —the youngest of their four children.

A security source told The Sun: “They were naturally very concerned, as any parent would be. But they have been assured the police are on top of the situation.”

A security assessment of the Prime Minister’s family was carried out by Special Branch after the plot was uncovered.

It included analysis of the protection given to the Blairs’ other three children — Euan, 22 tomorrow, Nicholas, 20, and 17-year-old Kathryn.

The source said: “Appropriate steps have now been taken.”,,2-2006020727,00.html

As expected, it has finally come to the attention of authorities just how dangerous the Mens/Fathers Right movement actually is. These groups, that have sprung up like poisonous mushrooms throughout Western civilization, are a harbinger of the chaos to come if we continue ignoring the anti-social behavior of men posing as concerned fathers. When the real motivation driving these jealous misfits is hatred of women in their role as mothers, actually the very concept of motherhood.

By the way, I totally disagree with the Sun’s designation of this coming from “a small band of fanatical dads” or “men on the lunatic fringe” as the entire fatherhood movement is fueled by hatred of mothers. They are a dangerous, vicious, hate-filled group of men and some female enablers. After observing their activities for a few years now, I can speak from experience when I say they are a menace to Western society, almost as bad as Islamic terror cells. Actually, it wouldn’t surprise me to find out that some of their offshoots aren’t consorting with Islamic terrorists and other bands of men who hate women as well, like to like.

We have to remember two of the most dangerous domestic terrorists generated in the United States BOTH used children as a motivation for their acts. Tim McVeigh claimed he was avenging the children in Waco, even playing some crazy song about children at his trial. The Unibomber also wrote, in one of his nutty manifestos that was sent to a newspaper to be published, about how horrible it was for boys to be confined in classrooms forced to learn when they should be running free outdoors and playing. Think about this when you listen to some of these advocates for boys talking about the different ways of learniing for boys versus girls. Of course, it's okay to chain some little girl to her desk and force her to learn, but not a little boy they are different...

Anyway, I read recently on another blog how the fathers’ right movement appears to have the chameleon-like ability to appeal to both sides of the political spectrum. They frequently pose as progressives on the issue of child custody, which of course has always appealed to gender neutralized feminists, who would like nothing better then to eliminate the power that the mother/child bond holds over women. Yet when dealing with conservatives, the movement then morphs into concerned fathers who just wish to stop the deterioration of the ‘traditional family’. Thus they are able to play both ends from the middle, so to speak, making them even more menacing.

This probably explains why the authorities have ignored them up to now. As their true nature had not been revealed as yet. Now that it has, swift action should be taken against ALL these groups and they should be held to the same standards as everybody else. No special privileges for breaking the law, for instance, and the media should stop painting their activities as ‘light-hearted’ pranks, which they are not.

Furthermore, action must be taken against the groups and individuals who continue sprewing bile about mothers, especially single mothers, in the media. These fatherhood campaigns need to be “terminated with extreme prejudice”. As they do nothing but sprew propaganda and lies about women in their role as mothers. Trying to blame us for the deterioration of society. This propaganda acts as the ‘fuel’ which powers these Mens/Fathers Rights groups in their hate movement against mothers. It allows them to think that their actions are not crimes, but attempts to protect children or some such nonsense.

To begin the remedy of this situation, the media should be forced to begin featuring 36% of their news, tv shows, commercials etc., focusing positively on single mothers. As our last census showed that 36% of our children are now born to single mothers and it’s unfair to continue ignoring this growing segment of our society. I see more shows on tv and commercials featuring gay men or single fathers, then I do about single mothers and we are a far larger segment of the American population then either of those two groups.

It should already be obvious to even the most casual observer that God, evolution, or nature has already decreed that the mother/child bond is the more significant one in the life of a child, compared to the social construct that fatherhood represents. Those who have a problem with that take it up with one of the above deities.

Continuing the lie that fathers and mothers make equal investment in children is also a large part of the problem here. It convinces men (falsely) that they are being ‘cheated’ of something that is rightfully theirs, when mothers are overwhelming given custody of children. In fact, it is correct that mothers usually be given custody of children in most instances (barring abuse or neglect) as women are the ones who make the far larger investment in children. Women simply contribute, invest, and risk more vis-a-vis children, men little. I’m sorry but this is one time that men are not the captain of the ship, but simply one of the crew and they need to accept this designation. They are bit players in the drama of giving life. That’s just the way it was ordained. I have no idea why, maybe it would have been better for us if we could procreate in a gender neutral manner with everyone getting pregnant and bearing their own children; however, we can’t. So there is not too much we can do to change it now. Men rule everything else, so I don’t feel bad if they can’t have this too. Again, those who don’t like it, take it up with your deity, that’s just the way it is.

Societies that overlook the above, risk extinction.

Sunday, January 15, 2006

Is there such a thing as common law marriage?

"Common Law Marriage is defined as a marriage in which the parties did not obtain a license or go through a recognized ceremony, but lived together as married. New York does not recognize common law marriage from living together only in New York State. But, you can have a common law marriage recognized in New York if: a. You were common law married in a state that permits common law marriage and then move to New York, or B. You have lived together in New York and traveled to and cohabited in one of the other states such as Pennsylvania, South Carolina or Colorado, which recognizes common law marriage, while "holding yourselves out" as being married, meaning that you acted as though you were married. As little as an overnight trip to a common law state can be enough to qualify for recognition of common law marriage in New York.”

This little tidbit from regarding how New York State handles the issue of common law marriage was more interesting to me for everything it didn’t say then for what it did. The last sentence pointing out how even one “overnight trip to a common law state can be enough to qualify for recognition of common law marriage in New York” was quite an eye-opener. Because my first thought was, why bother with this little bit of confusion for people? If your state decided to not recognize common law marriages, just don’t. However after thinking about it a little more I came to the conclusion that it was probably linked to a constitutional issue of all states being required to recognize one another laws. That’s why it’s such a problem if we let ONE state decide to pass a law unfairly restricting the rights of it’s residents or conversely deciding to unilaterally expand them in some fashion with no consultation with the rest of the nation.

This started me thinking about the history of common law marriage and why it ultimately evolved into policy differences, where some states would recognize it and others would not. I mean if it is a good public policy for one state, common sense would dictate why not for all? If it’s not, then no state should be allowed to recognize it.

Of course, I am an American History major from an excellent university, yet, much of what I studied focused on the ‘great man’ theory of history. The Washington, Lincoln, Geronimo histories where one man’s actions drove the historic events of the day and everything from freeing the slaves to ending the Indian wars in the west was dependent upon that man’s initiative or lack thereof. It never really looked at the masses of common people and how the actions of millions of ordinary persons really drove history in certain directions. The institution of common law marriage is a good example of this.

I, like everyone else I think, automatically assumed that our ancestors were generally more conservative about all social issues then we are today. Thus, I assumed that common law marriages were actually something that only became a legal issue in the social upheavals that followed the radical 60s. However I was surprised recently to read a Pennsylvania Judge’s ruling that struck down Pennsylvania’s common law marriage recognition with the rationale that we had outgrown the need for it now (see below).

"Many sound reasons exist to abandon a system that allows the determination of important rights to rest on evidence fraught with inconsistencies, ambiguities and vagaries," Judge Bonnie Brigance Leadbetter wrote in a decision filed Wednesday.

She added that the circumstances that created a need for common law marriage -- namely, the potential unavailability of a preacher in Colonial times and the dependence of women on men for support -- have dissipated.

BTW, It’s always interesting to me who the people are making these decisions regarding what women don’t NEED anymore. From custody of our children to support from our husband it’s generally some feminist Judge (making far more then most women, especially when we chose to become mothers) as the main advocate for abolition of the protections that it only took a couple of hundred years of American civilization for women to negotiate for ourselves. Now, she just tossed out the window one of the more important ones because SHE obviously wasn’t in need of it. This Judge, of course, automatically assumes that every woman exists with the income of an attorney (probably making upwards of $100,000 annually) and thus, is in no need of a husband for support.

As always we can count on gender neutralized feminists to screw us up in every situation, common law marriage being another example. THEY don’t need it, thus no woman does.

Pretty typical.

Obviously they have not taken the time to look around at the social landscape in the last few decades and observe what is going on today. As when feminism in their push for equal rights for women winded up inadvertently empowering men instead, while shooting ordinary women in the foot vis-à-vis the institution of marriage. I believe feminists assumed that women could engage in casual sex for years just as men did and still be able to negotiate marriage after the fact. Unfortunately that has not proven to be the case. As many men appear to consider casual sex to be the end of the relationship, not the means to an end, (a legal marriage) which most women envisioned.

It should be pretty obvious right now (as it was to Augustus Caesar when he faced a similar situation in Rome) that when men have other alternatives to getting sex outside of lawful marriages, such as owning female slaves or residing in societies where ordinary women think it empowers them to have casual sex with every idiot they run into, that men tend to NOT bother marrying. Quite frankly with casual sex so available throughout our society, many men appear to have no need or desire to get married anymore. Unfortunately, the classic “Why buy the cow, when you can get the milk for free” analogue is a crude but quite adequate explanation for much marriage avoidance behavior today.

Thus, even though the history of common law marriage began due to early American pioneer families residing great distances from preachers, it has now obviously evolved into the only way our society can push men into a lawful, albeit coerced by the state, marriage with the women they are residing with and fathering children upon. Unfortunately too many man would just as soon not bother making that legal commitment anymore especially since never-married fathers now get the same rights as married fathers; thus making it even less likely that men will bother marrying. Why should they? Additionally, it has actually come to the point that if women wish to EVER have children, before dying of old age that is, many are being forced to make the decision to just go ahead and have children alone. Which then leads into our current predicament where 36% of all children are born to single mothers.

So it seems to me we have one of two choices here.

We can accept the fact that a large number of women are going to have children alone, as they simply don’t have the time to negotiate over and over with a reluctant suitor (such as the David Letterman, Stephen Bing types) before deciding to go ahead and have children. The female biological time clock is simply not as long-running as the male one. Or we better start revisiting some of those old common law marriage statues and see what we can do in that area. Otherwise we are simply going to have to begin revising far more public policies and tax codes in order to provide the financial and custodial stability that these mothers are going to need in order to raise many of society’s children alone.

Tuesday, January 03, 2006

Bridget Marks has been very busy lately.

She has started her own foundation.

See below:

Mothers for Judicial Accountability

Mothers for Judicial Accountability (MJA) was founded after Bridget Marks, a loving, fit, and committed mother, experienced first hand the injustice of the family court system when her children were wrongfully taken from her. One of the very few mothers who was able to regain custody of her children, Bridget now would like to provide assistance to other mothers who are experiencing similar problems in the family court system.

Additionally Bridget Marks will be a featured speaker next week at the third National Battered Mothers Custody Conference. She is being billed as a “Protective Mother who regained custody of her children in an unprecedented 4-0 decision by the New York State Court of Appeals and founder of Mothers for Judicial Accountability.”

See below:

Battered Women, Abused Children and Child Custody:

A National Crisis

Third National Conference

January 6 - 8, 2006

General Information: Registration, Schedule, Brochure, Announcement, Hotel

Register Online To Attend

2006 Conference Presenters

All I have to say about the whole thing is “Stop it Ms. Marks, stop it right now”.

You are allowing yourself to be used by a bunch of gender neutralized feminists, who, quite frankly, many of them are in the vanguard of encouraging Judges to award custody to fathers. It is seen as progressive by them and their ilk. Thus, they are largely responsible for so many mothers like you losing custody to begin with.
You are allowing yourself to become involved with them in these sorts of malicious attacks against the very judiciary who gave you back your children on a ‘technicality’ really. Nothing more. They never exonerated you from making false accusations

Quite frankly, I believe they gave you the children back because you lucked out and probably got the last of the old ‘Patriarchs’ of the New York Court of Appeals listening to your case. They are a dying breed being rapidly replaced by gender neutralized feminists, who btw, would have thought NOTHING of cutting off your contact with your children forever.


I believe, like many New Yorkers believe, that you exaggerated this whole sex abuse story out of desperation to keep custody of your children. Nevertheless those Patriarchs pitied you and your daughters, as you were clearly out-spent and out-manuevered by the boyfriend you foolishly decided to play a game of ‘chicken’ with.

That pity, along with the public outcry generated by other New Yorkers, including myself, helped return your children to you for that reason ONLY.

Actually I guarantee you that if your case had been heard by the very gender neutralized feminists you are currently consorting with, you would not have your children with you today. As they would have upheld Judge Goldberg’s original ruling.

Ms. Marks, you traumatized many mothers and children in this city by your very dramatic handover to the childrens' father and the media feeding frenzy that continued for weeks afterwards. Nevertheless, we supported you feeling that in spite of your many flaws, you were the best person to raise your children anyway. Thus I think you owe us at least the respect of a low key ending to the public airing of your family’s dirty laundry and a slow fade out of the news to quietly raise the daughters we helped you get returned to your custody.

If you continue on your current path, by attacking the very patriarchs who gave you a second change, with this whole Judicial Accountability Foundation business, I see John Alysworth’s ongoing appeal having a very different outcome.

My advice (and it's for free and probably the best advice you will ever get) is don’t push your luck. Bow out of that Albany Conference, get rid of that foundation and return to focusing on the raising of the children that the sympathy of New Yorkers gave you a second chance to properly do.