How to spot the early signs of Parental Alienation

A computer animated discussion on the early signs of parental alienation within a late night talk show format.

Animation software used: w w w . x t r a n o rm a l . c o m

Dr. Stephen Baskerville in Amsterdam at the 5th World Congress of Families

Dr. Stephen Baskerville in Amsterdam at the 5th World Congress of Families august 11, 2009

Masculine genocide, an insane war against fathers&children, hetero's and families.

How to Avoid Falling for the Fake Rape Scam in Angeles City Philippines

Are you planning to visit Philippines is to not put yourself in dangerous situations with people you do not know. Filipino person you know and trust.the Philippinessoon? If so please take the opportunity to read this article as it will address how you can keep from falling for the Fake rape scam in the Philippines. To start with rape in the Philippines is a unbailable offense and a trail could literally take a decade.

That said the way the scam works is a girl willing goes with you and you have consensual sex with her and then she leaves and returns a few hours later with a policeman with her who is involved in the scam as well.

At this point they demand alot of money from you and you are trapped between a rock and a hard place because either you pay them the money or they file a trumped up case against you and let you sit in a Philippine jail possibly for years without any bail.

Things You'll Need:

Knowledge

Step 1

The easiest way to avoid this scam is to stay away from the women there.

Step 2

If you must put yourself in bad situation then hire a professional or avail servicesof a lawyer.

Step 3

If going out places it is best to take along a friend because you will not be as much of a mark in the Philippines if you are in a group than if you are just alone.

The Study of Man (or Males)

Jan 7, 2011

IF you are a college graduate of a certain age, you probably remember that there used to be an all-purpose discipline that studied men and their behavior. It was called history. There was also a subject, called literature, that studied what men wrote. And art examined the pictures men painted.

Frustration with the neglect of women’s accomplishments — call it phallocentrism if you like — was what led to women’s studies, which has lately morphed into gender studies on some campuses. Women’s studies also gave rise to something called men’s studies, which is essentially pro-feminist. You can’t exactly major in men’s studies, but roughly 100 universities offer courses that fall under the umbrella, and the field has produced influential thinkers like Michael Kimmel, who is a professor at Stony Brook University and author of “Manhood in America: A Cultural History.”

The academic turf devoted to sex and gender these days is so crowded, in fact, that the prospect of a newcomer, a discipline called male studies, has generated a minor controversy.

Male studies, largely the brainchild of Dr. Edward M. Stephens, a New York City psychiatrist, doesn’t actually exist anywhere yet. Last spring, there was a scholarly symposium at Wagner College on Staten Island, intended to raise the movement’s profile and attract funds for a department with a tenured chair on some campus. A number of prominent scholars attended, including Lionel Tiger, an emeritus anthropology professor at Rutgers, who invented the term “male bonding,” and Paul Nathanson, a religious studies scholar at McGill University, who specializes in the study of misandry, the flip side of misogyny. Both are on the advisory board of the Foundation for Male Studies, which Dr. Stephens founded last year.

There will be a second conference in April at the New York Academy of Medicine — right on the heels, as it happens, of the annual conference of the American Men’s Studies Association — and the two groups have already begun jousting.

Robert Heasley, a sociology professor at Indiana University of Pennsylvania and president of the association, has accused the new movement of “inventing something that I think already exists.” And at the Wagner College conference, Rocco Capraro, a history professor at Hobart and William Smith Colleges, said much the same thing. Men’s studies had been around for 30 years, he pointed out, and was “an emerging interdisciplinary field concerned with men’s identity and experience in the present, over time, across space.”

His definition was sufficiently vague, in other words, that it seemed to cover just about everything male-related, and he suggested that the differences between men’s studies and male studies were mostly ones of emphasis.

Actually, the differences are a good deal deeper than that. One argument that male studies advocates make is that men’s studies has essentially been co-opted. According to Professor Tiger, the trouble with men’s studies is that it’s “a wholly owned branch of women’s studies.”

There is also a political dimension to the split. “I’d like to get away from this terminology but it’s true,” Professor Heasley said in a recent interview. “It’s left wing/right wing.”

But ultimately the differences have to do with radically different notions of what it means to be a man in the first place.

The people in men’s studies, like those in women’s studies, take a mostly sociological perspective and believe that masculinity is essentially a cultural construct and that gender differences in general are fluid and variable. To Professor Kimmel, we live in a world that is increasingly gender-neutral and gender integrated and that this is a good thing for men and women both. “That ship has sailed — it’s a done deal,” he said recently, dismissing the idea that men and women are as different as Martians and Venutians.

The male studies people, on the other had, are what their critics call “essentialists” and believe that male behavior is in large part biologically determined. Men think and act differently from how women think and act because that’s how evolution shaped them. In the most extreme formulations of essentialism, men are basically still Neanderthals: violent, clannish, sexually voracious and in need of female domestication.

Professor Tiger, who has a somewhat more benign view of men than that, nevertheless worries that the changes that have allowed women to control their own reproductive process have unnaturally and disastrously altered the balance of power between the sexes.

But the biology vs. culture argument has been going on for years, and the male studies movement is less an expansion of that debate than a response to a specific crisis, the nature of which both sides agree on: academically at least, young men are in trouble.

Starting in grammar school, they lag behind girls by most observable measures, and the gap widens through high school and college. If males go to college at all, that is. College enrollment tilts at almost 60-40 in favor of women, and once enrolled, women are more likely than men to do well and to graduate.

There are a lot of explanations for why this is so. A popular theory, set forth in books like “The Trouble With Boys,” by Peg Tyre, and “The War Against Boys: How Misguided Feminism Is Hurting Our Young Men,” by Christina Hoff Sommers, is that grammar school classrooms have become excessively feminized, impatient with boys’ naturally boisterous behavior and short attention spans and inattentive to the way in which boys learn differently from girls. (Critics who went to school in the ’50s, when seat-squirming, loud-talking and other boyish hijinks were even less tolerated, are told that back then education didn’t matter so much and that a boy who didn’t do well in school had more and better employment options than such a student does today.)

Professor Tiger believes that by the time girls get to college, there is a Darwinian component to the achievement gap: women are aware of the divorce rate and the likelihood that they may raise children without ever marrying in the first place. “They’re studying for two,” he explained. “Guys just don’t have that sense, that inwit. That’s biology at its most essential.”

And then there are the various cultural arguments: that at least by some standards of masculinity, learning — reading and writing especially — is “uncool,” and that college campuses have become inhospitable to men, who now suffer from fragile self-regard. People associated with the male studies movement frequently bring up the date rape seminar now obligatory on most campuses. On their very first day at college, awkward young men are gathered into a room with their female counterparts and, the argument goes, made to feel like sexual predators.

Miles Groth, who teaches psychology at Wagner College and was host of the conference there last spring, says that what he hears all the time from male undergraduates on his campus is “I just don’t feel welcome here.” Professor Groth’s “Engaging College Men,” published last year by Men’s Studies Press, discusses programs at 14 campuses directed at improving the lot of men, and he has himself established a men’s center at Wagner, a small, private liberal arts school where only 36 percent of the students are men and a quarter of them are recruited athletes on scholarship.

The 15 or so members, many of them philosophy majors, meet once a week to share their thoughts in an atmosphere that is a “safe haven” for creating male intimacy, according to Michael Martin, a freshman football player. “I think of it as a fraternity in the truest sense,” he explained. “I think women love that we do this. Or if they don’t, they haven’t had it accurately explained to them.”

Kyle Glover, a senior and leader of the group, had this to say: “Guys are struggling. I’ve heard this argument that now is the girls’ time to get back but I don’t accept that.” He went on: “We talk a lot about what makes us tick as males. How did we get here? What’s your relationship with your dad like? Your mom? What do you think women want from you? What do you think you want from them?”

Professor Groth’s courses examine what it means to be a man from the points of view of psychology, anthropology, literature and even movies. “Why the silence?” he said between classes one day. “Why hasn’t our generation been more vocal about what’s happening to our young men?” And then he partly answered his own question: “It’s the continuing myth of male power. If I as a man raise these issues I’m just raising that old specter of male power because I want to keep women under control.”

Professor Groth, Professor Tiger and Dr. Stephens all seem at great pains not to say anything critical about feminism or women’s studies. “I don’t think male studies has emerged from acrimony,” Professor Tiger insisted. And yet the male studies movement appears to be animated at least in part by a sense that feminism has gone too far on campus and the women’s studies departments are too powerful. Professor Tiger and Dr. Stephens like to recite by the sheaf statistics showing how much more resources are being poured into the study of women and their problems than into men and their plight.

Lurking around the edges of the male studies movement, moreover, in Web sites like Paul Elam’s A Voice for Men, is a certain amount of anti-feminist hostility, if not outright misogyny. There used to be a link on the Web site for the Foundation for Male Studies to an interminable screed by someone called the Futurist, who was convinced the overvaluing of women and undervaluing of men was about to create a civilizational cataclysm. The piece began more or less rationally, but soon flared with gas jets of anger and worries about “rage-filled ‘feminists’ who would gladly send innocent men to concentration camps if they could.”

This intemperateness has recently caused Professor Groth to distance himself a little from the foundation, though Dr. Stephens believes that the rift is less philosophical than methodological, with Professor Groth concerned with setting up men’s centers and Dr. Stephens with establishing an academic department devoted to men.

Some of Dr. Stephens’s critics like to account for his male studies enthusiasm by pointing out that he went through a bad marital breakup, something he readily admits. “I was a happy psychiatrist until 1994, when I decided to get divorced,” he said, sitting in his windowless, ground-level office on the Upper East Side. “The kids got alienated and I got bankrupted — part of the gender-skewed system.” What got him thinking about what eventually became male studies, he went on to say, was his discovery that divorce law barely acknowledged paternal instinct and a sense, growing out of his psychiatric practice, that no one was paying attention to the special needs of men.

Dr. Stephens is an old-fashioned-seeming man, with a grandfatherly mustache and a fondness for bow ties, but he is convinced that, far from being a throwback, he is in the forefront of something: “I don’t have a goal. I have a vision. I sign all of my correspondence, ‘Looking forward.’ I’m looking forward to some really new approaches to understanding ourselves.”

ONE of Professor Groth’s colleagues at Wagner, Jean Halley, who teaches sociology and gender studies, describes him as a popular teacher whose courses on gender and masculinity attract a big enrollment. But she complains about the essentialism of male studies and says that Professor Groth “seems to like to position himself in a contentious way.”

Professor Groth, who is unmarried and has no children, is a boyish 63. He typically wears a coat and tie but keeps his shirttail carefully untucked. What motivates him, he says, is concern over the way college-age men seem to be foundering and a concern that if nothing is done, they may soon find themselves both unemployable and unmarriageable.

“It’s not O.K. these days to talk about the problems of boys and young men without seeming to be anti-girl,” he said. “There aren’t enough courses and enough people willing to come out of the woodwork and take the flak. A lot of people are hoping it will go away, but I’m not going away. I’m tenured.”

He added that he sometimes wondered if the name “male studies” itself was a problem and said, “I like ‘andrology,’ except that’s the study of prostates.”

Last semester, Professor Groth taught a course on the psychology of men; of 30 students, all but five were women. “I asked everyone, ‘Why are you taking this course?’ ” he recalled. “The boys didn’t say anything. The girls all said, ‘We want to understand the guys better.’ ”

Source: NYTimes.com

Woman clubs partner to death, dumps body in tank

Jan 9, 2011

NEW DELHI: On the grisly scale, this crime of passion is sure to shock. A twice-divorced boutique owner and mother of three clobbered her live-in partner, six years her junior, to death after he objected to her relations with another man.

The woman has three daughters from her previous marriages. While the eldest is married, the other two – aged 14 and 5 – were present in another room when the murder took place.

The calculated manner in which the woman went about disposing of the body has surprised crime branch officers who recovered the deceased's body on Friday – two months after the crime – from a septic tank in sector 26 of Rohini.
"The accused, Shehnaz (35), had an argument with the deceased, Rakesh Gupta, (29) on the night of October 5 at her Rohini sector 15 residence. She picked up a cricket stump and hit Gupta repeatedly on the head. She then contacted her brothers, Shakeel and Shahid – both living in sector 26 – to dispose of the body," said Sandeep Goel, joint commissioner (crime).

Sources said the body lay at her residence for 24 hours even as she went about cleaning the room and destroying evidence. Shehnaz contacted her brothers in the morning and the body was moved to sector 26 by the three accused on the night of October 6 and disposed of in a nearby tank.

The motive for the crime may not be a failed relationship alone. ``The woman was forced to close the boutique six months ago due to financial trouble. She was desperately seeking financial aid, but Gupta, who was a tailor by profession and earning extra money working as a commission agent, was not able to meet her demands. We are also looking into this angle in our investigations,'' said a senior crime branch officer.

Shehnaz allegedly attacked Rajesh Gupta after an argument. She has been living with Gupta for the past three years after separating from her second husband. She had found a backer, Rayeez, for her boutique. Shehnaz and one of her brothers, Shakeel (27), were arrested on Friday while another brother, Shahid, is absconding.

Providing details of the investigation, additional DCP (crime) P S Kushwah said Shakeel was the first to be questioned after investigators received inputs that he could be behind Gupta's disappearance.

"Shehnaz herself had approached police on October 18 and reported that Gupta was missing since October 5. The local police questioned her but she remained elusive. We questioned Shahid as he had a criminal record," said Kushwah.

During questioning, the official said, Shahid denied any involvement and told police he was not even on good terms with his sister. However, police kept a watch on him. "A source informed us that they were planning to go underground as police had got an idea of their deed," the official said.

The duo were picked up for questioning from near Rithala Metro station when they were planning to flee the capital and were interrogated separately during which they allegedly confessed to murdering Gupta.

"Shehnaz told us that she left her previous husband and had lived-in with Gupta for the past two years. Recently, she'd developed a friendship with one Rayeez to which Gupta objected. She wanted to get rid of Gupta. We are still investigating if the argument and the assault that followed was pre-planned,'' said JCP Goel.

Source: TOI

Why the mother-in-law is no laughing matter for women UK

Nov 9, 2010

The overbearing mother-in-law has become an object of fun for men the world over.

For women, however, life with such a figure is no laughing matter.

Seven in ten mothers say they have to endure a controlling matriarch who criticises their parenting skills.

Major sources of irritation include questioning how they bring up their children, mollycoddling their son, and trying to spoil their grandchildren too much.

The mother-in-law turning up uninvited is another cause of annoyance, according to parenting website gurgle.com.

While conducting a survey of 1,000 mothers, it received dozens of testimonies from women who have confided that they can’t stand their husband’s mother.

LES DAWSON AND CENTURIES OF HUMOUR

• 
  I saw six men kicking and  punching the mother-in-law.  My neighbour said: ‘Are you going to help?’ I said no six  should be enough.
• I saw the mother-in-law walking  down the path so I jumped from behind the garage and shouted ‘Boo!’. She said: ‘You nearly frightened me to death.’ So I shouted: ‘Boo! boo! boo!’ The wife’s mother said: ‘When you’re dead, I’ll dance in your grave.’ I said: ‘Good, I’m being buried at sea.’
• I took my mother-in-law to Madame Tussaud’s Chamber of Horrors and one of the attendants said: ‘Keep her moving, sir, we’re stock taking.’
• Dawson was following in thefootsteps of the ancients in poking fun at the wife’s mother. In the first century AD, Juvenal wrote in Satire VI: ‘It is impossible to be happy while one’s mother-in-law is still alive.’

Nikki, 35, from Essex, commented: ‘I have two daughters aged five and three. 

'My MIL has asked when she can start having them to stay over at her house for weekends, as she thinks she doesn’t see enough of them, despite having them one day a week EVERY week. 

‘My youngest is still quite clingy to me and has said she doesn’t want to go. I told my MIL this and she told my partner that I had separation anxiety issues and that I needed to learn to let go!’ 

The survey found that 39 per cent are annoyed at their mother-in-law criticising their approach to child-raising.

The mother-in-law interfering in day-to-day life (23 per cent) and ‘babying’ their son (20 per cent) were the next two biggest complaints. 

Completing the top five gripes were spoiling the grandchildren (18 per cent) and turning up uninvited (7 per cent). 

Complaining about the mother-in-law has traditionally been associated with men, immortalised in jokes by comics such as Les Dawson and Bob Monkhouse.

Gurgle.com released the results of their survey as it launched a free online guide for mothers on how to best deal with their mother-in-law in the run up to Christmas. 

Nifa McLaughlin, the website’s editor, said: ‘The key thing to remember here is that she doesn’t think you’re doing a bad job; it’s just very hard for grannies to resist offering their own opinion if you’re doing something slightly differently to how she would have done with her own children. 

‘You’re probably a bit less resistant to advice from your own mum, but with the in-law it can irk that much more, as you feel as if your authority is being undermined.’

Source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/

Mother-in-law, son arrested for woman’s death

Dec 21, 2010

What was earlier touted to be self-immolation by a newly-married woman near Thiruvidaimarudur has now turned out to be a murder committed by her husband and mother-in-law, allegedly for dowry. The duo was arrested on Sunday night.

Eight months back Manimekalai (25), a native of Anaikarai, was married to Shanmugam (30), a farmer from Mariammankoil street in Kanjanur village near Thiruvidaimarudur.

On December 11, her burnt dead body was found in the backyard of her house and Shanmugam had informed her relatives that she had committed suicide by immolating herself.

Manimekalai’s father, Balasubramanian, however, did not buy this version and lodged a complaint at the Thirupanandal police station stating that he suspected foul play.

Balasubramanian claimed that he had offered a generous dowry including 15 sovereign at the time of his daughter’s marriage. But Shanmugam and his mother Jayalakshmi had asked Manimekalai to get Rs 1 lakh from him as dowry for buying a tractor. As he had refused to oblige to their demand, Manimekalai might have been burnt alive by her husband and mother-in-law.

Source: deccanchronicle.com

Dowry harassment: Man burnt to death in public

May 30, 2010

While dowry deaths are not uncommon in the state, relatives of a woman, who is fighting for her life after being seriously injured in a fire in her house, took things into their own hands and set her husband on fire in full public view in Nez village, Chikkodi taluk late Friday. Shivajirao Shinde (30) was admitted to the Belgaum civil hospital for treatment, but died on Saturday.

Shinde, a computer operator in a private finance company in Examba village, near Chikkodi, married Renuka a year ago and allegedly harassed her for dowry constantly. A few days ago Renuka was seriously injured in a fire, which her in-laws claim, was caused by a stove bursting in the kitchen. But her family which learnt from doctors on Friday that Renuka's condition was critical, accused her husband and in-laws of setting her on fire.

Around 15 angry relatives of the woman rushed to Nez carrying about 25 litres of kerosene and beat up Shinde and his family. As Shinde began to run, they chased him and pouring kerosene over him, set him on fire in full public view. A dozen of them have since been arrested.

According to the Sadalga police, Renuka's in-laws lodged a complaint soon after she was injured that she was hurt in an accidental stove burst. Renuka also gave a statement that her husband was not responsible. As both families have now registered cases against each other, the police is investigating to get to the bottom of the matter.

Source: TOI

Cyclist’s message: Say no to dowry, female foeticide

Jan 8, 2011

Maharashtra based cyclist Bhau Saheb is on a journey that involves two lakh kilometres, meetings with 26 Governors and 14 Chief Ministers of different states and more than 10 lakh people, and his travels have kept him on his cycle for around 18 years. At present, Saheb is on the fourth round of his countrywide tour with a mission to prevent dowry harassment and female infanticide across the country.

In fact, the tour is personal to him as this time, the cause he is fighting for is close to his heart. Saheb decided to cycle for a feminist cause as he was made aware of the need for the same when he witnessed the problems his family faced while getting his sisters married. Following this Saheb took a pledge of eradicate harassment towards women.”I have been going to different states since 1993 and have covered all the states of the country and have met people at various religious gatherings,” he said.

Source: TOI

Tollywood Actor Samantha groped, slaps her offender

Well don't get me wrong what the man or men did is indecent and unacceptable in a decent society. But that said, with so many people mobbing the actress how is she to know clearly who groped her, without an argument?
Then the next question is, if she really was trying to ignore the incident, then why did she turn around and slap someone indiscriminately? There is an old saying, good, bad or indifferent, any publicity is good publicity, since its free. 

Jan 8, 2011

Tollywood actor Samantha would like to forget her nightmarish experience of being molested by a couple of young men at a private function in Tirupati on Friday. Samantha, who has acted in Ye Maya Chesave and Brindavanam, was to attend a store launch function at the Mega Mall on PGR Junction here at 9 am. However, she got delayed and arrived at 10.30 am. In the mean time, a 500-strong crowd had gather to catch a glimpse of the star.

Soon after she completed her assignment and stepped out of the mall, Samantha was mobbed. Even as her two companions struggled to keep the unruly mob at bay, a couple of young men groped the actor. Shocked and outraged, Samantha started screaming and slapping the men crowding her.

Talking to this newspaper later, Samantha said she slapped a person only to protect her dignity. “This guy was getting uncomfortably close to me. Initially I tried to ignore him. Even my staff told him to keep a safe distance. But his intentions were nasty, so I had to slap him to protect my dignity.” The episode lasted for a couple of minutes till the mall authorities and some other men ventured into the crowd and rescued her.

The molesters hooted and taunted the actor and within minutes of her departure the unruly crowd in front of the mall dispersed.