Welcome to Feminist Truths

We are reborn! Getting shut down by lawyers working for the mafia (it is a long story) hasn't put an end to Feminist Truths.

The good news is that Feminist Truths is back and I have made it my quest in life to deliver truth to the masses.

Tuesday, January 27, 2009

Messy divorces costly, bankrupting couples

FEMINISM - Watching a messy divorce can be pretty sad sometimes. Especially when you learn of the results:

Wayne Tippett of Canada has nothing left but a 10-year-old car and a granite tombstone.

Tippett, 51, is bankrupt and living with his parents after a messy divorce settlement left him $75,000 in debt and racking up $1,000 more each month.

He also cannot afford to pay his ex-wife (the couple had no children) $3,300 a month in spousal support, $16,000 in retroactive alimony and $42,000 of her court costs.

His ex-wife, who has no income of her own, took everything in the complicated and messy divorce.

Wayne Tippett makes a good poster child for no-contest divorces (also known as no-fault divorce). Lawyers, typically, badmouth the idea of a no-contest divorce but the idea is gaining popularity. The end result is that ex-couples keep more money for themselves and split things evenly rather than having most of it go towards their greedy lawyers.

Divorces are often messy, but they don't have to be. Sometimes people can part amiably and without the financial heartbreak.

Saturday, January 24, 2009

Divorce, Custody Battles and Brainwashing the Kids

FEMINISM/DIVORCE - A mother in Toronto has lost her custody battle for her three kids today.

Why?

Because she was brainwashing them to hate their father.

I'm totally serious and I agree with the judge's decision.

The Toronto judge stripped the mother of custody after the woman spent more than a decade trying to alienate them from their father. The mother's "consistent and overwhelming" campaign to brainwash the children into thinking their father was a bad person was nothing short of emotional abuse, wrote Justice Faye McWatt of the Superior Court of Justice in her decision.

The judge said awarding the father sole custody was the children's only hope for having a relationship with their father, given their mother's long-running transgressions.

The three girls, ages 9 to 14, were turned over to their father, a vascular surgeon and a self described "devoted father".

The judge also stipulated the mother can't have access to the children except in conjunction with counseling, including a special intensive therapy program for children affected by "parental alienation syndrome." Furthermore the mother must bear the costs.

AND the mother must now pay child and spousal support.

This is a wakeup call to divorced men and women across North America: You can't badmouth your ex just because you hate them and want custody.

The mother also ignored court orders, slammed the door in father's face when he came to collect the children and refusing to answer the phone when he called to say goodnight to his children. (He was earlier granted telephone access to say good night on Monday, Wednesday and Friday). She also prank-called police so they would show up when her daughters had overnight visits with their father and eventually cut off all contact with the father.

The judge also said the mother was given several chances to change her behaviour and squandered them.

Nicholas Bala, a Queen's University law professor who specializes in family law, said "badmouthing" or negative attitudes by one parent toward another is quite common among separated couples. But in recent years, the justice system has begun to understand the harmful effects of the worst form of this behaviour. In most cases, the problem is resolved through counseling, where parents are encouraged to accept they'll both always be in their children's lives, said Bala.

Judge McWatt also heard testimony from Barbara Fidler, a Toronto mediator and clinical psychologist who predicted eight years ago the three girls were at risk of becoming alienated from their father. Fidler said research points to long-term damage in people alienated from a parent in childhood. If what one parent is saying about the other doesn't accord with their own perceptions, they can become confused, she explained.

PERSONAL NOTE: Regardless of whether its the mother or the father brainwashing the kids during a custody battle is inexcusable.

Friday, January 23, 2009

Obama ends abortion-linked ban

FEMINISM/POLITICS - President Barack Obama on Friday struck down the Bush administration's ban on giving federal money to international groups that perform abortions or provide abortion information – an inflammatory policy that has bounced in and out of law for the past quarter-century.

Obama's executive order, the latest in an aggressive first week reversing contentious policies of the previous president was warmly welcomed by liberal groups and denounced by abortion rights foes.

The ban has been a political football between Democratic and Republican administrations since Republican President Ronald Reagan first adopted it 1984. Democrat Bill Clinton ended the ban in 1993, but Republican George W. Bush re-instituted it in 2001 as one of his first acts in office.

"For too long, international family planning assistance has been used as a political wedge issue, the subject of a back and forth debate that has served only to divide us," Obama said in a statement released from the White House. "I have no desire to continue this stale and fruitless debate."

He said the ban was unnecessarily broad and undermined family planning in developing countries.

"In the coming weeks, my administration will initiate a fresh conversation on family planning, working to find areas of common ground to best meet the needs of women and families at home and around the world," said President Obama.

Obama signed the executive order, without coverage by the media, late on Friday afternoon. The abortion measure is a highly emotional one for many people, and the quiet signing was in contrast to the televised coverage of Obama's Wednesday announcement on ethics rules and Thursday signing of orders on closing the Guantanamo Bay prison camp and banning torture in the questioning of terror suspects

His action came one day after the 36th anniversary of the landmark Supreme Court ruling in Roe vs. Wade that legalized abortion.

The Bush Administration had banned money from going to international family planning groups that either offer abortions or provide information, counseling or referrals about abortion as a family planning method.

Critics have long held that the rule unfairly discriminates against the world's poor by denying U.S. aid to groups that may be involved in abortion but also work on other aspects of reproductive health care and HIV/AIDS, leading to the closure of free and low-cost rural clinics.

Supporters of the ban say that the United States still provides millions of dollars in family planning assistance around the world. The ban has been known as the "Mexico City policy" for the city a U.S. delegation first announced it at a UN International Conference on Population.

Organizations and legislators that had pressed Obama to rescind the Mexico City policy were jubilant. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said the move "will help save lives and empower the poorest women and families to improve their quality of life and their future."

Both Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, who will oversee foreign aid, had promised to do away with the rule during the presidential campaign. Clinton visited the U.S. Agency for International Development earlier Friday but made no mention of the step, which had not yet been announced.

Anti-abortionists condemned Obama's decision.

See Also:
International Women's Day
Criminalizing Women

Thursday, January 22, 2009

Sleeping in Sports Bras

FASHION/HEALTH - Myself and a friend have both been experiencing muscle-related chest pains as we get older, especially while we sleep, and we think its caused by a lack of support while we sleep.

We were both told by our mothers (and everyone else with an opinion) that we're not supposed to sleep with a bra and told it would either make our breasts smaller, cause deformities, that its bad for circulation, constricts your breathing and that its unhealthy for a variety of reasons.

Well, recently my friend has started wearing a sports bra to bed. Not a really tight one, just something comfortable that provides support and she claims her chest pains have gone away. It could be a placebo effect, but she's certain its the sports bra.

Now before I jump on the bandwagon and try the same thing I thought I'd consult the internet and see what other people have been saying about sleeping in sports bras... and what I found was a lot of people with an opinion, but most of it just seems to be hearsay. Some people even mention so-called studies that prove sleeping in a bra (regardless of type) is bad for your health. Well, I've been searching around for these studies and I can't find any of the research results. I have pretty much concluded this "don't sleep in a bra" thing is just an urban myth forced on women (by ourselves it would appear).

I'd love to see a formal or informal study of 10 women with muscle-related chest pains who all decide to wear sports bras for 2 weeks and see if it helps. Maybe then we could disprove this myth once and for all.

According to rumour (not sure if this is true or not)
Marilyn Monroe always slept with a bra so she would never lose that gravity-defying look. So evidently I am not the only one who thinks this "don't sleep in a bra" thing is a myth.

See Also:
History of the Bra
Bras, Spas and Anorexic Celebrities
Sports, Corsetry and the Empowerful Woman



Wednesday, January 21, 2009

Religion and the Rape of Children

RELIGION - Ten-year-old girls are ready for marriage, according to Saudi Arabia's most senior cleric.

Sheikh Abdul-Aziz Al Sheikh, the country's grand mufti, told Al Hayat newspaper that those saying ten or 12-year-old girls are too young to marry are being 'unfair' to them.

Al Sheikh's comments come at a time when Saudi human rights groups have been pushing the government to put an end to marriages involving the very young and to define a minimum age for marriage.

Though the mufti's pronouncements are respected and provide guidance, the government is not legally bound by them.

On Sunday, the government-run Human Rights Commission in Saudi Arabia condemned marriages of minor girls, saying such marriages are an 'inhumane violation' and rob children of their rights.

The commission's statement followed a ruling by a court in Oneiza in central Saudi Arabia last month that dismissed a divorce petition by the mother of an eight-year-old girl whose father married her off to a man in his 50s.

Newspaper reports said the court argued that the mother did not have the right to file such a case on behalf of her daughter and said that the petition should be filed by the girl when she reaches puberty.

Responding to a question about parents who force their underage daughters to marry, the mufti said: 'We hear a lot about the marriage of underage girls in the media, and we should know that Islamic law has not brought injustice to women.'

The mufti said a good upbringing will make a girl capable of carrying out her duties as a wife and that those who say women should not marry before the age of 25 are following a 'bad path'.

Women during Recessions

FEMINISM/POLITICS - A survey released by the Boston Consulting Group this month showed that during the current American recession:

1) 65 per cent of American women plan to cut spending, compared to 58 per cent of men.

2) 41 per cent of American women feel they are in too much debt, compared to 27 per cent of men.

3) 30 per cent of American women are insecure about their finances, compared to 19 per cent of men.

4) 14 per cent of American women are worried about losing their job, compared to 10 per cent of men.

Arguably the reason why women are more frugal with money is because we, generally speaking, have less money. Women are also more likely to be the ones who manage the bill payments for households (while their husbands conveniently find time to wash the car or clean the garage).

So the above statistics comes as no surprise that women are more concerned and more frugal about their spending habits.

Women and children first!

FEMINISM - Is that manly valour or sexism? Should a strong and able woman without a child get first dibs on the lifeboats? Are men's lives less valuable than women's?

Marine life wasn't always so chivalrous.

The tradition was launched in 1852 with the tragic sinking of the HMS Birkenhead off the coast of South Africa. Some 600 troops plus 20 women and children were also aboard. Although the ship's captain was of the "every man for himself'' mindset, the soldiers' commanding officer prevailed. He ordered his men to stand fast and allow the women and children into the few boats first.

The women and children survived while more than 400 gallant men died, either by drowning or by shark.

Understand that airlines don't, as a rule, have a policy of evacuating women and children first. It makes far more sense to go with passengers nearest the exits as this makes for a more orderly flow. See 150 Survive Jet Crash.

So its a nice idea, very chivalrous of the men, but in this day and age its by-and-by unnecessary because we all just want to get off in an orderly fashion.

Tiger Tanaka: Rule number one: never do anything yourself when someone else can do it for you.

James Bond: And rule number two?

Tiger Tanaka: Rule number two: in Japan, men come first, women come second.

James Bond: I just might retire to here.


Evidently there are times however when men have yet to learn that men and women both should take turns or go in the order that is most convenient.

Jobs for Girls and Women

Ad Hoc Coalition for Women's Equality and Human Rights
Open Letter on the Budget


Office of the Prime Minister

Dear Mr. Stephen Harper,

In anticipation of the upcoming budget, the Ad Hoc Coalition for Women's Equality and Human Rights would like to call your attention to budgetary measures that would strengthen our economy by strengthening the equality of women in Canada.

Women across the country are extremely concerned about Mr. Flaherty's proposal in the November economic statement to make pay equity a bargaining chip between employers and unions. To date, the government has not yet rescinded this proposal.

The Ad Hoc Coalition urges you to oppose any such proposal in the upcoming budget. In the 21st century, women's equality is not, and should never be, a bargaining chip. It is irresponsible to continue to impose discriminatory wages upon half the population by ignoring the remedy, particularly in a time of economic crisis. Equal pay for work of equal value is one of the "fundamentals" of a healthy economy. This can be attained by implementing a pro-active pay equity law, as the 2004 federal Task Force recommends.

Canadian parents need a national child care program that meets the "QUAD" principles (Quality, Universal, Accessible, and Developmental). A faltering economy can only benefit from improving people's access to the labour market, which would be greatly facilitated by having dependable child care services. Currently, soaring child care costs and lack of spaces keep many women who choose to work unemployed or underemployed.

A monthly handout cannot substitute for a child care program that allows real choice. We can and should do better for our families. The Ad Hoc Coalition urges you to consider the long-term stability of the economy in supporting a quality child care and early childhood education program that meets our children's developmental needs.

Women are particularly vulnerable in the current economic crisis as we do not have adequate access to Employment Insurance and what access there is cannot sustain us through a period of unemployment. Although women pay into EI, most women don't qualify for benefits. 70% of part-time workers are women and almost two thirds of minimum wage earners in Canada are women. With wages far below the poverty line already, many women can't live on 55% of their salary, even for a short period of time. To stimulate the economy and prevent poverty, improve access to EI and increase the level of benefits for part-time, contract and self-employed workers in the upcoming budget.

Finally, the Ad Hoc Coalition strongly encourages you to ensure that the stimulus package includes investment in social infrastructure. Social infrastructure investments stimulate the real economy, not the speculative economy, by creating jobs, not giving CEOs bonuses or across-the-board tax cuts. Social infrastructure can provide affordable housing and anti-poverty programs, support green technologies and environmental incentives, and improve conditions for First Nations in their territories and Aboriginal people across the country, in particular Aboriginal women, who disproportionately suffer from poverty and violence. Any stimulus package that does not take social infrastructure into account is short-sighted and short-changes Canadian taxpayers. Social infrastructure creates jobs and strengthens economies, not only during this period of financial crisis, but for the future.

On behalf of the Ad Hoc Coalition for Women's Equality and Human Rights, thank you for your consideration,

Sincerely,

Aalya Ahmad
Coordinator of the Ad-Hoc Coalition for Women's Equality and Human Rights

CC :
Michael Ignatieff
Jack Layton
Gilles Duceppe
Elizabeth May
Helena Guergis
Maria Minna
Nicole Demers
Irene Mathyssen

Tuesday, January 13, 2009

Little League Canada loses fight with girls softball team

ENTERTAINMENT/FEMINISM - Little League Baseball Canada has struck out today with the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal, losing a sex discrimination case filed by a Victoria girls softball team.

In 2005 the Beacon Hill Little League Major Girls softball team was denied funding for the team's trip to the national championship in Windsor, Ontario and was told they had to fund raise. Their counterpart boys team was given free funding by Little League Baseball Canada to attend the same event.

The girls eventually raised the money themselves through fundraisers and anonymous donations and attended the tournament. They won the tournament and went on to represent Canada at an international tournament in Portland, Ore.

Four years later the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal has ordered the league to pay $1,000 each to the 13 members of the 2005 team.

In a 74-page decision, tribunal member Marlene Tyshynski found the league had engaged in discriminatory conduct against the team of 11- and 12-year-old girls in 2005.

"I find that every team member suffered an injury to her dignity, feelings and self-respect due to the discriminatory conduct of the Little League," said Tyshynski's ruling. "I have determined that the impact of the (travel) policy on the team gives rise to a prima facie case of sex-based discrimination that impedes the team's full and free participation in the social and cultural life of British Columbia."

Tyshynski noted the league's records showed a surplus of almost $210,000 in 2005 and also said the league showed disregard for the impact its travel policy could have on female players and noted that some of the players told the tribunal they felt stress and concern about not being able to have enough money to attend the tournament.

Little League Baseball Canada took another strike earlier this week when the Canada Revenue Agency stripped the league of its status as a registered athletic association and the right to provide donors with receipts for income tax purposes.

League president Roy Bergerman and Little League officials argued that the boys' games are "officially sanctioned events" while the girls' games are just optional, claiming that girls don't go on to careers in baseball.

Admittedly there isn't a lot of women in professional baseball, but who's fault is that? The women athletes who participate and try out? Or the little leagues and minor leagues that train them?

In addition to the cash award for injury to the girls' dignity, the tribunal ordered the league to overhaul its travel policy to prevent similar complaints in future.

On Monday, the Canada Revenue Agency stripped the league of its status as a registered athletic association, meaning the league can no longer provide receipts to donors for income tax purposes. According to the revenue agency, the minor league ball association issued more than $82 million in receipts in 2007 for what the government calls "abusive transactions arising from its role as a participant in a tax shelter arrangement." Little League Baseball Canada is now sitting on a huge surplus of hundreds of millions of dollars.

On Monday league president Bergerman admitted the league ran a tax-shelter scheme and that league staff was now living "quite well off" thanks to the millions of dollars in surplus cash. The organization has only two full-time employees, including Bergerman himself.

So not only are they sexist and greedy, but apparently league president Roy Bergerman is a scam artist.

See Also:
Gender Biases in School Sports
You Throw Like a Girl
Sport and the Empowerful Woman

Thursday, January 8, 2009

Child Support for non-biological kids?

FEMINISM - An Ontario Superior Court judge has ordered a Toronto man to continue paying child support even though a DNA test shows he is not the biological father of his ex-wife's twins.

In her ruling, Madam Justice Katherine van Rensburg decided that even though Pasqualino Cornelio did not father twins – now 16 – with Anciolina Cornelio, he must continue to pay child support because "he was the only father the twins knew during the course of the marriage."

Pasqualino began paying child support in 1998, after the couple separated. In 2002, the two agreed to joint custody, when they also settled that he would continue to provide monetary support.

But after Anciolina asked for an increase in payments and a reduction in the time he spent with the children, Pasqualino demanded a DNA test. When the results showed Pasqualino was not the father, he asked to be excused from paying child support and demanded he be reimbursed for tens of thousands of dollars that he had paid in the past.

He claimed that their 2002 agreement failed to disclose that Anciolina had an affair while they were married, calling it an act of fraud or misrepresentation. But according to the judge, it should not be a question of whether he is the biological parent, but rather whether he was considered a parent by definition.

Because Anciolina can't remember the affair, she claims she has no idea who the twins' father is.

"Cornelio denies knowledge of who the twins' biological father might be," van Rensburg said. "In fact, she claims to have no memory of an extramarital affair preceding their birth, which she attributes to the medication she was taking at the time."

"The relationship that developed from the time of their birth was the natural relationship between a parent and his children," she said. "The fact of that relationship – even if it has now become strained – is sufficient to require Mr. Cornelio to continue to contribute toward the children's material needs."

The judge concluded that the children should not suffer because of the parents' wrongdoings.

This is a controversial issue for anti-feminists/deadbeat dads. Why? Because it sets a horrible precedent for their rights.

And for once I agree with the deadbeat dads.

I agree with the judge that the children shouldn't be made to suffer for the parents' wrongdoings, but why should the ex-husband be made to suffer for the wife's adultery either?

Regardless of the fact she "forgot" about the affair, as a feminist I disagree with the judge's ruling. This ruling will only cause future problems as it sets a precedent for men being forced to pay for children who aren't even theirs... and these men will then lash out at feminists in general.

Feminism is about being FAIR to both sexes. Not making men suffer and become bitter.

Search Feminist Truths