Anti-family half-truths polarizing the family.
- From: "caesarjbsquitti" <orders@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 25 Apr 2006 09:00:08 -0700
Anti-family half-truths polarizing the family.
It has come to my attention that some 'lesbians' have been involved in
'these' women's programs that have promoted an anti-male agenda.
Seems logical to me that if we are speaking of lesbian relationships,
and abuse of women, who are lesbian, then in 100% of the cases the
abuser is also a lesbian women.
So why are "they" involved in 'heterosexual' womens services, promoting
an anti-male agenda, and the stereotype of male only abusers ?
Caesar J. B. Squitti
----- Original Message -----
From: squittis
To: NATIONAL POST
Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2006 11:42 AM
Subject: Corrupted social programs; Parasitic. ( History does not want
to record the corruption )
Corrupted social programs; Parasitic. ( History does not want to
record the corruption )
In 1987, the scene was that the Childrens Aid Society was in need of
building a new centre. Abuse statistics were escalating at a high
level. Two individuals in the area were being put through 'the
wringer', ie false allegations of sexual abuse in one case.
I noticed a travelling government sponsored 'workshop' on "child
abuse", "men who abuse, women and children victims'. It was obvious to
me that something had corrupted this organization; the proof was in
black and white.
Caesar J.B. Squitti
------------------
by the way...abuse statistics....
a) The Ontario Incidence Study of Reported Child Abuse and Neglect,
published in 1994.
Boys were most strongly over-represented in the area of physical abuse,
especially in the 0- to 3-year-old category where boys accounted for 59
percent of investigations. Male children aged 4 to 11 years accounted
for 55.5 per cent.
Relationship to alleged perpetrator:
All maltreatment, investigated cases: mother: 48%, father 32%,
stepfather 11%;
substantiated cases: mother 49%; father 31%, stepfather: 13%
Physical abuse: investigated cases: mother 44%; father 41%; stepfather
13%;
substantiated cases: mother 39%; father 40%; stepfather 17%
"Most cases of substantiated physical abuse (mother 39%; father 40%;
stepfather 17%) were single incidents (57 percent); ... 39 percent of
substantiated neglect cases (mother 85%, father 26%, stepfather 8%) ...
cases of substantiated emotional maltreatment (mother 79%, father 55%,
stepfather 20%) were almost exclusively limited to long-term situations
...."
Chapter 4: Characteristics of maltreatment, p. 70:
Punishment/Discipline: "Punishment or discipline related issues were
involved in ... 85% of substantiated physical abuse cases. Thirty-one
percent of emotional maltreatment cases also had problems relating to
discipline or punishment".
Sexual abuse: investigated cases: parent 4,953 (43.8%); biological
mother 312 (2.8%); biological father 2,737 (24.2%); stepfather 1321
(11.7%); stepmother 70 (0.6). Altogether all accused males comprised
90% of total investigations.
Substantiated cases: parent: 24%; biological father: 19%; biological
mother 14%; Stepfather 35%; stepmother 0%; total substantiation rate:
28%.
Percentages do not add up as there can be more than one perpetrator per
case and for the sake of brevity I have included only parents and
stepparents, though the complete tables include all perpetrators of
child abuse. Considering the relatively small number of sexual assaults
by either parent, the figures in percentages can be unreasonably
alarming. It would have been more realistic to give the breakdown in
actual numbers, especially considering the fact that this is the only
category in which non-parents are the main perpetrators of abuse
------------------
Anyway, here is the logical inconsistency of the attack on the family
unit.
1. We are all equal, (which is a literal half of the truth extraction
from the statement, we are all equal before God) is being used to treat
all couples as requiring the same treatment in so far as 'marriage',
when reality is that no man has ever given birth to a child. To play
the logical game, most children are born of women. (truth is ALL
children are born of women) but yet we will include men as a spouse to
a man ?
Again most children are 'fathered' by men, in fact ALL children are
fathered by men, yet we will allow a woman to marry a woman and call
this a marriage.
Logically inconsistant with the following.
2. Now in the area of abuse, we have the unequal treatment of men,
women and children creating stereotypes and polarizng the sexes, the
family. THE REAL VICTIM IS THE FAMILY, as it is polarizied. The gay
agenda may not see that as a problem.
In family relationships, most abusers are male . Again, not all,
merely most, and since we only have two sexes, one of them as a
statistic will outnumber the other. So what ?
In the example in # 1 where no man has ever given birth to a child, we
give them equal treatment to a woman by allowing a marriage to not
include a woman. Is that consistent ?
In the area of child abuse, as noted, we had the original model, "men
who abuse, women and children victims'. Very bigoted, biased and
generalized statement. Most of these statements ignore the key word
"some'.
The key is to see how logic is manipulated in each case to promote the
gay agenda. Ie in the first case we are all equal, giving them
marriage, in the second case they polarize the family, ie men verses
women and children to divide the family.
In the world of a half-truths, we must also beaware of the manipulation
of the term, 'abuse'.... On the one hand we refer to 'abuse' and on the
other hand we refer to 'violence', one is part of the other, again a
half-truth label. The real issue is abuse, and comes in many forms,
including passive abuse. Can be quite damaging and yet is
unrecongized.
The agenda is to use what ever 'information' (from the tree of
knowledge) to create a polarizing conclusion.
It is hoped that history will someday, somewhere, show how logic,
terminology and statistics were manipulated to create a divisive
agenda.
Caesar J. B. Squitti
Here is my very first letter that I wrote to the Chronicle Journal. My
name was omitted by accident, and the reply from the Childrens Aid
Society was to attack my letter for not being signed.
Letter to the Editor: July 5, 1989
"Hunt for Abusive Parents Misdirected"
*
The Children's Aid Society has a very useful purpose in our society,
however, the current drive to identify "abusive parents" could cause
more problems than it solves (Child Abuse Referrals From Schools
Disappointingly Low - June 27, 1989)
The intent is correct, but the direction may contribute to an
anti-family perspective.
Today, the new and expanded definition of "family" depicts family as
children and a mother and does not necessarily include men. This is an
important distinction to make because in Ontario today. Violence in
the family is defined as husbands who abuse their wives and fathers who
abuse their children. I guess the radical feminists were right; family
and men are oppressive ! This is the stereotype we have been educated
in(intellectually-brainwashed).
The current stereotype of child abuse sees the child as a victim of his
parents, his father, but fails to realize the true reality of children
or students as abusers and victims of themselves. Interesting enough,
the stereotype of child abuse fails to recognize a child's drug
problems, and moral problems (i.e., prostitution) as self-imposed in
many cases. To identify this reality would promote family as a means of
strengthening traditional family structure -"men and women." to handle
and correct children's behaviour. By ignoring this reality one must
seriously question the current intent of the "new" CAS program.
Given the fact that The Children's Aid Society receives a grant for
every parent it investigates and the somewhat biased assumptions it
works on, I do not feel confident that this current program reflects
the best interests of todays parents or children in the long run. Since
the program is slightly biased against parents, students might perhaps
use the system by appearing abused. (more cases...more funding...ie a
new building)
It is relevant and critical to understand the deceptive manipulative
nature of radical feminist ideology. Currently, on the federal
political scene a conservative moral feminist group called REAL WOMEN
Claim THAT THE CURRENT BUREAUCRACY IN CHARGE OF WOMEN'S ISSUES IS BEING
CONTROLLED BY A GROUP OF RADICAL, LEFT-WING, REVOLUTIONARY-SYTLED
FEMINISTS.
Radical feminists believe that the problems in society are caused by
the traditional family structure which involves fathers and men. Their
objectives are to eliminate the role of mother and wife and promote a
lifestyle based on the sexual revolution of the 1960's. Their plan of
action has been based on the development of a particular stereotype
based on a half-truth; women and children as victims, men as abusers.
I would hope that the Children's Aid Society would re-evaluate its
basic assumptions and objective and develop a program that incorporates
traditional family values.
Caesar Squitti
July 5, 1989
The Chronicle Journal Thunder Bay
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Anti-family half-truths polarizing the family.
- From: caesarjbsquitti
- Re: Anti-family half-truths polarizing the family.
- Prev by Date: Order A Free Package About The Prophet
- Next by Date: WHITE CAUCASION, CHRISTIAN, EUROPEAN CIVILIZATION IS DYING.....
- Previous by thread: Order A Free Package About The Prophet
- Next by thread: Re: Anti-family half-truths polarizing the family.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|
