25 April 2009

Who Am I?

I have only had this blog up for a day or two almost and already I have someone demanding to know who I am.  As if I must answer to this person.  What difference does it make who I am, just know that I AM!

I am that one small butterfly whose wings flapping here will cause the tornado on the other side of the world (better known as the Butterfly Effect)....Chaos Theory

I am that one lone wolf whose howl here will cause the brush fire three state away...Chaos Theory

I am that small child whose cries go unnoticed by our family court that will cause the reform that is needed when I get older...Chaos Theory

I am that mother whose voice is no longer silenced and with that voice I will expose the corruption in our family courts...Chaos Theory

I could be YOUR mother (I do have kids after all), YOUR sister (if you have one), YOUR wife even.  I could be the lady that waits on you at lunch time, or your cashier at the grocery store.  I could be your church secretary or your coven high priestess.  I could be the woman who cleans your house or does your dry cleaning.  I could be your daughter that you abused all those years, come back to haunt you in your nightmares. 

One by one exposing those that have put children in harms way and uplifting those that have survived the domestic terror that we call the justice system.  This is not unique to one country; no, this is a world wide purification of a system. 

It should be illegal to force children to be subjected to torturous and ineffective evaluations and therapies.  But it is not.  Actually it is encouraged as long as someone is getting paid!  Silly me, I thought human trafficking and prostitution were actually illegal; and so they are as long as they are called anything else and worded as to be “in the best interest of the child”.

You may never figure out who I am, and what does it matter.  I am a voice, only one voice, but this one voice can roar with the injustices done and cause that storm in another country!  The storm is brewing on the horizon, you had better prepare, I would hate to see you lifted into its clutches and dropped into unsafe territory.

DMX said it right:

X is comin’ for ya, can’t do nuthin’ for ya

Cause X is comin’ for ya

Run, hide, duck, duck

Cause we don’t give fuck, fuck

Look around at all the women you see...can you guess which one I am?  I am none of them and I am all of them....but which one am I?


A Southern Sister Unsilenced

Seed Newsvine

Abusers Awareness Day!!


Thanks Anonymums for the great graphic!

Father’s Rights groups ran wild trying to get our governors to proclaim today “Parental Alienation Awareness Day.” Of the few governors that signed, I believe most were duped about this claim often used by abusive parents, being such an easy online process for the most part. One state even states on their website when applying for a proclamation:

“Issuance of a proclamation does not constitute an endorsement by the Governor.”

Good try guys. People are learning the truth of the “Parental Alienation” scam meant to support the Whores of the Court by the abusers who hire them. Your cult even had to run to Canada to hold a conference on this.

The National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges discredited the theory. It stated:

The discredited “diagnosis” of “PAS” (or allegation of “parental alienation”), quite apart from its scientific invalidity, inappropriately asks the court to assume that the children’s behaviors and attitudes toward the parent who claims to be “alienated” have no grounding in reality. It also diverts attention away from the behaviors of the abusive parent, who may have directly influenced the children’s responses by acting in violent, disrespectful, intimidating, humiliating and/or discrediting ways toward the children themselves, or the children’s other parent.

Yes, they really did report this. Family court judges should be made to read this! See Page 24 of the report below.

Navigating Custody & Visitation Evaluations in Cases with Domestic Violence: A Judge’s Guide by Clare Dalton LLM, et.al., please click here.

Are good fathers sucked in by this? You betcha. With all due respect to several fathers who respectfully comment here, you guys have been duped too. Call it what it is….if your child has been turned from you, don’t allow someone to label it parental alienation, call it what it is….parental kidnapping, parent-bashing, whatever. Call it what it is.

Motherhood: Don't Replace Her

I did not make the video below, I just want to share it. I found this video here: http://anonymums.blogspot.com/2009/04/motherhood-dont-replace-her.html

Seed Newsvine

He cut her open, but left her alive

I am talking about a mother, Amy Leichtenberg, who has had the worst fate imaginable handed to her.  Not of her own doing, mind you, she tried to protect herself and her boys.  Even after Michael Connolly promised to ‘cut her open’ and violated an order of protection more than fifty times; McLean County Circuit Judge James Souk, decided that it was ok for him to have unsupervised visits.  By killing their boys, Michael Connolly, has inflicted a wound so deep that I am sure Amy will have with her for the rest of her life.  He effectively ‘cut her open’, but left her to live with this horror by killing her sons.

The story I have summarized above is not all that unusual.  This didn’t just ‘happen’ one day.  This father did not just ‘go crazy’ and kill his boys and then himself.  There was an on going battle between the protective mother and this man.  He continued to threaten and harass; but managed to make a good show for the judge.  This man got kicked out of supervised visits by the people that were supervising the visitations because of his own erratic behavior!  When I say he was kicked out of supervised visits I do not mean that he immediately went to unsupervised...no I mean he had NO visitation for a period of time.

Yet, Judge Souk felt that since Michael Connolly had gotten a job, found a place to live and had been able to stop harassing his ex-wife for about 8 or 9 months; then he must have been ok to take his kids for unsupervised and eventually (within a short few months) over night visits.  He manipulated and then reaped the benefits from a system that still believes that children are better off having relationships with both parents.

When are our family court judges ever going to see that co-parenting with an abuser is just not possible?  This man violated an order of protection almost sixty times, why was he not in jail?  When are they going to see that a man that abuses his wife to this extent IS capable of killing his kids...because this continues to happen, over and over.  It is not about the kids in the abusers eyes, it is about the control.  The abuser doesn’t carry out the custody fights and keep going back to court over and over again until they get custody because they want to ‘foster’ a relationship with their children.  They do it to control the mother.  They are mad that she finally got up the nerve to leave.

Men don’t  kill their children out of love or wanting to be a father to them.  They did it out of pure, unadulterated need to control his ex.   The need for control far outweighs their own sick twisted version of love even.

Just as most of us in today’s world have become calloused to the violence and killing that goes on around us, Amy Leichtenberg will now forever be raw to the senselessness of killings of this type.  The evening news for her will no longer be an amusement in which to loose her day to the drama of the bigger world around her.  Not many of us can know this feeling, but if more people were to open their eyes and ears and pay attention to what our family courts all across the US are doing, maybe just maybe one day a judge will be help accountable for their decisions made from the bench.

If you are interested in taking in part in removing this particular judge, please go HERE and sign the petition demanding Judge Souk resign.  His poor judgment cost two little boys their lives.  I have heard it said “the pen is mightier than the sword”, thus in my mind equating this judges pen with singing the death warrants for these two children.

Seed Newsvine

23 April 2009

Domestic Violence Increases Because of Abortion??

I guess everyone is entitled to an opinion and to do research...but I would really like to know where they got these facts.  What study?  This makes NO sense!  I am overall not for, nor against abortion.  I do not think I personally could do, but I can see why others would.  I am against people trying to convince us that women get beat on because of something they did; hhhmmmm well like get an abortion.  There is usually a very good reason that someone would go through that, maybe it is because the man that fathered the child is ALREADY an abusive jerk and no mother would WANT to raise a child in that environment!!  Well, unless of course as a society we are now attempting to fight abortion rights by blaming women for domestic violence against them...is this the butterfly effect in action?  You decide...
Abortion Linked to Higher Rates of Domestic Violence
By Hilary White

LifeSiteNews (www.lifesitenews.com)

Abortion may play a vital role in understanding the aetiology [cause] of relationship problems.
LOS ANGELES (LifeSiteNews.com) - When a woman gets an abortion, the couple is more than twice as likely to argue when discussing future children, and nearly three times as likely to experience domestic violence, compared with women who carry the pregnancy to term and raise the child, according to a study published in the peer-reviewed journal Public Health on Mar. 24.

"Abortion may play a vital role in understanding the aetiology [cause] of relationship problems," the authors stated. The study said that abortion within a current relationship causes 116% more arguing when discussing future children, and 196% more domestic violence.

The researchers found that abortion affected future relationships as well.

"For both men and women the experience of an abortion in a previous relationship was related to negative outcomes in the current relationship," they wrote.

"Men whose current partners had an abortion were more likely to report jealousy (96% greater risk) and conflict about drugs (385% greater risk).

"These results suggest that abortion may play a vital role in understanding the aetiology of some relationship problems," the study's authors wrote.

Dr. Priscilla Coleman, a professor of Human Development and Family Studies at Bowling Green State University headed up the study with Vincent Rue of the Florida-based Institute for Pregnancy Loss and post-abortion researcher Catherine Coyle.

The study's findings support previous research that has found higher rates of substance abuse, serious depression and suicide after abortion. In March 2008, Britain's Royal College of Psychiatrists issued a statement calling for better screening and informed consent before women undergo an abortion. The statement said that the College had undertaken a review of existing research and found that a "full systematic review around abortion and mental health is required."

In 2005, research conducted in Finland found that aborting women were 3.5 times more likely to die within the next year compared to women who gave birth.

- - -

LifeSiteNews.com is a non-profit Internet service dedicated to issues of culture, life, and family. It was launched in September 1997. LifeSiteNews Daily News reports and information pages are used by numerous organizations and publications, educators, professionals and political, religious and life and family organization leaders and grassroots people across North America and internationally. 

Seed Newsvine

The pattern…the shooters are all men…the Chaos

Original:  http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/04/18-8

Denormalizing the Signs of Impending Disaster

by Michael Schwalbe

Warning signs can go unheeded because we normalize them. According to some analysts, this is what happened in the case of the Challenger space shuttle disaster. On January 28, 1986, less than two minutes after taking off, the shuttle’s solid rocket boosters exploded, killing all seven astronauts aboard.

In her book The Challenger Launch Decision: Risky Technology, Culture, and Deviance at NASA, sociologist Diane Vaughan asks why NASA managers decided to launch the shuttle, despite warnings from engineers that the mission should be delayed because of potential problems with the solid rocket boosters in the below-normal January cold.

Vaughan’s answer points to what was normal in the social world of NASA at that time: minor compromises in design and performance; equipment that deviated slightly from specifications; and pushing ahead with flight schedules, despite engineers’ worries over seemingly small technical anomalies.

According to Vaughan, the recommendation to delay the flight was ignored because having problems and anomalies on the shuttle were taken-for-granted aspects of NASA culture. So was the tendency for engineers to worry. Against this backdrop, Vaughan says, signals of danger appeared mixed, weak, and routine, and thus were not taken seriously enough.

So far this year, eight mass shootings have resulted in nearly 60 deaths. As at NASA in the case of the Challenger, there have been ample warning signs. But because these signs are so commonplace in our culture, we have either ignored or failed to see them.

After each shooting, the question has been asked, Why do people do this sort of thing? The experts typically consulted are psychologists, who cite depression, social isolation, anger, and shame as causes. The most often mentioned contextual factor is the easy availability of guns.

But to ask, Why do people do this sort of thing?, is already to ignore the obvious pattern. It is not people of all kinds who kill because they are depressed, isolated, despairing, angry, or feeling shame. The shooters are all men. So the question we should be asking is, Why do men do this sort of thing?

One reason this question is seldom asked is that violence and manhood in U.S. culture are thoroughly normalized. As anti-violence educator Jackson Katz documents in his film “Tough Guise,” over the past twenty years violence has come to be the defining feature of manhood in America. Violence and masculinity have become nearly synonymous.

This is not to say that all men are violent, or even that all men go around pretending to be Rambo just beneath the surface. Of course not. Yet all men are judged by a cultural standard that says a real man — one who deserves all the privileges of being a member of the dominant gender group — should have a capacity for violence and a willingness to use it when necessary.

The same cultural standard says that real men are able to exert control over the environment, over others, and over themselves. To be a victim of external forces is thus nearly the opposite of what it means to be a man in U.S. culture. It is hard to feel put upon, demeaned, or controlled by others, and still feel worthy of respect as a man.

The great contradiction, however, is that in a capitalist society most men don’t have much power. A relative handful of men control vast economic resources, make laws, control the police, and command armies. These men can indeed make decisions, backed by force, that deny most other men and nearly all women control over their own lives.

On the one hand, then, real men are expected to be able to exert control; on the other hand, they lack the resources — wealth, status, institutional authority — to do so. Under these conditions, it is not surprising that some men try to compensate for their lack of power by displaying a capacity for violence, or a lack of fear of other men’s violence.

Most of the time, most men are not overtly violent. But when a man tries to exert control and then rages against people and circumstances that frustrate these efforts, we are not necessarily alarmed. We are not alarmed because he is doing what we expect men to do.

Fortunately, such frustration does not usually lead to mass killing. Yet this is simply the logical extreme to which violent masculinity leads. When the burden of shame for failing to meet the cultural standards of manhood becomes unbearable, and a man feels there is nothing left to lose, mass killing may be a perverse attempt to restore, with irreversible finality, a sense of control.

As at NASA, the warning signs today are abundant. But they are mixed, weak, and routine.

Not all men are violent. Nor are men who occasionally commit acts of violence always violent; they can often be kind and gentle, too. And because it is possible to point to rare instances when women are violent, we can be misled into thinking there is nothing special about men that should compel our attention.

But the most serious problem is that we normalize the relationship between manhood and violence, and thus we take for granted what should be clear warnings about the potential for violence that our society instills in every man. When men learn to stake their self-worth on having power and being in control, and yet live under conditions that frustrate and humiliate them, we should not be surprised when explosions occur.

It may be strangely comforting to see the problem of mass shootings as a psychological one. If the problem stems from psychopathology, then we don’t have to look critically at our culture of manhood or at how our society concentrates power in a few hands. Certainly, men suffering from depression and excessive anger may benefit from support and therapy. But therapy will never solve our collective violence problem.

If we understand the problem in cultural terms, we can see that the dangers go beyond being the victim of a “random” shooting. The logic of violent masculinity puts the whole planet at risk. By this logic, the natural world has no value in itself, but exists mainly to provide resources for expanding one’s power. By the same logic, which is also the logic of U.S. imperialism, it is better to destroy the world than to fail to dominate it.

What we need is a cultural shift away from defining manhood and nationhood in terms of a capacity to dominate. We need to reject the worship of power and of “commanders-in-chief,” and instead make democracy the primary value by which we judge our social institutions. The warning signs are all around, writ small in every mass shooting and writ large in every war. Our survival depends on denormalizing these signs and heeding them soon.

Michael Schwalbe is a professor of sociology at North Carolina State University.  He can be reached at MLSchwalbe@nc.rr.com.  

Seed Newsvine

I'm not sure why some people receive an error notification when filling out and sending the below contact form.  I still get the message it just appears to the sender that I do not.  I am working on it.  If you feel your message has not went through feel free to email me at denomshi@gmail.com  I'm sorry for the inconvenience and thank you for your patience while I sort this out.

Your Name
Your Email Address
Image Verification
Please enter the text from the image:
[ Refresh Image ] [ What's This? ]