Feminised Australian Women suck

Divorce Self Defense

by Pete Jensen

First. Decide right now if you want to be a winner or a loser. You are about to enter the Lion Pit, and whatever your religious persuasion before, you are now a Christian. Get used to it, grow up and accept it. Any misconceptions you had about morality, right and wrong, and justice in the Justice System are bunk. All such things are absolutely irrelevant. Your sole concern is legal, and illegal. If it goes to a judge, you are not facing Solomon who will try to establish something fair. That is the job of a mediator. The judge will decide who is the winner, and who is the loser. If you don’t want to be a winner, take their offer right now, and get out of my class. I guarantee it will be far more generous that what the judge decides. The court is NOT your friend.

Number two. I want you to say something right now: “She will never do that to me, she would never be like that.� If you wish to paraphrase, be my guest. I’ll wait.

Done?

Good. Now, let that be the last time you ever say that. This is not the nice, sweet girl you married. This is the bitch that is divorcing you. Grow up. Accept it. Right now she is plotting how to get you. And probably has been. Either be prepared to treat her as your mortal enemy, or confess that you really didn’t want to be a winner after all. She will treat you as such, I guarantee you. Don’t let anyone shame you with words like “Not sinking to her level.� While you should avoid illegal and unethical behavior which will be punished or looked on with a jaundiced eye, I grant, you should absolutely sink to her level otherwise. There is no such thing as a moral victory here. Any people who say this to you want to see you put your club down so they can see her clobber you with hers. These people are NOT your friends.

With me so far? Number three. You cannot stop this divorce. You can only delay it, at best, and you will be punished for doing so. The judge and the court doesn’t want to see you any more then necessary. Why? Yes, you in the back –uh huh – that’s right! Because they are NOT your friend! No fault divorce is the law in every state of the Union, and every province in Canada. And she decided she wanted out long ago. If she wanted to work it out, she would have suggested counseling. Your marriage is over, and all the king’s horses and all the king’s men, as the saying goes. Grow up. Accept it. She does NOT want to be your friend anymore.

Allrighty, those are the ground rules. Questions? No? Part two then.

Some things you should have. First, despite what you may have heard about “Planning for divorce only assures divorce� I am here to tell you that it is unvarnished crap. You should have incriminating papers, financial records, valuable identification, and a certain amount of cash secured somewhere. This location should be a place you know, and have ready access to. Duplicate keys for many things should be there as well. If you keep such things in your home, you are an idiot.

If you have a lick of sense, you will have cop=¡s of cancelled checks, money orders, and such with your signature to show you are paying the bills. I don’t care if it is coming out of a joint account, if you sign it, you pay it. If she signs it, she pays it. It’s that simple, and it’s amazing how many men get nailed by this piece of chicanery.

Next, have the name of a good, man friendly attorney. You can find these out by listening to men who have gotten a reasonable deal in a divorce, or by listening to women who have lost in a case. While rare, these people exist. Make sure they still practice. You need to call them, right now, and make an appointment. Again, I will wait.

At the risk of indulging in 20/20 hindsight, you should have seen the signs. She has stopped having sex with you, she is not talking to you, she won’t tell you what is wrong, and if she does speak to you it is a litany of grievances and past offenses, whether real or imagined. Your job is not to argue here. You will not convince her. No matter what you do, you can do no right. She has already steeled herself to dispose of you, and is working up a good mad so she can treat you like her mortal enemy, and not feel guilty. She is erasing every good memory of you from her head.

Her habits have changed. Women are creatures who love habit, routine, and the familiar. Is she showing a persistent interest in finances? Does she hang up the phone quickly? Does she disappear for hours on end? Does she have mysterious appointments? Chances are she is consulting an attorney, and quite likely having an affair. This doesn’t matter if she is, but it is a hint and a half for you.

There is no sense in getting angry or confronting her, such will only give her the excuse she is looking for. If you are in this state, rejoice. You have hope to get out with your skin intact.

Forewarned is forearmed, and if at all possible (And legal) you should put a tap on the phone and record calls. This is NOT for evidence. This is to give you a heads up, and let you know what she is planning. It will not be admitted in any evidence, and you should make this tap removeable and secure the tapes elsewhere. In any event, be your own detective. In addition, if you have a firearm, your bong from High school, or any recreational pharmaceuticals at all, get rid of them from your residence. Cupcake will, I promise, point out that you have an old roach clip hanging from your rear view mirror, and have you busted for residue from 1986.

Now here is where most men self destruct. Do not confront her. Do not beg, plead, argue, or cry to her. Pretend that everything is fine. Pretend you are the ignorant sucker she is counting on you to be. What you do is this – armed with the knowledge of her plans, pre-empt them. If she talks about getting the restraining order next Monday, you do so on Friday. If she talks about moving, stay home that day. Do not allow her to put her plan into action first. She is counting on the element of surprise, and if y} remove that, all will fall apart on her. On that day will be the confrontation, and it is certain, if you have played your cards correctly, she will flip her lid. This is what you want.

One thing you need to remember is to stay absolutely, one-hundred percent calm at all times. The police are NOT your friends, and have been trained to look for any excuse to jail you. It doesn’t matter if you are a 140 pound accountant, and she is an Olympic weightlifter with four black belts. You are the male. You are the batterer, or the potential one. She is the poor dear who must be protected. No matter how it flies in the face of reason, all she has to do is claim being “afraid� and you are sunk. Utterly doomed. In addition, if you are calm, she will more than likely go from flipping out to absolutely berserk. This is NOT how it was supposed to be!

If the police must be called, you call them. Do not meet them outside. If you are outside, it is easier to make you be the one to leave. Do not cower inside. If they have to coax you out, you will piss them off. Be in the doorway, with your hands visible. Ask them in, and ask them to remove her, and if at all possible, have your attorney there or on the way. Cops will not screw with attorneys or step one inch out of line while they are present. The only thing a cop fears or respects is an attorney, acting in their official capacity.

Under no circumstances do you ever admit to yelling, threatening, raising your voice, raising your hand, or hitting her – and here, I don’t care if you lie. Admit nothing, find a simple story, and stick to it. Under no circumstances do you agree to leave. Don’t fight if they remove you – BUT DO NOT – I repeat - *DO* *NOT* leave. Do not surrender the house or your children If you leave, you have abandoned the home. The court will view this as black and white, anything else as an excuse, and you will never, ever get them back.

Do not let her take the kids. Do not let her take jewelry or papers. Do agree to allow her to take clothes, and only clothes, under, in order of preference, 1) You will get them for her, 2) Your attorney can supervise, 3) The officer can supervise. This will make you look good and reasonable. Let her take toiletries. Let her take nothing else. If you have more than one car, give up the one you do not want to see again. Do not let her take credit or bank cards. Make sure she has enough money for a hotel room for two nights, and about $50 for food if she has money, or write her a check for it. This will make you seem like a generous prince. Do not, however, at this point be alone with her. Have a cop with you at all times.

Upon her leaving, change the locks and notify your attorney that you want a restraining order. At this point, I want you to understand one thing, and one thing only, if you realize nothing else at all�: You are paying that attorney for their expertise. If they suggest a course of action, especially if they have a proven track record of success, do what they say. This is why you are paying them. Let them have the wheel, and you be the passenger.

Do not talk to you wife after that except as directed by your attorney.

Do not call her, or try to contact her. You have no idea how swiftly this can be twisted into stalking and harassment.

Do not let her take the kids until you have a solid parenting agreement that has the court’s blessing. Courts get real pissed off when they are disobeyed. If they haven’t ruled, they can’t be disobeyed now, can they? Congratulations sucker. You just surrendered your kids to her custody. Look them real hard in the face and hug them tight. You might not see them for a spell.

If she asks for anything, your answer should be – yes, you in the hat? No! Nimrod! Give her nothing because she asks! Yes, you in St. Louis – correct! “I’ll run that by my attorney� is the correct answer. Follow your attorney’s advice. If he says, “Screw her!� then don’t be moved by tears or begging. If he says, “Go ahead, that’ll make you look good� do it with a smile. Your attorney, and your attorney alone is your friend, because you have PAID for that friendship.

Do not sleep with her. This is begging for a rape charge. What is fundamental number two? Yes, she will do it.

Do not bring “loose women� home. Swear off drinking, your Friday night poker parties, the dope, and any vice which might be brought up against you. While it is irrelevant for you to bring it up, she will be heard. Give her no excuse that you aren’t feeding the kids right, that you are letting them stay up, that you are leaving them alone. Don’t even smoke in your house. Keep it clean, even if you have to hire a service. If DCFS shows up, you want to be Little Sammy Homemaker.

Above all, do not tip your hand. Do not show your cards to her mother, her brother, her best friend, to the girl you are banging. Two people can keep a secret, but only if one is dead. It will get back to her, and you will regret it. Yes, her Best Friend thinks she always treated you so bad, and does this feel good, and how are you going to get her, here let me undo that, and I’ll never tell a soul – yeah, right. And how many times have we heard a woman tell us a secret she promised never to tell? Especially when she has probably been sent on a dirt-collecting mission to begin with. Stay alert, and trust no friend except the ones bought and paid for.

Now, in closing, as I said, I am no attorney, and the mileage on this may vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. You will still be playing on her turf, and with people disposed to favor her, if not outright biased against you. But you use this as a guideline, after running it by your attorney, and you will stand one heck of a lot better chance than the last poor slob. How do I know this? I lifted a lot of the ideas from a the postings of feminist attornies on “wimmin’s� sites while I was trolling as a woman. It pays to know your enemies.

Okay. Class dismissed. I’ll pray there won’t be a test for you.

Pete Jensen

Mom’s Make Lousy Dads

by Burt Prelutsky

One of the more fatuous beliefs that has been foisted off by self-proclaimed feminists and other politically correct lamebrains is that children don’t really need fathers. I used to say that American women, thanks to increased salaries and well-stocked sperm banks, had reached a point where they only needed men to open ketchup bottles and get stuff down from high shelves. Ladies, I was joking!

I had no idea that so many women took the line to heart. Thanks to my good joke and Gloria Steinem’s bad one – that crack about fish needing bicycles – women have become increasingly wacky. What is really surprising, considering that thirty years of feminist propaganda has promoted the natural superiority of females, is how masculine, in the worst sense of the word, women have become. Surely I am not the only person who has noticed that these days young women are just as likely as men to smoke, to get bombed on booze and cuss in public, and perhaps even likelier to drive like maniacs and to flip you off for daring to share the road with them.

In the business world, far too many women salivate at the thought of being regarded as cold and ruthless. They are every bit as likely to torment and humiliate their employees, and to promote an atmosphere of fear and anger, especially among their female underlings. Call these women cut-throat and they think you’re trying to sweet talk them.

Perhaps it’s simply a case of Stockholm syndrome gone amuck. As you probably know, that’s a situation in which hostages come to identify, not with their rescuers, but with their captors. Women, in their own defense, might possibly claim that they’d been powLless for so long that it was inevitable that they’d take on the very characteristics they’ve despised. But that’s a load of hooey. I say, if you’re going to behave like an idiot and a bully, don’t make excuses for your boorishness. God knows men don’t! Inasmuch as more and more women are eager to hand off their offspring to a nanny, a granny or a nursery school, you have to wonder why most of them even bother giving birth. All they seem to have to show for the experience are stretch marks. In a society that is determined to accept the nutty notion that two gay men or a pair of lesbians are just as likely – they really mean likelier – to raise a normal, healthy child as a married man and woman, how could anybody dare suggest that a single woman isn’t equally capable? Well, she isn’t. This is especially true when the child is a boy. No matter how hard she tries, no matter how much she cares, no matter how many broken nails she’s willing to sacrifice in order to play catch with the kid, the bottom line is she’s a woman. And just because so many of the morons in Hollywood have turned single motherhood into just another fad, sort of like collagen lips and plastic bosoms, doesn’t make it a good idea.

It simply makes sense that a boy needs a man in his life to act as a role model, to show him not only how to curb his temper and to temper his testosterone, but also how to avoid being feminized into something resembling a well-dressed eunuch. The point I am looking to make I saw made perfectly in a segment of a TV magazine show some years ago. It seems that in Africa, on a game preserve, the rangers were discovering the mutilated carcasses of several rhinos. They couldn’t determine who was responsible for the carnage, and they couldn’t imagine a motive. After conducting an investigation, they found to their amazement that a band of teenage elephants were killing the rhinos for no other reason than that they felt like it. It was their version of drive-by shootings. Like our own urban gangs, the young rogues even had a leader.

The rangers thought long and hard about the problem. The first thing they realized was that the teenagers were free to make up their own evil rules of behavior because, like the blood-thirsty kids in “Lord of the Flies,� there were no adults in their world. All the bull elephants had been slaughtered by poachers for their ivory. Then, because they didn’t have to answer to politicians or social workers, the rangers did two essential things. First, having determined he was incorrigible, they killed the leader of the pack. Next, they flew in several bull elephants. In no time at all, order was restored. The big guys let it be known that if there was any more rhino-stomping, there would be hell to pay. Their message was short and sweet; namely that elephants don’t behave that way.

So, for all their professional advances, there are still a few things that women simply can’t do as well as men. Some of those things, such as throwing a football forty yards in a perfect spiral or crushing a beer can on their forehead, aren’t all that essential. Important, I’ll grant you, but not absolutely essential to society at large. However, when it comes to rearing male children, we’d all probably be better off if the ladies simply dropped the kids off in the woods for wolves to raise.

Burt Prelutsky

The Marriage No-Shows
July 14, 2004
by Carey Roberts

This week Washington lawmakers took up the historical debate on the Federal Marriage Amendment. But the good Senators appear to be blissfully unaware of the trend that overshadows the controversies surrounding gay marriage — the fact that millions of American men are marital no-shows.

Stripped down to its bare essentials, marriage is an enduring social contract between a consenting man and woman. Before they agree to enter into this sacred union, both parties must have the expectation of benefit. But the disturbing fact is, millions of American men have come to believe that marriage is a losing proposition.

News of the Marriage Strike first began to settle into our national consciousness in 2002. That year Barbara Dafoe Whitehead and David Popenoe of Rutgers University interviewed 60 men to probe their attitudes about marriage. And to their surprise, they discovered that some of these men were flat-out opposed to tying the knot.

So this year, the Rutgers researchers decided to launch a full-scale national survey of single heterosexual men, ages 25-34. These men represent almost 10 million of the nation’s most eligible bachelors. The report was just released last month.

Among those men, 53% said they were not interested in getting married anytime soon - the marriage delayers. That figure alone is cause for concern.

But this is the statistic that every American who wants to strengthen and protect marriage should be worried about: 22% of the men said they had absolutely no interest in finding their Truly Beloved. The report described these guys as “hardcore marriage avoiders.”

When almost one-quarter of single men in their prime courting years - that’s two million potential husbands - declare a Marriage Strike, we’re facing an unprecedented social crisis.

Why are these men refusing to marry? Some of their reasons are spelled out in the 2002 report:
· “Some men express resentment towards a legal system that grants women the unilateral right to decide to terminate a pregnancy. There is also a mistrust of women who may ‘trap’ men into fathering a child by claiming to be sterilized, infertile or on the pill.”
· “Many men also fear the financial consequences of divorce.They fear that an ex-wife will ‘take you for all you’ve got’ and that ‘men have more to lose financially than women’ from a divorce.”

Men’s fear of financial ruin following divorce is backed by research. In a soon-to-be-released book, Sanford Braver, PhD of Arizona State University notes that noncustodial fathers often spend considerable money when they are with their kids. But the child support guidelines don’t take this into account.

Plus, the custodial mother reaps a number of tax benefits, such as being able to list the kids as exemptions on her IRS return. Likewise, the mother does not pay any taxes on her child support income, while the father cannot list these payments as deductions. As a result, Braver suggests that the “guidelines have already become too generous” to the point that the father experiences a standard of living that is lower than his ex-wife.

Men have other reasons to resist the romantic urge. Domestic violence laws allow vindictive women to kick hubby out of the house based on the flimsiest of pretexts. And if divorce were to result, he would likely lose custody of his own flesh and blood.

Four decades ago, radical feminists, taking their cue from Marxist-Leninist theory, decreed that marriage was nothing more than gender slavery. Claiming to speak on behalf of American women, feminists set out to radically rework - or even do away with — the age-old social contract of marriage. And women, mesmerized by the ephemeral promise of liberation and empowerment, opted to go along for the ride.

Now, feminists are succeeding beyond their wildest dreams. And women are left to wonder why their Prince Charming is nowhere to be found.

Schoolgirls getting more violent
By Bruce McDougall
feb06

GIRLS are taking knives into class, assaulting teachers and committing brutal robberies in a disturbing upsurge of hardcore violence by female students.

Teenage girls have threatened to stalk and even bomb people, to physically harm school principals and have enlisted gangs to carry out revenge attacks, The Daily Telegraph can reveal.

The frightening situation emerged as NSW remained in shock after the brutal bashing murder of taxi driver Youbert Hormozi - allegedly by two 14-year-old girls.

Victims of female assault have been hospitalised and police called to schools when violence has surged out of control, Education Department documents obtained under Freedom of Information show.

And in a worrying trend, parents increasingly are becoming involved in their children’s school disputes.

Mr Iemma recognised the problem was as much with girls as boys yesterday, saying: “The need to teach respect to young people is not gender specific … it is no longer a case of needing to focus on angry young males.”

Putting the onus on parents, he added: “We need strong role models and direction for boys and girls and it needs to start in the home.”

Psychologist Michael Carr-Gregg said one of the most profound motivations for girls trying to “outbloke the blokes” in violence was the desire for male attention.

“If she believes she’s in competition with another chick for a guy’s affections, she’ll resort to violence for male attention by adopting more overtly aggressive behaviour,” he said.

Mr Carr-Gregg said nasty video games, reality TV and rock videos suggested “girl power was sex power” and sent destructive messages to teens.

“Young people, if they don’t have good role models, will allow Hollywood educate them about what it means to be male or female,” he said. “Many of our kids are growing in a psychological wasteland … it’s teaching kids the only way to solve problems is through violence.”

There is little Australian research into the nature and extent of adolescent female violence but international evidence points to a startling rise.

In one incident recorded in school files, four teenage females in Sydney’s southwest assaulted and robbed two female students, taking their money, watches and phones.

No jail for mother who had teen’s baby
March 10, 2006 - 11:29AM

A mother of 10 who had sex with her son’s 14-year-old friend and later had his baby has avoided jail.

Cheryl Whittle, then 31, sexually assaulted the boy while he was sleeping over at her home in Werribee, Victoria, in 1992.

She crept into her son’s room, performed oral sex on his friend and then had intercourse with the boy, who later went outside and vomited.

Whittle gave birth to his child - a boy now aged 12 - on March 11, 1993.
Her victim, now 27, was harassed for child-care payments, the Victorian County Court was told.

He did not report the abuse until December 2004.

“I felt disgusted and betrayed at the time of the sexual assault and shocked, stressed and horrified by the prospect of becoming a father,” he told police.

Whittle pleaded guilty to one count of sexually penetrating a child aged under 16. The maximum sentence for the offence is 10 years’ prison.

Today, Judge Geoffrey Chettle sentenced Whittle to 15 months’ jail, wholly suspended for three years.

“But for the delay in this case, you would be going to prison,” he said.
“You stole his innocence.”

Justice Chettle said that had genders in the case been reversed he would have imposed the same punishment.

GRAVITY HOLDS WOMEN DOWN!

It’s time to discuss the extra burden that gravity places on women, says Colleen Hyphenated-Lastname, president of the Propaganda Organization for Women.
“Feminist scientists on an archaeological dig in Mesopotamia have discovered illustrations of women who seem to be floating in the air,” Hyphenated-Lastname says. “This cutting-edge research indicates that there once was a time when gravity did not exist. In fact, these artifacts indicate that society was once gender equal, and women held most high offices of power and controlled the television remote.”

“But all this changed with the onset of western patriarchal societies that wanted to keep women down. If there were no distinctions between men and women, patriarchal oppressors had to invent them. And if there was no gravity, the patriarchy had to invent that, too.”

“Gravity is designed to benefit men, who have thicker bones and greater upper-body strength. Today, we see the results everywhere of the patriarchy’s efforts to keep women down. Gravity causes women to fall to their deaths out of windows or down stairs. It makes buildings collapse, killing women and children. It damages women’s cars when some inconsiderate construction worker topples from the tenth floor and bounces off the hood. Gravity makes the complete, leather-bound editions of Carrie Chapman Catt fall off my bookshelf and give me such a smack I can hardly see straight.”

“Navy pilot Kara Hultgreen would not have crashed her jet except for gravity. Clearly, she was set up to fail.”

“Women seek treatment for depression at far higher rates. Obviously, more women are feeling ‘down.’ Gravity is just another way in which women’s health is being shortchanged.”

“This oppression is historical, the product of white, western men who wanted to hold onto power. The laws of physics were written long before women had the right to vote. If women had had more input, the laws of physics would have been kinder, and gravity would have been supportive. Instead, we are shackled with the competitive, conflict-oriented mode of men. Isaac Newton, a typical dead white European male, was obsessed with ‘opposing’ reactions, even if he hypocritically admitted that some of them were equal. When he declared that for every action there is opposed an equal reaction, he was doing nothing less than defining the backlash. If women had had a chance to shape these laws, their conflict-free style of interaction would have made sure that there were no opposed reactions. All reactions simply would have been equal.”

“We can undo the oppressive, patriarchal mindset that would have us believe that gravity really represents the ‘natural’ order of things,” says Hyphenated-Lastname. “It will require spending money on programs to elevate girls’ self esteem so that they are not held down by artificial concepts of patriarchy.”

“This will cost a lot of money,” says Hyphenated-Lastname.

“But I’m up for that.”

- posted by Sir Jessy of Anti @ 11:22 AM

Reading comments about or from women around Australia is a good way of learning what women in this country are all about. Spoilt, selfish, self-interested, vain, inconsiderate and a “take all for granted” attitude is the norm here, the “we want it all and we want it now” mentality reigns supreme.

Sadly, Australian women are like their counterparts in America. They watch the same idiot programs ie. Oprah, Dr Pheel, Pathetic Housewives, read the sme trash magazines etc.They have the same mentality of “we are princesses” and “we deserve everything we get” is rampant.

But ask any one of these self-promoted princesses why they feel so entitled, so self-important, so deserving, so feminised and they will argue that they are not, it would be the same as asking her “why should I have a relationship with you”, what benefit does it have for me besides pain, suffering and financial ruin ? You will receive the same blank stare, vacant , deviod of consideration for others. The “I cannot believe you are asking that about me, just my presence alone should be enough” stare.

The current Affirmative Action laws guarantee Australian Women will be employed before any male, purely on the grounds of sex and not ability. This is another feminists gain for the spoilt sex, they deny it although it’s plain for all to see on the Australian Government Website under “women”, see for yourself. They have their own links and free loans department.

So where is this going ?
If for some masochistic reason you still want to engage in a relationship with one of these, I suggest you read

” The new marriage Contract”.

Feminism has destroyed the relationship that once excisted between the sexes. Now women have come to grips with money, vanity, self-promotion and this process has sent them spiralling into no-man’s land.
Men today are sick to death of the self-serving attitude of women and must now decide whether any relationship with this selfish sex really isn’t what it’s supposed to be.

Here we have a fine image of the ongoing whining, complaining, self-interested womenhood.

Child guru says nurseries harm small children
Sian Griffiths

ONE of the world’s most popular parenting gurus is to warn that placing children younger than three in nurseries risks damaging their development.

Steve Biddulph, whose books have sold more than 4m copies worldwide, says that instead of subsidising nurseries, which do a “second-rate� job, the government should put in place policies to enable mothers to stay at home with their babies.

The advice signals a reversal of views for Biddulph, an Australian with more than 20 years’ experience as a therapist, whose previous bestsellers
include Raising Boys and Raising Girls.

In his ne]lbook Biddulph will admit he has changed his mind because of growing evidence of increased aggression, antisocial behaviour and other problems among children who have spent a large part of their infancy being cared for away from home.

He argues that such children may have problems developing close relationships later.

The criticisms by Biddulph and other experts are likely to bring them into conflict with the government, which has made expanding nursery places a key part of its family policy.

In Britain nearly 250,000 children under three attend nurseries full or part-time. Worldwide, the number of babies and toddlers being cared for in nurseries has quadrupled in the past decade as mothers increasingly return to work.

Labour has created more than 1.2m new childcare places for the youngest children since it came to power in 1997. Every child aged three is entitled to a free nursery session of 2½ hours a day and the government has carried out pilot schemes to extend these sessions to two-year-olds, part of the age group that is Biddulph’s greatest concern.

Gordon Brown, the chancellor, has promised an extra £769m for early years state childcare between 2005 and 2008, while the government
proposes to extend maternity and paternity leave, which makes it easier for women to keep their jobs after they have children.

Biddulph admits he started out as a believer in quality nursery care and the role it played in broadening women’s lives but says he has found reality never matched the fantasy. “In fact it was often a disastrous disappointment,� he said.

“The best nurseries struggled to meet the needs of very young children in a group setting. The worst were negligent, frightening and bleak — a nightmare of bewildered loneliness that was heartbreaking to watch.�

Biddulph focuses his warnings on what he estimates is the 5% of British parents who “slam� their children into nursery for a large part of their day from the age of six months.

He believes nothing can provide an equal substitute for one-to-one care for a child under two, ideally by a parent. He argues that infants’ brains need to be stimulated by loving interaction if they are to develop properly.

Nannies, he says, can work well as a halfway solution but only if parents are “extraordinarily lucky� with the person they find. He says, however, that care by family or friends is “a much safer option�.

Biddulph says it was five years ago that he began writing his book, Raising Babies: Should Under 3s Go To Nursery?, published next moj4h by Harper Thorsons. But he he was initially afraid to release it because its message was “so confrontational, so against the tide�. He points, however, to increasing evidence supporting the thesis.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2036862,00.html

EXPOSED: the hatred, hypocrisy, and totalitarian intolerance of feminists like Gloria Steinem, Maureen Dowd, Eleanor Smeal, and (of course) Hillary.