Thursday, February 28, 2008

Postovani blog prijatelji,
trenutno prebacujem svoj blog na
Nadam se da tranzicija nece dugo trajati. Hvala vam na strpljenju.

Tuesday, February 5, 2008

Woman to woman

Does feminism fail women?

By Mark Richardson, posted on Dads on the Air

The January 2007 Marie Claire featured the heartfelt life story of Danielle. She knew as a girl that she always wanted marriage and children:

    The eldest of five, I'd loved kids from an early age and knew, with an unwavering certainty that I would have at least two. I would live with my children and their father ...
It was not, however, until age 35 that she met Rob, a man she wanted to start a family with. Conception proved more difficult than expected and she subjected herself to four years of IVF.

Finally, she fell pregnant but the child had Down syndrome and she decided to undergo an abortion. Eight months later she was pregnant again, but this baby died in the womb. She was shocked by this turn of events, being unaware of the difficulties of childbirth in later life. She tells us:

    Although I'd just turned 40 I'd never even considered this risk. After all, my mother had given birth to my little brother at 44. I assumed - naively - that, having finally managed to conceive, I'd go on to have a normal healthy baby, just like she did. But it wasn't to be.
Her partner Rob was now in his 50s and was understandably reluctant to keep pursuing fertility treatment. She now had to choose between him and further attempts at IVF. She thought at first she might be strong enough to leave him but then decided not to:

    How could I give up the love of my life to become a single mother in her 40s? How could I put that pressure on a child?
But things didn't go well for her:

    Life became hellish. Grief was transforming me into a woman I didn't know. I had such a loving, caring, supportive partner and yet I wouldn't allow him to touch me. He had fallen in love with a happy, slim, successful, creative woman and now found himself relegated to the role of carer to a weeping, empty vessel, who had ballooned from a size 12 to a size 20 through lack of self-care ...

    Although Rob's behaviour was never anything other than selfless and loyal, I felt that I had “denatured” our relationship.
The relationship ended soon after, leaving Danielle feeling that she would "die with the pain". She moved in with her sister and her children. Her lost dream of motherhood is still with her:

    These days, I indulge myself occasionally in the fantasy of who my lost daughters would have become ... I imagine that I'm getting ready to drive to the school gates to pick them up. I don't want to lose touch with these phantom children growing up inside me. I feel like a better human being for loving them.
My lost motherhood will always be with me. It's like a dull ache that every so often, at unexpected moments, sharpens into jolting pain - like when I see the ecstatic face of a new mother as she looks at her baby.

So what went wrong? Why did Danielle end up in such unhappy circumstances? The men of my generation won't be surprised by her answer:

    The trouble was, throughout my 20s and early 30s, my relationships with men were short-lived and problematic. I was always attracted to exciting, but emotionally unavailable men, who were anything but suitable husband - let alone father - material.
So Danielle, along with so many other young women, encouraged and rewarded the wrong sort of men. The family type man was bypassed. What conclusion does Danielle draw from this mistake? She writes:

    I still bitterly regret not having had children much sooner. I wasted precious time in my 20s and 30s waiting for the love of my life, when I should have just got on with it - whether or not the right man was by my side. He could have come later.
So she still doesn't get it. Even with the benefit of hindsight, when things are already too late, she isn't aware of the possibility of a culture in which men and women prepare themselves for marriage and parenthood at a reasonable age.

Her "solution", if generally adopted, would only drive the wedge between men and women more deeply, making things even more difficult for future generations.

What this illustrates is that individuals won't always figure out for themselves what to do, even in securing the most important things in their life. It helps if individuals are guided by a supportive culture or tradition.

But what is there to help modern women? You would think that modern women have all the support they need, as a whole feminist infrastructure has been set up for them. But feminism has proven itself to be an inadequate support for women. It doesn't matter how many "women's officers" there are in government, academia and business, if all that feminism aims at is autonomy and careers.

Feminists have never seriously interested themselves in questions of how women might successfully marry and become mothers (only with how motherhood might be made less of an impediment to careers).

When my generation of women were delaying marriage and motherhood to some vague point of time in their late 30s, where were the feminists warning against such an obviously unwise move? Where were the feminists who were concerned about the unhappiness that such a life course would inevitably bring to many thousands of women?

As I recall, it was a couple of male obstetricians who first sounded the alarm bells. And when an Australian journalist, Virginia Haussegger, found herself among the ranks of reluctantly childless women, and criticised feminism for focusing only on careers and not relationships, she was met with a harshly unsympathetic response from feminists and labelled an ingrate.

Unfortunately it seems likely that women will continue to suffer for as long as feminism remains their official support. What is needed is for more women to conclude, as Virginia Haussegger did, that feminism is "an inadequate structure from which to build a life".

First published at Oz Conservative on January 22, 2008.

Friday, January 18, 2008

Mother of the Year?

BBC News

Girl 'home alone for six weeks'

Welshpool court
The girl said she missed her mother, the court was told
A woman abandoned her 14-year-old daughter for six weeks with just £100 and a fridge full of food while she travelled abroad, a court has heard.

The woman, who cannot be identified, was visiting her boyfriend in 2007.

She told Welshpool magistrates she had arranged for a neighbour and her ex-husband to look after her daughter.

The woman denies wilfully causing her daughter to be neglected and abandoned. The case was adjourned until 8 February.

The court heard the woman had stocked her fridge and freezer with pizza, oven chips and microwave meals before she went abroad between April and June.

Of her £100 allowance, £60 was spent almost immediately on school dinners for the period her mother was away.

She spent most of the remaining £40 on clothes and CDs, magistrates were told.

I should never have done it - she should have gone to her father's (home)
The girl's mother

Social services were alerted to the girl's situation after only two days and arranged for her father, also the woman's ex-husband, to look after her for the remainder of her mother's holiday.

He said he was unaware his daughter had been left home alone.

Shaun Spencer, prosecuting, said the mother was interviewed by police three days after her return and she "apportioned blame for the situation on everybody else apart from herself".

"She accepted no responsibility. She stated that she left the country for six weeks, stating that it was cheaper to do that than go for four weeks.

"She confirmed that she didn't want her daughter to stay with her father because she was concerned about his drinking.

"It is noteworthy that later during the interview she went back on this and said she had, in her mind, made arrangements for the father to look after her daughter for three of the six weeks.

"She went on to state that for the other three weeks her neighbour was to look after her daughter."


The teenager's father and neighbour both denied knowledge of such arrangements during their evidence in court.

Referring to the teenager's interview with specially trained police officers, Mr Spencer said the girl felt she should not have been left alone by her mother.

"She also confessed that she missed her mother," he told the court.

Giving evidence her mother said the girl could cook and had moved back in with her after she returned to Britain.

When asked why she left only £100 for her daughter, she said: "I said to her 'If you want any more money, you go and see your father because he doesn't pay any maintenance'."

Mr Spencer asked her: "Do you accept you opened up your daughter to potential dangers?"

She replied: "Yes, I think I did when I look back on it.

"I should never have done it - she should have gone to her father's (home)."

She added: "I'm not very good with rules and regulations."

Monday, January 14, 2008

Poruka od očeva iz Australije

By: Peter van de Voorde. Jan 2008
The Family Justice System has become a societal cancer, a place to be avoided at all cost. Like any cancer, if left unchecked, it will continue to grow, gaining momentum and eventually destroying its host victims and subsequently the culture which supports and feeds this malignant growth. It has removed parental rights and replaced them with parental responsibilities. However without rights, parents are denied their human right and duty to responsibly protect and share the love and care of their own biological children.

We are now looking at a 35 year old cancer that has been allowed to grow unchecked and is by far the most dangerous place for men, women and children, to come into contact with, in the event of relationship breakdown.

It has become a law unto itself, a dictatorship within a democracy. Secret and seemingly untouchable, it has been allowed to grow into a multi billion dollar industry, with many poisonous tentacles which have gradually and unnoticeably crept into many of our institutions and bureaucracies. These in turn have each spawned their own agencies and pseudo expert organizations and bodies, who play host to a variety of so called professional expert specialist advisers, who keep feeding the cancer with a continuous supply of misinformation and dodgy statistical data, which flows into the system, thereby guaranteeing malignant growth.

Each tentacle of this cancer is pushing its own immoral agenda, while at the same time comfortably feathering their nests with billions of dollars of taxpayer funded handouts, bolstered by the funds plundered from the hard earned family wealth of unsuspecting separating parents.

All of this is made possible because society has unsuspectingly and unquestionably accepted the deliberately deceptive and misleading "Best Interest of the Child" principle. It is an obscene act of deception to suggest that the "Best Interest of a Child" is best served by giving children rights, when in fact they lack the autonomy and physical ability to enact those rights and while their young developing brains are so vulnerable to emotional, and psychological manipulation and control.

Without question the most dangerous situation for a child to find itself in, is when its parents are coerced into entering the Family Court system. This ensures them being infected by this obnoxious Family Justice cancer, which in fact will guarantee that most of them will have their ties of kinship with many of their much loved biological family members severed.

This cancerous industry, which hides behind the spurious "Best Interest of the Child" principle, in order to justify the removal of these vulnerable children from perfectly loving and responsible family members, is a curse on the health and wellbeing of our society. To remove those who wish to protect and play a part in the healthy physical and emotional development of their biological family, is universally unacceptable to a civil society.

To allow this dangerous cancer to flourish will eventually destroy our society. We owe it to the children of today, who are the parents of tomorrow, to relieve them of the burden of being forcibly removed by this malignant societal cancer. If we fail to do so, history will judge us harshly. "Parental rebellion is not a crime, it is our obligation."

Do we ignore violence against men?

Friday, January 11, 2008

Izgubljena generacija

Tata u sjeni

Bez obzira na naprednost zapadnih država i postojanje zajedničkog starateljstva, predrasuda o ocu kao nevažnom, ili manje važnom od majke postoji svugdje u svijetu. Ovo potvrđuje i postojanje stotina organizacija širom svijeta koje se bore za prava očeva na kontakt sa svojom djecom nakon razvoda.

Razlike se vide u pristupu ovom problemu. Na zapadu već odavno vrše istraživanja o generaciji koju zovu „fatherless generation“ – generacija bez oca.

Kako su se žene izborile za svoja prava, uključujući pravo na rad i zarađivanje postale su samostalne što je veoma pozitivno. Međutim, ta samostalnost žene uvjetovala je rast postotka razvoda jer kako se žena može brinuti sama o sebi više nije primorana ostati u lošem braku da bi opstala. Razvod takođe više nije tabu tema – naravno, bolje je imati dobar razvod nego loš brak. Ipak, koliko pozitivno za ženu, ovo je imalo negativan uticaj na djecu. Kada se roditelji razvedu žena sa sobom povede i djecu bez obzira što loš muž ili loš brak uopšte ne znači u isto vrijeme i loš otac.

Rezultat – generacija bez oca.

Kao što su se promijenile mnoge predrasude kroz istoriju, predrasude o majci kao boljem i nadmoćnijem roditelju će se nemonovno promijeniti. Činjenica je da se nalazimo na pragu nove ere ravnopravnosti spolova. Pitanje prava očeva se tek počelo rasplitati prije 30 godina, ali sad kad je postavljeno neće nestati dok ne nađemo adekvatan odgovor.

Uz statistički prilog iz Velike Britanije nekoliko podataka iz SAD

(ovakvih istraživanja na Balkanu, nažalost, još nema, međutim sama činjenica da se između 89% i 98% starateljstava nakon razvoda dodijeli majci ukazuje da su posljedice veoma slične)


72.2 % Amerikanaca smatraju da je odsustvo oca najveći društveni problem njihove države

Izvor: National Center for Fathering, Fathering in America Poll, January, 1999.
24.7 miliona djece (36.3%) žive bez prisustva biološkog oca.

Izvor: National Fatherhood Initiative, Father Facts, (3rd Edition):
80% djece poslijeratne generacije je odraslo uz oba roditelja. Danas samo 50% djece odrasta u okviru porodice.

Izvor: David Poponoe, American Family Decline, 1960-1990: A Review and Appraisal Journal of Marriage and Family 55 (August 1993).

"Djeca koja odrastaju bez prisustva oca su više izložena riziku korištenja droga i alkohola "

Izvor: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. National Center for Health Statistics. Survey on Child Health. Washington, DC, 1993.
Djeca samohranih majki su tri puta više izložena riziku emocionalnih i problema u ponašanju.

Izvor: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. National Center for Health Statistics."National Health Interview Survey." Hyattsville, MD, 1988.
Duplo više djece koja odrastaju bez prisustva oca je izbačeno iz ili napušta školu vrlo rano.

Izvor: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. National Center for Health Statistics. Survey on Child Health. Washington, DC; GPO, 1993.
Djeca razvedenih roditelja više odsustvuju iz škole, više su anksiozna, ljuta, povučena i manje popularna u školi od djece koja odrastaju u potpunoj porodici.

Izvor: One-Parent Families and Their Children: The School's Most Significant Minority. The Consortium for the Study of School Needs of Children from One-Parent Families. National Association of elementary School Principals and the Institute for Development of Educational Activities, a division of the Charles f. Kettering Foundation. Arlington, VA 1980.
Djeca samohranih majki krše zakon više nego djeca iz poptunih porodica.

Izvor: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. National Center for Health Statistics. National Health Interview Survey. Hyattsville, MD, 1988.
Djevojka iz porodice gdje otac nije prisutan ima pet puta veće šanse da postane majka prije 19. godine nego djevojka istog društvenog statusa čiji otac je prisutan.

Izvor: Whitehead, Barbara Dafoe. "Facing the Challenges of Fragmented Families." The Philanthropy Roundtable 9.1 (1995): 21.
Više od polovine Amerikanaca priznaju da imaju nesređene odnose sa ocem.

Izvor: National Center For Fathering 1996

Thursday, January 10, 2008

Tužilaštvo kaže da nasilje iza zatvorenih vrata nije zločin

U prilogu ispod je dokaz o bijedi pravde danas (dvije kopije: pritužba i odgovor).

Ili o velikim privatnim vezama ...

Scenario: muž i žena ne žive zajedno već godinu dana. Muž ima novu partnericu za koju je bivša tek saznala. Histerija. Jednog jutra (par dana nakon što je bivša saznala za novu partnericu) u subotu u 8 ujutro (septembra 2005.) partnerica u svome stanu sa svoje dvoje djece. Već dva sata je bivša zove na mobitel. Telefon isključen odlazi da se tušira, djeca se igraju. Izlazi iz kupatila a u njenom hodniku je čeka bivša sa njenom djecom. Šta sad? Ništa, pred četvoro djece ne može ništa nego biti pristojna. Nazove partnera i on se ubrzo pojavi u njenom stanu. Mole bivšu da napusti stan. Nastaje ludilo. Bivša viče pogrdne stvari i prijeti. "Našao si kurvu pa hoćeš da je je... pred djecom! Cijelo Sarajevo je nju je... svi znaju kakva je!" Baca se po podu, lupa šakama o pod. Partnerica zove brata na telefon da dođe da pomogne. Bivša u tom trenutku nasrće na nju, grebe je i udara. Onda nasrće na partnera i šakama ga udara po licu. Djeca (sve četvoro) su u šoku, plaču, tresu se, najmlađa se krije ispod kauča. "Strah me mame". Partnerica svoju djecu pošalje u njihovu sobu da bi ih zaštitila, ali i djeca bivše insistiraju da budu u istoj sobi. U svom tom ludilu bivša stane i kaže "Nemaš pojma kako sam ti namjestila stvari ovaj put. Uništiću te." Onda nasrće na nezaključana vrata dječije sobe svojim tijelom i udara ih dok se ona ne razvale. Partnerica uzima svoju djecu i odlazi u drugu sobu u stanu. Sjedi sa djecom na krilu, koja se tresu i grcaju u suzama. Bivša dolazi, i udara partnericu po glavi i unosi joj se u lice. "Kurvo! Djeco zvaću vam oca i reći ma kakva vam je mama.!" Partnericin sin od sedam godina plačući šapće mami na uho "Mama, šta je to kurva?"

Brat se pojavljuje, zove policiju i odvodi sestrinu djecu vani. Policija stiže i polako smiri stvari, traži od sviju da dođu u policijsku stanicu dati izjave. Slika razvaljena vrata. Dok odvode bivšu ona u prolazu, mrtva hladna, sa osmijehom na licu kaže partnerici "Ovo je bilo super zabavno, trebale bismo ovo ponoviti svaki vikend".

Partner i partnerica odlaze kod ljekara gdje su pregledani i dobiju potvrde o povredama. Iskazi u policiji, iskazi kod tužioca, Huseina Delalića, kojem izleti da poznaje oca osumnjičene bivše koji je advokat i da često idu zajedno na more. "Kako da mu tužim kćerku?"

Godinu dana prolazi. Ništa. Partner i partnerica se žale Viskom Sudskom Tužilačkom Vijeću jer se ništa ne dešava i traže izuzeće tužioca jer smatraju da je pristrasan jer je dobar prijatelj oca osumnjičene. Dvije godine kasnije, u septembru 2007., tužioc šalje pismo u kojem obavještava partnera da obustavlja pretragu. Partner se žali (žalba u prilogu).

U januaru 2008. stiže odgovor u kojem glavni Kantonalni tužilac, Branko Šljivar, potvrđuje da iako osumnjičena JESTE:

1) fizički napala partnera i partnericu i (član 222 st.1 KZ FBiH i član 362 st. 1 KZ FBiH)
2) grubo ih verbalno vrijeđala a pri tome
(član 362 st. 1 KZ FBiH)
3) nanijela štetu tuđoj imovini uz (član 293 st. 1 KZ FBiH)
4) narušavanje partnericine sigurnosti u sopstvenoj kući, (član 184 st.1 KZ FBiH)

nije napravila zločin jer se sve desilo u privatnom domu a ne na ulici. (odgovor u prilogu)

Znači pošto svojim nasiljem nije narušila javni red i mir to nije zločin.
Još kraće: nasilje u porodici i nasilje iza zatvorenih vrata nije zločin. Najmoćniji tužioc u najnaprednijem Kantonu FBiH opravdava nasilje u porodici ako se ono desi iza zatvorenih vrata, pa čak iako je bilo svjedoka. Kako onda ostaje nada da ćemo napredovati kad jedan visoki tužilac opravdava nasilje iza zatvorenih vrata? Podsjeća na slučaj Adamovič... "jeste seksualno uznemiravao, ali nije zločin jer joj nije bio nadređen"...

Da se Branko Šljivar, pita treba sve sigurne kuće za žene zatvoriti jer nasilje nad njima nije zločin pa tako nemaju prava na zaštitu od države (osim ako ih muž ne istuče na ulici).

A da je muškarac uradio isto ovo?

Bivša je partneru nakon ove epizode zabranila kontakt ocu sa djecom dva mjeseca. I pored žalbi i molbi u Centru za socijalni rad i policiji nikad nije kažnjena.

Iz Porodičnog zakona FBiH:
član 124 : "Dijete ima pravo živjeti sa roditeljima. Ako ne živi sa oba roditelja ili sa jednim roditeljem, pravo je djeteta da redovno održava osobne odnose i redovne kontakte sa roditeljem sa kojim ne živi "

član 154 st. 5: "Roditeljsko staranje može se oduzeti roditelju koji ne stvara uvjete za održavanje osobnih odnosa i neposrdenih kontakata sa drugim roditeljem ili onemogućava. odnosno spriječava njihovo održavanje"

Večernji list "Očev blog"

Wednesday, January 9, 2008

Ako imate profil na Facebooku molim vas otiđite na Causes i nađite:

"Every Child has a Right to Both Parents"

Pridružite nam se!