Subject: Shelternet

To whom it may concern,

Somewhat the idea of the Shelternet Webpage defies logic, unless the sole purpose is to have yet another propaganda site created at the expense of the Canadian taxpayers who are told that there is not enough money for healthcare and education.

Shelters are for emergency use only. Anyone who has the time and skills to access the Internet has the time and skills to dial 911, if in an urban setting, or the local police department, if a rural resident, which they have do in any case if they are being assaulted. In every emergency the police are the means of transportation that the alleged victim may need.

Furthermore, the police directives in regard to wife assault, as opposed to other family disturbances, mandate that the male partner is to be removed from the residence, no other proof needed than a woman's word, thus making it unnecessary for a woman to be taken to a shelter, and thus making the entire concept of a women's shelter obsolete.

The following example of a personal experience illustrates how the government creates the myths that lead to family destruction:

A few weeks ago I was approached by a woman whom I barely knew, having casually met her a few times outside my home. She told how she had gone to her doctor, having felt tired. The doctor, according to the directives by Health Canada, quizzed her about possible abuse and gave her a booklet about DV.

This simple woman, half of my age, came to the conclusion that she was being subjected to financial and emotional abuse by her partner, whom I used to know well. She told that he was not physically abusive, only emotionally and financially, as she discovered from the booklet given to her. She told that she did not even know what abuse was before she read about it. Amazingly, that is the phrase that I hear over and over. If anything, that concept is demeaning to all woman, as it clearly implies that we are somewhat intellectually challenged, while at the same time being told that we are capable of being the CEOs of major companies without any other qualifications but our hormones.

The facts in my narrative are as follows:

The man is a proud, hard working low income earner, a working poor in the true sense of the word. He is a strict practising Buddhist who leads an ascetic lifestyle. According to the woman herself he does not impose his standards on her or on her teenage daughter, allowing them to live by their own standards which includes eating meat, consuming alcohol and smoking. He himself does not even eat eggs as those are animal products. I know from personal experience that he does not even kill a mosquito but carries it outside if one happens to get into his house. He eats one vegan meal a day, costing pennies as he grows most of his own produce.

The woman is about twenty years his junior, an unemployed single mother who moved into his house several years ago. She tells that she is not interested in finding employment. She is a heavy smoker.

Gradually she has accumulated ten large dogs, huskies, as she wants to do dog-sledding. Feeding those animals, as well as her cat and the various large birds that she keeps, must cost a fortune. He does not complain, though she tells that her neighbours wonder how she can afford to keep them, well knowing the expense of even one dog. Not only that, but the entire neighbourhood is up in arms because of the incessant howling of the dogs all night long, each night, yet, as rural people, don't feel it right to complain.

For some unexplained reason she came to talk to me in May as she wanted to have her dogs immunised against Heartworm, leptospirosis and rabies and her partner told her that he simply did not have the couple of thousand dollars that it would cost. That to her new found knowledge of DV was financial and emotional abuse. She then went on to lament that she could not even afford to buy new clothes for herself and her daughter and had to go and "beg" for money from her daughter's father who is on welfare.

I suggested that she go home and do some simple math, i.e. add up the cost of running a household that includes ten dogs and various other animals as well as three humans, and deduct that sum from her partner's net salary. I told that we all have to make choices in our lives, and that if she wants to keep the dogs, whom he obviously is struggling to support, she should find a job. Her answer: he should make choices and give up – are you ready for this? – his one indulgence: donuts! When I ventured that maybe she should reciprocate and give up cigarettes and meat, the conversation ended. There can be little doubt about which partner in that relationship is being abused. As a result of his inability to meet her deadline and pay for the vaccinations, their ramshackle home is now for sale, though it is not likely that they ever will be able to sell it as it is clear that the small piece of land on which the house stands would be worth more if the house was not there.

She has now decided that I also am an abused woman because she, as per the information booklet, has come to the conclusion that my husband of forty years is abusive to "my" dog. As I mentioned above, she has no knowledge of our family life. If she did, she would see how my husband pampers that dog, cooking his meals, playing ball with him, taking him to his daily swims in the river or to play with his canine friends. 

She has got one thing right, though.  I am an abused woman. My ex-daughter-in-law has destroyed our entire family, including my two small grandchildren, financially and emotionally. As a result, I myself had breast cancer, known to be caused by stress, among other things, as well as an astronomically high blood pressure that led to a recent mini-stroke. She is constantly threatening us all, though all her allegations were found to be groundless. At the end of the trial it was concluded that she was "not dishonest" but only "distorted" facts, such as that her mother was alive and well and that there was no mental illness in the family though the mother had died as a schizophrenic while the daughter was three years old and her only full sister is suffers from a debilitating bi-polar disorder. Even if one would be able to differentiate between "dishonesty" and "distortion", it is hard to see how one can "distort" if one tells that her dead mother is alive and well.

Based on the fact that ALL research and statistics, including those by the most ardent feminist sources, document that mothers, not fathers, are the main abusers of children, no matter what their excuse (remember: "there is NO EXCUSE FOR ABUSE") and on my personal experience, I am somewhat puzzled that, for the sake of accurate portrayal of family violence, I could not find any drawings on the Shelternet's children's picture gallery by Randall Dooley or Matthew Vaudreuil or Shanya Johnson or the thousands of others who died such a horrible death after lifelong abuse at the hands of their mothers or mother substitutes. Then again, dead children do not make pictures, and one doubts whether they ever were allowed even while alive.

Those of us who have experienced first hand substantiated abuse by mothers and wives, including using a motor vehicle or a butcher knife, not to mention a gun, as well as allegations that later have been proven to be false, find the shameless anti-father propaganda disturbing at best, dangerous at worst as it leaves children, including my grandchildren, at the mercy of one abusive parent while effectively removing the safety-net that is provided by the other parent and his family.


Sincerely,

Eeva Sodhi
RR 1 McDonald's Corners
Ontario, K0G 1M0

See also:

The Shelternet press release announcing the inauguration of Shelternet

My Notes [WHS]:

Check Shelternet's Web Page "Just for Kids". It's a prime example of rampant and rabid anti-male and family-hostile propaganda intended to indoctrinate children in radical-feminist ideology.

I wrote to Shelternet's Jan Richardson and Kathryn Babcock via a message dated Mon 2002-07-29 17:59. As of now Shelternet has not responded to the questions I raised.

In addition, I wrote to Lorene Vernon, the manager of TELUS' United Way campaign. Lorene worked for me when I was employed in the Network Planning section of the Engineering Department of TELUS, many years ago.
   Lorene insists on regularly sending appeals to me to give generously to United Way out of my meager pension income that has seen virtually no increases during the last eleven years and in fact was substantially reduced once I reached age 65.
   That is even though I asked Lorene to consider my financial situation and to please leave us alone with her appeals, just aside from the fact that United Way is one of the prime promoters of male-bashing and the implementation of the planned destruction of the family through sponsoring family-hostile social programs. — WHS