Why We Don't See Eye to Eye (Part I)
February 9th, 2007 by Glenn Sacks, MA for Fathers & FamiliesFrom time to time I ponder why there is such a divide between the feminist movement and the fatherhood movement. I wish this divide didn't exist, or at least that it were smaller. Yet sometimes I read things which make me believe that the divide will never be breached. Such is the case when I read the exchange below on the feminist website Truth and Justice: Family Court Reform.
There was a discussion of Parental Alienation Syndrome and criticism of my co-authored column Protect Children from Alienation (Providence Journal, 7/8/06). PAS occurs when, after divorce or separation, one parent turns his or her children against the other parent, destroying the loving bonds the children and the target parent once enjoyed. In the discussion feminist bloggers and commenters portrayed PAS as a nonexistent fraud used by battering and/or molesting fathers to wrest child custody away from protective, loving mothers.
As part of the discussion, one father, who identified himself as "amanwhocares," wrote:
"[Those] who want to think or imagine that PAS...does not exist, have your heads in the sand...The case of myself and my daughter is classical...Much of the reason for certain individuals vitriolic rejection of PAS as a credible and epidemic symptom of disease is that they themselves are suffering from DENIAL...My daughter and I fought the good fight but everybody we encountered would not do their jobs. They cared not for truth or justice. They only wanted the money.
"Today my daughter, twenty years old, returned to her mother by some deeply confused zealots from the Justice for Children, Houston, Texas, just had a baby, moved back in with her mother, having dropped out of high school two years ago. Don't one of you tell me PAS does not exist. Had she remained with me she would likely be now about to finish her college education and headed onward for a medical degree."
The feminist response is:
"I think 'amanwhocares'' posting is a wonderful example of the fuzzy logic spewn by maligned, arrogant and irrationally- minded batterers. His is a typical, asinine and patently denial-laden, delusional response from batterers: his assumed superiority and his accusing his victims of his own criminal conduct and malevolent motivations.
"His response also shows the depth of a batterer's personality disorder...[asserting] that all the legitimate research from learned scholars is just 'lies' is a good glimpse into the defective psyche of a batterer.
"His posting also shows that the only successful approach in holding batterers accountable is an aggressive criminal justice response from legitimate men in law enforcement."
Interesting--the man complains about being separated from the daughter he loves, and the feminist response is to label him a "batterer," and then pontificate on how his sad, angry letter is reflective of a "batterer's mentality."
Like the feminist quoted above, I know little about this man's case. But if his response is indicative of a "batterer's mentality", I wonder how a non-battering man is supposed to react to having his loving bonds with his children eviscerated?
I suppose the feminist would respond that such an injustice would never happen in our pro-male/anti-woman family law system. Lady, you must be kidding...
"));
19 queries. 0.519 seconds.
February 9th, 2007 at 12:08 pm
This "feminist mentality" is certainly the prevailing mentality in family court systems across our nation and has become the scourge of our republic. There is no superior sex when it comes to raising children - children need BOTH parents!!
February 9th, 2007 at 12:28 pm
In my opinion, Parental Alienation Syndrome results when a parent believes that she (or he) OWNs the children.
February 9th, 2007 at 12:40 pm
I think that to label this kind of pathological logic "feminist" is possibly a mistake. It actually derives from a mindset which reifies the claimed victim, only women and children can be victims and victims must be believed in the face of any facts to the contrary. Granted, this logic particularly applies to a certain kind of distorted feminism where victimhood is the route to an ultimately empty power, but the overall effect is to disempower women by reducing them to dependence on an unjust, bullying social system. A woman or child who is truly victimized should be protected, as should a man. But a person who claims a priori that woman/child=victim, uses victimhood to bully and control and is doing the true victims only harm. They should receive every ounce of true victim's rights advocates' ire, they are abusers and they only hurt their cause (just as truly abusive fathers should be booted out by fathers' rights organizations).
Deniers of things like parental alienation or false memories are either cynical abusers themselves or stupid, in the truest sense of the word, in their inability to form a complex thought.
What makes it all the more laughable that target parents in parental alienation aren't just fathers. 'Funny that.
February 9th, 2007 at 3:25 pm
While describing amanwhocares of having "assumed superiority", the responding poster acted as if she were superior. She accuses amanwhocares of "accusing." According to the responding poster, amanwhocares "accuses his victims of his own criminal conduct and malevolent motivations."
What does she consider his criminal conduct?
Amanwhocares expressed his disappointment that his daughter had a baby before finishing college and that she lived with the mother and not with him. Some feminists believe very strongly in womens' sexual/reproductive freedom. They also believe in automatic custody for the mother. To the responder, amanwhocares wants to control his daughter's sexual/reproductive freedom and he wants to take away parental rights from the mother. To the responder, this level of controlling behavior rises to the level of battery.
Her perceived motivations of others, are projected from herself. It is she who wants to control! How does she want to control this so-called battery? She wants an "aggressive criminal justice response from legitimate men in law enforcement." Yes, she is using victimhood as a means to aggressively control.
Please let us have Shared Parenting.
February 10th, 2007 at 4:34 am
Classic.......DV is a majic wand for woman today......ironically her response is abusive and a good exmple of how PAS is used !
February 14th, 2007 at 7:10 am
I believe amanwhocares is simply a loving, concerned parent who fought the good fight, but lost. Now his daughter and grandchild are paying the price. My boyfriend and his daughters are the victims of PAS. The girls are now 12, almost-16, and 18. He has not seen them in 6.5 years. That's right, six and a half years. Mom moved with the girls back to her home state (over 1,000 miles away) and filed there. Of course, she lied through her teeth to the court, and naturally he is paying child support. More support than he should have to. She told the court he is "capable" of making $X amount, and that is what they based the child support on, never mind that he did provide proof that is not his actual income, which was lower. But back to the original reason for my posting. I know you are thinking how could I possibly know she lied through her teeth, do I blindly trust what he has told me? No, I do not blindly trust. He has earned my trust, a direct result of his actions while with me. He moved in with me a little over 5 years ago, my daughter is now 16, he has played a large role in raising her. I know how he treats me and I know how he treats my daughter. If he was abusive, I WOULD KNOW! When he calls to talk to his girls, he either gets the machine and they never call back or "she" answers and hangs up on him. The girls do get to speak to their uncle, dad's brother, so we do get updates on how they are doing. This really is hurting the children. The oldest was a straight A student until all this happened, the first school year after the move she failed and had to repeat that grade, and has struggled since. Mom went so far as to force the oldest to testify in court about the "abuse", the daughter has since told her uncle that she knew it was a lie but if she didn't do it "mommy was going to punish me." The girls have been directed not to answer the phone when their father calls (caller ID is a wonderful thing, huh?), and if they do speak to their father and she finds out they will get a beating. Yes, the girls have told their uncle all of this. He was told by Mom if he shows up there he is going to be "dealt with" by her male family members. He has not gone there because he does not want his children to be witness to that. And by the way, the court will not even entertain his side of the story. There is so much more to this story, but I don't want to take up all the space here. All I know for sure is PAS is real and although it does hurt the non-custodial parent, in the end it hurts the children the most. I have worked hard to make sure my daughter has a relationship with her father. But here is something maybe others can help me with. What do you do when the other parent is not involved, of their own doing? What do you do when the other parent is always doing or saying something that upsets your child? I listen, I console, I used to lecture him that he is going to loose his daughter but gave up trying to get through to him, but I DO NOT, NOT EVER, put him down or not allow further contact, I also do not tell her how I really feel (what a dirt-bag I think he is for treating her this way). What can I do?
February 14th, 2007 at 9:29 am
"What do you do when the other parent is not involved, of their own doing? What do you do when the other parent is always doing or saying something that upsets your child? "
State legilators can design child support essentially any way they want (as long as they pretend to consider all income and the costs of raising a child.) Courts can enforce child support and adjust child support amounts based on parenting time. Parents who do not provide parenting time can be required to pay more.
However, the states must stop pretending that their presumption for sole custody is in the "best interest of children."
February 14th, 2007 at 9:57 am
Michael H, thank you. If only it were as simple as hitting him the checkbook. He would be angry, but it would not make my point with him or make my daughter feel better. I am lucky enough that if he suddenly stopped paying CS my bills would still get paid. I would be ticked off, every parent should take financial responsibility for their child, but it would not be the end of the world for us. In fact, I took $83 less per month with the agreement that he would pay all travel costs for her to visit him. He moved out of state, the child and I stayed put.
The problem is the visits and phone contact are few and far between. He drove here to see her Thanksgiving weekend, staying in a hotel for three nights when he could have had 5 at his place. That weekend, while she was with him and his wife, I got to thinking that it seemed like it had been a while since the last visit, so I worked it out. Almost three years since the last visit! Every few months he sends her a check for $25-$50, "just because". Once in a blue moon he will call or send her an email. She feels like she has been pushed to the wayside by her father. It doesn't help that my father, who she and I were very close to, died just over a year ago. It also doesn't help that her father and his wife now have a new baby boy. Even at the age of 16, she came to the conclusion that her father is trying to buy her love. She came right out and said it to me just a few weeks ago.
I suppose the only thing I can do is to continue as I have. Just be there for her, do the best I can, and thank God that he sent my boyfriend our way. He is truly wonderful with her.
February 15th, 2007 at 2:28 pm
wherriott2 Says:
February 9th, 2007 at 12:08 pm
This “feminist mentality” is certainly the prevailing mentality in family court systems across our nation and has become the scourge of our republic. There is no superior sex when it comes to raising children - children need BOTH parents!!
Children need both parents...it's been proven over and over that children excel with both parents, even if the parents are divorced. It's sad that feminist are so hell bent on destroying the lives of our children. I for one refuse to give up the fight to be a part of my children's lives. I hope we all do the same.
February 16th, 2007 at 7:46 am
"Even at the age of 16, she came to the conclusion that her father is trying to buy her love. She came right out and said it to me just a few weeks ago."
Your daughter may be commiserating with you by sharing your disappointment in your ex-husband or she might be trying to say that she wishes that her father was a larger part of her life.
Have you ever wondered how your boyfriend's daughters feel?
Do you think a father could have done what his ex-wife did?
February 16th, 2007 at 2:47 pm
Glenn and all,
I was the person "amanwhocares" who had submitted the comments to the Providence Journal. Truly frightening the vicious kind of responses that some of these 'people' have. Hoping for the day when we all comprehend that "injustice to one is injustice to all", words of Dr. Martin Luther King. Here we are deeply engaged in all this infighting, using that word because of the structure in the laws and applications being used in society moreso than to say that it is truly happening so much amongst us. Meanwhile the planet contiues to deteriorate. And the proliferation of babymaking and indiscriminate babymaking seems to be just another part of 'having it all'.
How is it that there are such malevolent forces lurking among these so called feminists? I seldom see articles anywhere presented as female bashing by men. Just where do they get these ideas?
Writer of such former confusion, Anne WIlson Schaef saw through her own postulations as long ago as 1986, when she wrote the great work, When Society Becomes An Addict, Harper and Row. She found that she had indentified a problem indeed, but ultimately found that it was much much larger. It included and surrounded the symptomology she had found that she had used in her former writings and understandings. The problem is addiction which has become systematized into individuals and larger systems like government, even religions. That indeed is the bottom line. Not living by truth and honesty.
Glenn, I am hoping that if it advances the collective cause, you might see fit to take on some of these so called advocacy groups, mine obviously the Justice For Children, Houston, Texas for their part in being front line destructive zealots with money and influence, but ultimately destroying that which they profess to be holding up as being good and right. They should have been put out of business over what they and their agents, Fulbright and Jaworski, Llp, one of the largest law firms in the world did to my daughter and to me.
If anyone wants to contact me on any of this: planetaryg@yahoo.com
Robert Gartner
February 19th, 2007 at 7:08 am
Michael H,
Yes, I do believe my daughter is trying to let me know this hurts her. For the longest time when he would upset her she would stomp around the house calling him names and saying she hates him, he never heard any of this since it was done at my house. I would calmly remind her that above all else he is her father and she shouldn't talk about him like that. I also had her in counseling so she could learn to deal with all of this. The counselor taught her that she can not control her father's actions, but she could control how she reacted to it. I suppose saying things like he is trying to buy her love is just another way of doing this, but not as vicious (can't come up with a better word).
I think about my boyfriend's daughters everyday. The oldest is now 18 but still in HS, so she is living under mom's roof. She is still afraid of mom, but I also believe that mom has been semi-successful at poisoning her. I am an optimist, I still hold out hope the girls will come around and contact their father. Nothing can ever bring back the years they have missed and it really does break my heart. Those girls didn't deserve this. Their father loves them so much and I am not sure they really know that. He would give his life for them, and wouldn't even have to think about it.
I think any parent, mom or dad, is capable of poisoning children against the other parent. I don't think it has anything to do with gender, it is the individual. Early on in my divorce, which was early 2001, my ex was telling our daughter that I was a whore sleeping with every man I met, and a bitch because I "walked out on him", among other things. About two months after our divorce he met someone who has adult kids; she had already been through this with her ex (but 10X worse). She used her grown daughters current life (quite messy) as an example and made him see what he was doing to our daughter and for the most part got him to stop the name calling. He broke it off with her and married someone else, but to this day I am still friends with her. I should mention that I was not a complete angel in all of this. One day, still early in the divorce, I was at a friends house with my daughter (remember, she was 10 at the time) and was talking to my friend about all of the stuff that had been going on. My daughter was playing with the dog in the next room. Her husband came inside, heard us talking, and put in his two cents. Both his parents behaved this way during their divorce and he told me what it did to him. I stopped right then and there. If I needed to vent about him I made sure my daughter was not even in ear shot. If it had not been for my friend's husband I might not have known what I was doing to my own child and might have continued. Since then I have been able to stop other people was doing this to their kids, now that I know what it does to them. I didn't realize it on my own, but I also never intended for my daughter to hate her father. I love my father, we did everything together and he taught me so much about love and life. I just lost him a little over a year ago. It rips me up inside that my daughter will never know that kind of love from her father. I blame myself for choosing a selfish drunk to be my child's father. Perhaps this was TMI for you, but it is what it is. And it is not even all of it.
February 21st, 2007 at 1:19 pm
JeanB,
Keep up the good work.
June 29th, 2007 at 3:03 pm
[...] I read things which make me believe that the divide will never be breached. One example is Why We Don't See Eye to Eye (Part I). Another is [...]
July 7th, 2007 at 6:40 pm
[...] I read things which make me believe that the divide will never be breached. One example is Why We Don't See Eye to Eye (Part I), a recent one is Why We Don't See Eye to Eye (Part II)--Feminist Bloggers on the Duke [...]