Slate.com & Salon.com Criticize the Fatherhood Movement (Part VI)
November 10th, 2009 by Glenn Sacks, MA for Fathers & Families
Two major online publications--Salon.com and Slate.com--recently did articles criticizing the men's and fathers movement. Whenever the fatherhood movement and its opponents clash directly, there is an opportunity for all on both sides to listen and learn, so I'm writing several posts on these two articles. My first two posts dealt largely with a misleading quote attributed to me in both pieces, and the two publications' commendable agreement to clarify it.
In Part III, Part IV, Part V, and this post, we'll deal more with the arguments made by Kathryn Joyce of Double X/Slate.com and Judy Berman of Salon.com. Both Joyce and Berman are feminist writers who consider themselves opponents of the fatherhood movement.
Joyce writes:
there are a rising number of custody decisions awarded to abusive fathers, as judges see wives eager to protect their children as less cooperative regarding custody. More than half the time, studies have found, wives’ accusations of domestic violence are met with counter-accusations from husbands of “Parental Alienation Syndrome”—a medically unrecognized diagnosis that suggests mothers have poisoned their children into making false accusations against their fathers.
I doubt "half the time" is correct, since most fathers don't have the resources to hire lawyers and go to court when false accusations are leveled against them. And how does Joyce decide that the men are "abusive" when no court has adjudicated them as such?
Joyce writes:
In one recent case, Genia Shockome, a Russian immigrant, was fighting for custody of her two children with her ex-husband, whom she charged had beaten her so severely that she suffered post-traumatic stress disorder and who had told her she “had no right to leave” since he’d brought her to the United States. The judge in the case sided with her husband’s counter-claims of Parental Alienation Syndrome and awarded him full custody
Actually, Judge Amodeo bent over backwards to be fair to Shockome, who lost her children to her ex-husband only after repeatedly violating court orders. Moreover, there was no evidence that the ex-husband was an "abuser," and the Court specifically repudiated this accusation. Shockome's absolute refusal to co-parent with her ex-husband led the courts--eventually, after giving her many chances--to transfer custody of the kids from Genia to her ex-husband.
Unlike Joyce and Berman, I've actually read the court documents in that case. To read the documents in the case, click here. To read my analysis of that case, click here.
Joyce writes:
"[The Shockome judge] sentenced Shockome to 30 days in jail while she was seven months pregnant."
To read the transcript of the May 5, 2005 court hearing where Genia was found in contempt of court, click here. Feminists portrayed Judge Amodeo as a bully for jailing Genia for contempt in May of 2005; however, the transcript of the hearing shows that Genia interrupted Amodeo on over 50 separate occasions. Amodeo only held her in contempt after countless warnings. Shockome appealed Amodeo's holding of contempt but a four judge panel of the New York Supreme Court unanimously upheld Amodeo's decision.
Joyce writes:
When her attorney, Barry Goldstein...criticized the judge in an online article, the judge retaliated with a complaint, and Goldstein was given a five-year suspension. Goldstein says the sanction represents a chilling pressure on attorneys, who may now fear penalties for criticizing a court’s gender bias that will interfere with their duties to their clients and that could result in women deciding not to leave abusers out of fear they won’t get a fair trial.
Feminist attorney Barry Goldstein, Esq. of New York was Shockome's primary attorney. The New York Appellate Division for the Second Judicial Department called numerous statements Goldstein made concerning the Shockome case "dishonest, false, or misleading." The Court also criticized Goldstein for misuse of funds in another case he handled. In the Shockome case, the Court criticized what it called the "pervasive nature of [Goldstein's] deceptive conduct"--conduct which it said included "false accusations" about the case and "noncompliance with multiple court orders." The Court wrote:
On behalf of his client [Genia Shockome], he prepared and filed with this Court a petition for writ of habeas corpus and a petition in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78. These materials contained sworn statements which were dishonest, false, or misleading.
One of Goldstein's statements that the New York Court cited in disciplining him is his public contention that in the Shockome case "Without an evidentiary hearing or any written explanation, Judge Amodeo took the children from the mother who has raised them and sent them to the abuser." This is false--Judge Amodeo actually bent over backwards to be fair to Shockome, who lost her children to her ex-husband only after repeatedly violating court orders. Moreover, there was no evidence that the ex-husband was an "abuser," and the Court specifically repudiated this accusation.
To learn more, see Georgetown Law Center Ethics Counsel Michael S. Frisch's write-up here. To read the Court's decision itself, click here. My write-up of the Goldstein suspension is here.
Joyce writes:
If cases such as Genia Shockome’s are the fodder of mainstream fathers’ rights advocates like Glenn Sacks—who ridiculed her claims and loss of custody as an incredible “cause célèbre” for feminist family-law reformers—what Sacks calls the movement’s “lunatic fringe” is more vitriolic yet.
What I actually did was something neither Joyce nor Berman did--I read through the documents of the case and found out what happened. Given the fraud Shockome tried to perpetrate, my analysis of it was, if anything, excessively polite. A sample:
The entire premise of the Genia Shockome story hinges on the notion that Tim battered Genia prior to 2000 and, in repeatedly violating court orders to allow her children access to their father, she was acting to protect them. However, Genia's allegations of domestic violence and child sexual abuse have never been substantiated in any court proceeding, nor supported by any witnesses. Writing with admirable restraint, Judge Amodeo, whose decisions in the case have been repeatedly upheld by higher courts, noted:
"In [Genia's] August 2000 complaint in the divorce action, no mention is made of the domestic violence which Genia later asserted. She claimed that she was unaware that she was the victim of domestic violence; however, such a lack of awareness would not have made her unable to recount historical facts, especially if the severity and frequency of the abuse she alleged were true. Why didn't she mention the abuse earlier in the case?"
There were three independent custody evaluations in the case, none of which found anything negative of substance against Tim Shockome. The first one called him a good parent, and the other two went as far as to recommend he get custody because of his parenting and because of Genia's relentless attempts to drive him out of his children's lives.
The most recent of these evaluators, Dr. Meg Sussman, has a feminist background and worked for Pace University's Battered Women's Justice Center. Sussman, who specializes in domestic violence and child abuse cases, recommended that Genia have only supervised visitation until she could accept the children's father's role in their lives.
In two in camera (in chambers) interviews conducted with the Shockome children on May 27, 2003 and January 22, 2004, neither child recalled any physical altercations between their parents, despite Genia's claims that her children had witnessed Tim's alleged violence against her. Moreover, neither child expressed any fear of Tim.
Genia's only support for her contention that she had previously been battered came from the FFLM domestic violence advocates who testified in her trial. Yet none of these "experts" had ever spoken with Tim Shockome, and had no evidence of Tim's abuse except for Genia's assertions...
Newsweek pictured Genia holding up a large drawing apparently drawn by her children, and explained:
"Parents like Genia keep fighting. ‘It's so hard, having my children lost,' she says, her voice breaking. ‘This was my life--my children.'"
What Newsweek ignores, though it's right there in the court records, is that it is Genia who refuses to visit her own children, despite ample opportunities to do so. When asked during the trial why she had not visited her children, Genia claimed that she could not afford to pay the supervised visitation program's fees. These programs were originally available to her free of charge, and later cost all of $25. At the same time, Genia had just purchased a new television set for her home.
In the type of exchange typical of Genia's behavior throughout the case, Genia then claimed that she hadn't paid for the television set--it was her boyfriend who bought it. However, the boyfriend, Aja Butler, later testified that he had no knowledge of how the TV set was purchased.
Genia refused to visit her children for two long periods prior to the May, 2004 decision, including the period which included her daughter's birthday in November of 2003 and also Christmas of 2003. At one point, Genia refused to visit her own children for a stretch of nine weeks. The law guardian--another neutral party--said that Genia had explained that she didn't visit her kids as part of her "strategy" in the case. Genia Shockome claims her children are "her life," but apparently they weren't even as important as a new TV set or a custody "strategy"...
Genia and her supporters, including Goldstein, contend that Genia has been the victim of "gender bias" and a judge with a grudge. This explanation fails to account for the fact that Amodeo's decision was based on the opinions of many neutral experts, both male and female, some of them with feminist backgrounds.
The ample legal help Genia has been provided by domestic violence organizations allowed her to appeal the case, and apparently all of the justices on the New York Supreme Court's Appellate Division are also biased against Genia, because they unanimously rejected her appeal in June. The court wrote:
"We discern no basis, on this record, to interfere with the Family Court's findings, inter alia, that the mother lacked credibility…or that the opinions of her [domestic violence] experts were of little value, since none of them had ever spoken with the father…The Family Court concluded, among other things, that the mother's animosity toward the father and her attempts to undermine the children's relationships with him were harmful to the children and rendered her the less fit parent…Exercising our independent review, we find that the Family Court's determination is supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record."
In fact, though Genia's bankruptcy case had nothing whatsoever to do with her family law matter, she even managed to annoy the bankruptcy judge, Cecelia G. Morris. Morris--no surprise--noted numerous contradictions in Shockome's statements, and decried Genia's "refusal to accept any order or ruling that is in conflict with her demands."
Genia Shockome's supporters expected Judge Amodeo--who was presented with no evidence of any violence against Genia beyond her own statements--to simply take her word for it, and allow her to destroy the bonds between the Shockome children and their father...Genia accuses Tim of all of the following: being a pedophile who got sexually aroused by changing his daughter's dirty diapers; sexually abusing his children; masturbating in front of his children; taking his children to a sexual store; having a ferocious sexual appetite for women; having a ferocious homosexual appetite for men; being an abusive father who "beat the kids very often, 2-3 times a day" when Genia and Tim lived together; being a wife-beater; secretly beating his former wife who had a secret miscarriage; beating Genia so she almost had a miscarriage; intimidating five of Genia's witnesses; insurance fraud, identity theft; immigration fraud; defrauding the federal government of $60,000; stealing; embezzlement; extortion; bankruptcy fraud; almost driving over Genia's neighbor's little son; and of violating a protection order over one million times...what judge in his right mind would take this woman's word for anything?
My full co-authored piece on the issue is Shockome Syndrome. I've made the documents in the Shockome case available on my website since 2006--they are:
To read the Court Order from May 10, 2004 where the judge gives sole custody to Timothy Shockome and grants Genia visitation rights, click here.
To read the decision handed down on June 13, 2006 by the New York State Appellate Division, Second Department upholding the May 10, 2004 Court Order, click here.
Genia’s motion for leave to reargue an appeal from an order of the Family Court, Dutchess County rendered May 10, 2004, is denied by the New York State Appellate Division, Second Department on August 18, 2006. To read the court document, click here.
To read the Bankruptcy Court decision rendered by Judge Cecelia G. Morris on May 11, 2006 denying Genia’s request for a stay pending appeal, click here.
To read the transcript of the May 5, 2005 court hearing where Genia was found in contempt of court and sentenced to jail time after interrupting Judge Amodeo over 50 times, click here.
I'm writing several posts about the issues raised in the Slate.com and Salon.com articles--to read the others, click here. The two articles are Kathryn Joyce's "Men's Rights" Groups Have Become Frighteningly Effective (Slate.com, 11/5/09) and Judy Berman's "Men's rights" groups go mainstream--Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability (Salon.com, 11/5/09). Joyce writes
"));
19 queries. 0.378 seconds.
November 10th, 2009 at 1:08 am
What the Slate and Salon writers are doing is actually very sophisticated propaganda.
They state the truth, say something like- feminist controlled family law courts- but then discredit and demonize the source - angry white males. Because we all know white males are stupid any complaints coming from them must also be baseless. We can just ignore the truth because the source is suspect.
When the source is a credible person, like Glenn and Robert, and many others it becomes harder to dismiss. But our "privelege keepers" are going to do their best to knock the messengers off their good reputations in ever so slight ways.
Kathryn and Judy - it took us men awhile but we are on to the whole game now. The reason is because we've worked together as team to piece the puzzle together and share knowledge on this site and others. The cat of injustice is out of the bag and try as you might its not going back in. The question is how long it will take us all to right the ship.
Yes women were oppressed from the witch hunts on. And now the tables are turned. Gloat if you will but it sall society which suffers just as when women were repressed. Two wrongs dont make a right. We congratulate you on turning events so swiftly. However, know this, men and women of good faith will restore a balance that has been lacking for a long time and it wont take us 100s of years.
November 10th, 2009 at 1:41 am
Read the first linked court document in the Shockome case containing the words of Genia Shockome on court record. Then compare it to Glenn's response here. Just devastating.
The idea that anyone, anywhere would support such a person or uncritically use her case as an example of the danger of men's backlash against feminism... it's outrageous. Men, women, journalists- read it.
November 10th, 2009 at 6:08 am
Did I miss Part II?
November 10th, 2009 at 7:05 am
I think feminists are an embarrassment to intelligent women and men everywhere.
Feminists don't really get how big the internet is and it is growing everyday.
Still I think the only way to destroy feminism is to destroy the main-stream media. Including the ABC TV/radio here in Australia BBC in London CBC in Canada etc etc.
No TV, radio, or newspapers on your life, time for a silent revolution people, there is no other way.
November 10th, 2009 at 8:35 am
Preparation for a war?
http://www.angryharry.com/esExtremismandIdiocy.htm
November 10th, 2009 at 9:36 am
I've been looking forward to this blog post ever since reading the original Slate article.
Game. Set. Match.
Checkmate.
Game over.
You pick the term.
November 10th, 2009 at 9:46 am
Wow. Hard to believe they're still dragging out Genia as an example.
Back when, I did a fair amount of research for Glenn regarding that case, which involved speaking with both Tim Shockome and his lawyer. Three things they never mention in articles about Genia:
1. When Tim first had custody of the kids, Genia refused to pay a cent of child support even though she was earning a salary in excess of $60,000 per year.
2. Genia refused to visit her children and was actually implored to do so by the judge in the appeals court. She even missed birthdays. Travel expenses were mandated to be covered by Tim and still she refused to visit the kids. She and Goldstein characterized that choice as part of Genia's "strategy."
3. During the original trial, the court brought in a FEMINIST expert on domestic violence named Meg Sussman to investigate Genia's allegations. Dr Sussman determined there was no basis for Genia's allegations and reccomended that custody remain with Tim.
This case and the mainstream articles and media support for Genia that surrounded it -- including Newsweek -- changed my view of media and journalists forever. People often criticize lawyers. Journalists are much worse.
November 10th, 2009 at 9:50 am
The days when women could openly lie in family court with impunity are coming to a close. I agree with MGTOW, that the internet has allowed the collateral wreckage of the family courts to become knowledgable and organize. There are many feminists, like Berman and Joyce, who are still operating like it is 1972.
November 10th, 2009 at 10:09 am
Excellent work, Glenn. Here's a very troubling parargraph by Joyce, that is most telling: "In one recent case, Genia Shockome, a Russian immigrant, was fighting for custody of her two children with her ex-husband, whom she charged had beaten her so severely that she suffered post-traumatic stress disorder and who had told her she “had no right to leave” since he’d brought her to the United States. The judge in the case sided with her husband’s counter-claims of Parental Alienation Syndrome and awarded him full custody."
Glenn points out that the judge repudiated the abuse charges, just as judges and juries make fact determinations in every case. But the above paragraph doesn't say that. The above paragraph seems written to convey the impression that the Judge felt this men's rights issue of alienation outweighed the abuse.
Glenn, the question for Joyce is this: Must the judge, by necessity, believe every allegation of abuse made by a woman? Because without the abuse -- what's the issue?
November 10th, 2009 at 11:20 am
"And how does Joyce decide that the men are "abusive" when no court has adjudicated them as such?"
An "allegation" is as good as a "conviction." Get a rope...
http://www.hulu.com/movies
Hang Em' High staring Clint Eastwood... Eastwood was hung by this group that "thought" he stole some cattle only to find out he was innocent...
November 10th, 2009 at 11:48 am
My sister was one of the first radical feminist in the 60's. She has fortunately mellowed somewhat over the years. I went through a nasty divorce and was accused of emotional abuse that was proven unfounded. She was able to get past all the accusations and understand the deep pain that I was in over the loss of my child to divorce. The ex who is not a radical feminist gamed the system and manipulated the radical feminists who helped her gain custody.
I read on one father site somewhere that brought up the oppression of men. I was curious enough to read it. Men are forced to go to war in many cases. Men are forced to become a soldier because for financial reasons. Men are forced to do manual labor jobs that cause them to die at an early age. Men are forced to step aside in divorce and let someone else raise their children. Prison are full of non violent men. In my case, I fear the courts and feel that my ex could falsely accuse me of something and I land in prison. This oppression is everywhere.
The fatherhood movement has been given a white male face, but think of all the fathers who had to given up because they could afford to fight. Minority fathers have been all but destroyed.
November 10th, 2009 at 12:18 pm
I think these two articles (as biased as they were) are a sign of the times.
They must discredit us by any means necessary (truth be damned).
This goes to something else too.
Remember the fact that Tyra Banks had a show on abused men?
Here's my point. It is readily available to even the most thick-headed person that feminists are firmly entrenched in academia & congress.
In other words feminism is now the "establishment". As most people know teens & 20 somethings are into anything that is "anti-establishment" or anti-authoritarian.
This means more and more tv hosts and others to show that they are "evant-garde" will be doing more male-friendly shows.
Just as in the 70's, 80's shows proved they were evant-garde by having a tough lead character as a female, etc.. things have now reached a tipping point.
I think you will now start seeing people like Dr Phil, Oprah, and Tyra and others start changing their tunes.
Why? Because they have to stay ahead of the trend. These people have to be trend-setters (not trend followers). Which means they have their ear to the ground of anything gaining traction.
I believe (and hope) sometime in the next 5 years, it will be like watching niagra falls and somebody suddenly turning off the water: book deals, government grants/subsidies, magazine covers for (female privileges disquised as) female issues will dry up & subside to a more normal level, while book deals, government grants/subsidies, magazine covers for real men's misery will explode.
Because the nature of media is to make money, if they don't change they die. I guess it's the old saying: High hopes and low expectations.
Or is it low hopes and high expectations?
Anyway I think we're at a critical point where MRA's are going to push female supremacists bigots out of the shadows and into the limelight (utterly disempowering them) and change things for the better (for men, women bust most importantly and drastically for children)--or we will burn out and become a blip on recent history like the Moonies.
November 10th, 2009 at 1:04 pm
I'm not sure if this link has been provided yet in one of these several posts, but I figured the folks here would like to tae a gander:
http://www.ifeminists.net/e107_plugins/content/content.php?content.603
November 10th, 2009 at 1:46 pm
I have often wondered why legal cases like Shockome are so important to gender feminists. There are enough actual DV claims out there that you would think they would focus their energy on something more productive. Why this one? The strange symbiotic relationship between gender feminists who need to advocate, defend, and make a cause celeb out of every woman fighting for custody no matter how outrageous and unsubstantiated the claims are is rather telling. Having gone through my own 10 year ordeal with numerous false DV claims aimed at me and my family, I have lost whatever blissful innocence I once had. It is obvious that writers like Berman and Joyce are intelligent enough and clever enough that they cannot believe their own squid ink. So why do they keep digging this one up?
At the core of this is the deep seeded belief that some women have that all women should automatically be entitled to full custody and probably all the family assets regardless of the circumstances. False DV is a trump card (or get out of jail free card). When they defend Genia Shockome what they are really defending is their own supremacy. As long as this loophole remains open, all women can always be assured that they will retain custody; no matter what. Worse, for feminists to admit that women often use false DV as a tactic, simultaneously robs them of the cover that they are always the victims. The feminists are so deep in this lie that there is no way out. This time they are the ones that will go down with the ship.
November 10th, 2009 at 1:55 pm
Absentee Dad:
The fatherhood movement has been given a white male face, but think of all the fathers who had to given up because they could afford to fight. Minority fathers have been all but destroyed.
A very important thing to keep in mind. Despite their own racist tendencies feminists have no problem painting MRAs up as racists and being for white men only.
John D:
Remember the fact that Tyra Banks had a show on abused men?
As far as I can tell that episode only aired once maybe twice. Which is very weird considering other episodes air 3-5 times on various channels. In fact I tried looking for again last night and was able to see multiple airings of an episode about 2-16 year old girls who ran a prostitution ring (which is almost as old as the abused men episode). Its almost like it dropped off the face of the earth. Does anyone know of a place that full episode can be seen?
November 10th, 2009 at 2:05 pm
Glenn, I asked this before but I think it's worth reiterating. Have you tried to write a shorter version of this rebuttal to slate or doublex (salon is a lost cause I think). They have a fairly good track record of publishing rebuttals. I think it's worth a shot to get your message to the same readership that read the Joyce article (my guess is they haven't come here to read it). If you can show that you have a reasonable response to their claims they may even start one of their dialogues. Just be prepared for mudslinging in the discussion boards.
November 10th, 2009 at 2:48 pm
@ Greg:
At Salem, 30% of those executed/accused were men.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_of_the_Salem_Witch_Trials
November 10th, 2009 at 4:15 pm
@thePaycheck and Greg...
Go here instead...
The European Witch-Hunts, c. 1450-1750
November 10th, 2009 at 4:19 pm
...keeping the feminist lead balloon floating requires doing whatever it takes to discredit anyone who dares to tell the truth.
November 10th, 2009 at 4:29 pm
Unlike Joyce and Berman, I've actually read the court documents in that case. To read the documents in the case, click here. To read my analysis of that case, click here.
Glenn I didn't read all of it just the first part of this first background part. It appears he was making 27,000 and she was pulling down 60,000.
If that is true haven't you noticed that when the woman makes more than the man the woman usually feels like she is taking care of 2 kids? So they dump the husband?
I don't know anything about this case at all so I "assume" she filed for divorce? anyway just a heads up.....
November 11th, 2009 at 2:11 pm
@gwallan
Excellent link. Thanks.
November 11th, 2009 at 2:21 pm
This is why there ended up being real "trials" before people were lynched, etc... "Allegations" DO NOT = someone actually being guilty.