Monday, April 24, 2006

Another shrew

Heads up on a diatribe from a fathers rights opponent having a go at Carey Roberts in The Washington Times. The usual string of distorted and unsubstantiated "facts" is used to have a go at anyone who might think fathers have some rights.

Writing about the smear job that was "Breaking the Silence: Children's Stories": "The only negative responses received by PBS were from fathers rights activists". Circular logic. If you made a call to PBS and complained, you're a fathers' rights activist.

This is a new one: "most of their activists have sole or joint custody and receive child support instead paying support."If true, and it does seem somewhat unlikely, wouldn't that have to make them much more philanthropic than the rest of the article wants you to believe? Nah, I think it's much more likely of the opposition.

"On a local radio program several years ago, area fathers made these complaints about courts biases against fathers -- but all these men claimed to be one of the lucky ones who got sole custody. " Hmm. I'm sure we could find a local radio program from several years ago to prove just about anything we wanted. You're definitely reaching here...

"They conceal their role in promoting the discredited paternal child abuse cover-up "Parental Alienation Syndrome" (PAS) methodology" 1) I've yet to encounter a fathers' rights activist who wasn't quite happy to recognize PAS and support an open discussion of how to deal with it. 2) Discredited? I don't think so. 3) Methodology? What can she mean?

"published incest advocate Dr. Richard Gardner". Another one from the hysteria mill. It is worth noting that Gardner is dead and unable to defend himself and a careful reading of what he wrote quickly shows that he did not advocate incest at all.

"PAS is based on the twisted notion a father is innocent of child abuse because the mother was upset and complained to authorities." No it isn't. PAS is the systematic alienation of a child from a parent, usually by the other parent. Sometimes this will include false allegations of abuse by the alienating parent.

"Being upset or angry is their definition of lying -- but only for a woman." No dear, not telling the truth is lying. Gender doesn't matter. Men or women can lie. Sometimes very effectively. But not usually as creatively as you.

"The fathers rights allies in Congress and HHS have worked for years to fund millions of dollars in specialized programs granted to state courts and social agencies for services such as enforcing noncustodial parents visitation and responsible fatherhood." Er, why is this bad? 'Besides, given the millions spent on enforceing child support obligations, you'd think it would be fair to make sure the other side played ball as well. Hm?

It goes on: various claims of fake statistics, appeals to nonexistent authority, hyperbolic shrieks of indignation etc, etc.

Finally: "Fathers rights activists do have a lot to be scared about. Their scheme is unwinding and some of them will be prosecuted for what they have been doing for many years. "

Oooooh, we're scared, aren't we guys?

Tags: , , , , ,


Anonymous said...

"the smear job that was "Breaking the Silence: Children's Stories"

The only "smearing" relative to BTS has come from fathers'groups that have libeled Mr. Dominique Lasseur, implying that he is a man-hater who didn't properly research the stories profiled. Nothing could be further from the truth. Moreover, the cases involving "PAS" in BTS all involved the children confirming that the fathers had not only abused them, but had actively fought to destroy their relationships with -- i.e., to alienate them from -- mothers who were trying to protect them. How does documenting this smear normal, non abusive fathers, anyway? BTW, I have met several of the children. Why don't you give me your name and email address. Let's contact them and see their reaction at you having called them liars...

"It is worth noting that Gardner is dead and unable to defend himself"

True, Gardner is dead. Why didn't you mention that he killed himself in an especially gory and bloody suicide after being exposed as a pervert and a fraud. BTW, Did you know that Gardner lied about his status at Columbia University? Did you know that he was an unpaid volunteer? Dr. Richard Gardner MD -Autopsy Report

"and a careful reading of what he wrote quickly shows that he did not advocate incest at all."

Did you even do your homework? Gardner worked to advocate for all kinds of paraphilias, even sex with dead bodies. (What does this have to do with custody anyway?)

BTW, IPT is Ralph Underwager's website. He's dead too, but it's common knowledge that even the FMSF kicked them off their board for advocating pedophilia. Did you know think Ralph was a member of CRC (formerly NCCR), the same fathers'/shared parenting group that Garder used to present for?:

"PAS is the systematic alienation of a child from a parent, usually by the other parent."

How many fathers do you know who lost custody and/or went to jail for alienating their children? Please provide me with at least one case number...

John Doe said...

It is perfectly possible to execute a smear job via selective reporting, a favorite tactic of PAS opponents. Like I said "not telling the truth is lying", thus one can lie by failing to tell the whole story.

Don't libel me: I did not call the children liars.

I confess that I know little more about Gardner himself than I have (mostly) learned from various websites which are quite rabidly determined to malign him and are therefore highly suspect, but I know that PAS exists and should be dealt with as the crime of child abuse that it is.

Anonymous said...

"Don't libel me: I did not call the children liars"

Libel: Any written or published material tending to injure a person's reputation unjustly

Pointing out the ignorant and idiotic comments posted by a person using the name "John Doe" is hardly libel. However, maligning both Ms. Richards and Mr. Lasseur by disseminating lies and misinformation about them most certainly is libel.

Moreover, by calling the BTS documentary a "smear" job, you are clearly trying to discredit the children (both minors and adult children of abusive fathers) whose stories are profiled within. That amounts to calling them liars.

BTW, BTS did not make any statement about all fathers being abusive, nor about normal fathers deserving to lose custody of their children. In fact, in all of the cases profiled involving custody disputes the father gained custody, then went on to block most, or even all, contact between the children and their mothers (i.e., alienating them), with the assistance both of the court/court appointed therapists and evaluators.

The bottom line is that WHEN the father is abusive, he is not only more likely to get custody, but to go on to alienate the children, in addition to whatever abuse he has already perpetrated.

So what exactly is your point, other than being an ignorant and biased hypocrite?

Anonymous said...

after reading these comments, i think i know who anonymous is, no other then Cindy Ross.

Blog Archive