Trish,

How do you expect anyone to react when they are not given the same resources or consideration as someone of the other gender, when they and/or their children are in danger? We're talking about people who have suffered devastating domestic situations.

You seem to have so much sympathy or empathy for women victims and their children, yet I never see you offer the same to fathers and their children. You seem to be of the opinion, like so many "on your side" that it's all or nothing, that we must be at war.

Both genders batter. Parents of both genders want to protect their battered children from their abuser. Parents of both genders have suffered at the hands of the current family law system.

You and I both want the same thing, basically. We both want children to be safe, happy and emotionally healthy, right?

We both agree that the law that just passed in California (SB1088) is an example of the kind of reform needed nationwide, right?

You are not describing the fathers and family rights movement accurately. You are pointing out instances where fathers in pain with no recourse have lashed out. I can go to several places online and find mothers saying things even worse than that. What's the point?

Families are suffering. Families, Trish. Not just battered moms. Families.

Teri
Feminist4Fathers (and mothers)
http://feminist4fathers.blogspot.com/

I'm goddamned tired of whinny privaleged men bitching about them being denied their rights. Holly crap, which right do they want, the one to beat the shit out of their wife whenever they want, the right to rape their daughters and sons if they feel the need?

I know of too many battered women who have lost custody of their children becuase they have shown up in court brusied, scared and confused, while smug bastards in suits with money have stolen children who they don't care about.

I was raped by my loving father for eight damn years and he had the nerve to try and fight my mom for child support when he dumped her for another woman...These men who compalin about women or the aplogist women who stand up for them, should look at family law statistics before start whinning about female abusers.

They do exist and should be dealt with in the same manner as any abuser, but unfortunately facts don't lie and their are more men than women beating up partners these days and abusing children.

Why should someone who abuses anyone have custodial rights? Do we give rapists the right to visit their victims after they've served their time? Do we allow people charged with criminal and bodily assuault to go back and take responsibility for people they beaten to a pulp?

Neither men nor women should thing that just because they were involved with the birthing of a child that automatically entitles them to right of ownership no matter what their behaviour is like. If we are serious in wanting to protect the children in our society we need to rid ourselves of the myth that "family" is sacred.

Some of the worst crimes against children occur within the family, and too many people hide behind their so called rights as a parent. This has got to stop.

A parent's right is to protect, nurture and raise a child as best they can. Anyone who breaks that covenant of protection should be stripped of the privalege of being around children.

Ask yourself if these guy had really wanted their children in the first place would they have acted in such a way as to cause their wives to want to have nothing to do with them?

What a pity. Fathers are the abused from the law and the land. I saw a father hang himself from his neck because he gave up his fight for custody. No one wanted to hear him. His wife was a child abuser, convicted for numerous felony and misdomeanor crimes, some against children. Her current arrests were thrown out despite police and civilian testamony because the prosocution was prosecuting him and had a 'conflict'. Her affair with her attorney didn't bat eyelashes. So, she was able to keep the kids. He even went to jail for three years because he was keeping his children away from this abuser, drug user, alcoholic wife. The kids were beaten, burnt with cigarettes, locked away by the wife. If a man had done this, he would have been locked up for life. She did this and he commited suicide by hanging. No one listened to him. No one cared about the man, only the poor innocent woman.

Trish,

There are many mothers who support father's rights movements. I am one of these women. I am also a foreigner. As well am I a mother who never took her ex husband back to court after enjoying physical custody of our children for almost three years. In the 10 years my Ex husband had full custody, never once did I think of kidnapping my children even though the pain was worse then losing my father in the same year.

Most women who commit kidnappings also claim to have been beaten and abused. I believe that not even 10 percent of these claims are true including the ones which supposedly have been verified in court. It is a trend well abused!

My Ex husband never abused me nor did he ever threaten me in any way shape or form, more so it was the girl friend >> a woman who pushed to win and protect her own financial goals as well did she inflict psychological damage upon my children, me and my ex husband as well all family's involved. Therefore this woman should be prosecuted for it.
I need men to protect my gender and my children, men fought in wars for not only their countries, they protect their families by doing so. They are born with instincts unlike woman.
I fell into an abusive relationship later on.I had endured physical restrain like most children at home in order to bring rules and respect into a family, most of it I received from my mother.

My abuser was a PAS victim himself. A child who was ignored by a young mother ( 16 ) who found herself to have a second child with 17 got a divorce and cut the father out of their lives. She then married a second time when she was 19 leaving two young boys to be raised mainly by themselves and an alcoholic stepfather, this mother ignored her responsibility!
Maybe it is time to define domestic violence into a broader spectrum. We have a silent brutality within all of our family's, this silent domestic violence we may call psychological abuse which needs to be recognized
Also, any woman who has been sexually abused by her father needs to also learn to point fingers at the mother! It is the mother's responsibility as the other parent to protect her abused child, if she does not; she as well needs to be punished for the same crime which was committed to her child. If she has no access to the child like so many fathers don't have access to theirs baby's then maybe you need to help change laws to stop the myths of abuse, it all can backfire into your own families.
The mother/female needs to learn to take the same amount of responsibility in this ongoing blame game. If woman/feminists want same rights as the male gender
They are to receive the same punishments regardless of their gender.


Mona Lena USA

When is all this gender based biased bullshit gonna stop, and people focus on the real issue.... The children, and what is best for them.

All this mother father shit is just a side tracked issue, and it is quite an effective one at that, I mean how much positive has been done through the attacks on PBS? The point is a letter is a letter, however the massive amounts of energy put forth in attacking PBS, Sponsors, and even the groups who support such nonsense, is energy that could better be used directed to your legislators getting a bill introduced and passed.

For 30 plus years the GOVERNMENT has stacked the deck against PARENTS and CHILDREN. THE GOVERNMENT HAS INSTITUTED GENDER BASED DESCRIMINATION IN THE PURSUIT OF FEDERAL FUNDING, and the reason progress can not and will not be made is simply issues just like this one.

Do you really think it is a coincidence that P.A.S is finally starting to take on a face in the MSM? If so I got a bridge to sell each and every one of you, on both sides of this issue.

In the last 2 years I have seen more progress made toward what is legitimately best for Children and the families that love them, by the actions of only a small handful of people than the entire movement has made in 30 years.

You will never acheive change by the use of rage & attitude when your officials refuse to meet with you because you are known or defined as a loose cannon or simply put a hot head.

Get real, Get focused, voice your opinion and move on, contrary to belief this is not the kind of attention that you want, however much like a very famous man once said...." I Have a Dream".

I mean realistically the numbers are there and they should have already been posted upon this page, considering that in excess of 60% of all child abuse is perpatrated by the Custodial Mother, and to further that when the children are granted to the Mother in 80% plus of all custody cases, how is it that Fathers are the villain in P.A.S? I fail to see the recent up to date correlation with the opinions expressed by the original author of this, and to go even beyond that I suggest that person do some real research using todays actual statistics as provided by the Federal Government, to make the argument even close to credible. I mean even my 5th and 8th Grade kids have more accurate research for their topics related to issues very similar to this, and the best part is it is their mother who helped them pick their topics, and find some of the best research material to use.
Much like the heavily funded Gender wars in courts across America, P.A.S is simply and sadly being used now to further promote those gender wars because the status quo is being challenged with credible evidence, and undisputable truth.

The SAD REALITY is while is sit here typing this another hundred kids lose one or both parents to an over zealous state government that only cares about the money it can extort as a result of having posession of the child in one way or another....

The comment posted by gypsyman and also of the author do not comply with the statistics that are actually proven by the National Incidence of Child Abuse and Neglect states in pertinent part that mothers are more likely to sexually abuse birth children while non-sexual type abuse was distributed somewhat evenly when only the birth parents were taken into consideration. I have attached the URL and a couple of excerpts from the Executive Summary of the Third National Incidence Study of Child Abuse and Neglect.

from: link

instances re: sexual abuse:
---------------------------------------
Children were somewhat more likely to be maltreated by female perpetrators than by males: 65 percent of the maltreated children had been maltreated by a female, whereas 54 percent had been maltreated by a male. Of children who were maltreated by their birth parents, the majority (75%) were maltreated by their mothers and a sizable minority (46%) were maltreated by their fathers (some children were maltreated by both parents). In contrast, children who were maltreated by other parents or parent-substitutes, or by other persons, were more likely to have been maltreated by a male than by a female (80 to 85% were maltreated by males; 14 to 41% by females).
---------------------------------------

instances re: among all abused children:
---------------------------------------
Among all abused children, those abused by their birth parents were about equally likely to have been abused by mothers as by fathers (50% and 58%, respectively), but those abused by other parents, parent-substitutes, or other, nonparental perpetrators were much more likely to be abused by males (80 to 90% by males versus 14 to 15% by females). This general pattern held for emotional abuse, but was slightly different in the area of physical abuse. Children who had been physically abused by their birth parents were more likely to have suffered at the hands of their mothers than their fathers (60% versus 48%), while those who had been physically abused by other parents or parent- substitutes were much more likely to have been abused by their fathers or father-substitutes (90% by their fathers versus 19% by their mothers). For sexual abuse, the child's relationship to the perpetrator made very little difference, since males clearly predominated as perpetrators, whatever their relationship to the child. Moreover, the severity of the injury or impairment that the child experienced as a result of maltreatment did not appear to bear any relationship to the sex of the perpetrator.
---------------------------------------
The airing of "Breaking the Silence" is not a true documentary and it clearly demonstrates a more ferocious attempt to air information that slants public views and an attempt to gain more funding through discrimatory laws like VAWA.

There is no doubt that there are truly abusive relationships out there in both directions, but the reality of it is, it's more likely the result of bad decision making skills and unhealthy interdependence.

There should be a study of how many daughters grew up without fathers around so they don't know how to engage in a healthy relationship (bonding to any man that pays them attention) and the same for boys growing up with "moms" who probably themselves had been exposed to multitudes of mom's poor relationships. What's the problem? I bet it has more to do with the parents of the last two generations bearing the fruits of non-committment and "free love." Lets get real and attempt to solve the problem that really is the social injustice... parental irresponsibility and teach healthy interdependence.

Lets stop with the abuse excuse of the extreme feminist position and focus on the next generation...our children.. and help them realize that the best parent is both parents and install programs for the women making bad decisions with relationships as well as men before our next generation grows up even more dysfunctional than the last.

Lary Holland
http://www.laryholland.org

the pbs program addresses the way children are affected by domestic violence...it isn't nor does it have to be about abused spouses, men or women, in order to present a credible perspective of domestic violence...it presents the largest slice of the domestic violence pie: children...the majority of those children were abused by fathers as were their mothers...that the program includes abused mothers of the abused children does not detract from the reality of abused fathers or abusive mothers...it merely allows for the fact that the majority of abused children are parented by abused mothers and abusive fathers...those who would argue that the makers of this program should have presented a more balanced picture should first look at how unbalanced the picture is: there are significantly more children than adults affected by domestic violence, and the majority of adult victims of domestic violence are women...
if someone wants to make a documentary about abusive women and the men they abuse, they are welcome to do so...they will have a hell of time coming up with a proportionately dire program...until then, the majority of the light will continue to shine on those who make up the majority of victims: children and their mothers...
argue all day long for abused fathers, the fact of the matter is that they are in the minority...what makes this particular aspect of domestic violence harrowing is that an abused father is even less likely to come forward on behalf of his children than would an abused mother...even as a victim, it is his choice to come forward or not...that beaten and bedraggled women have chosen to come forward on behalf of their children despite their peril and the risk involved in doing so doesn't bode well for the "victim" stance of any man who chooses to keep quiet...the possibility of public shame and humiliation be damned, you either care more about your children than you do yourself or you don't...among those of us who did choose the hard way out and know all too well how difficult it is, we still have only a limited amount of sympathy for those who continue to choose the mire...
frankly, i don't give a rat's ass what accusatory men who haven't been abused think of abused fathers and neither should abused fathers...if you're an abused father and your children are at risk, do what you have to do to get yourself and those children the hell out of there...call the police, keep track of the reports, file that paperwork, frame that protective order, take pictures, hide video and tape recorders, line up allegiances with friends and family, and tell, tell, tell...keeping it secret for your own protection does nothing but make it worse for your children -- and it doesn't protect you from losing anything you can't later retrieve...your children will grow up someday and they will likely confront you about what you did or, more importantly, what you didn't do about their mother abusing them and you...if you didn't do everything in your power to put their safety and welfare needs ahead of your ego then you will have lost something you can never regain: their allegiance, love, and respect...personally, i wouldn't want my nursing home picked out by the child i didn't protect...

those who assert that mothers are the majority child abusers define domestic violence without the inclusion of child sex abuse nor do they include those statistics wherein the abused is both mother and child...put it all together and fathers are the majority abusers...this is not to say abusive mothers should be let off the hook, it is to say that when asserting the realities of domestic violence, every facet of violence is to be included...there is no need to break it down unless you're trying to twist facts to favor an untrue assertion...abusive mothers are a reality as are their victims so there is no need to twist anything to prove it...using a separate reality, abusive fathers being the majority abusive parent, to minimize or strengthen any argument is counterproductive to the safety and welfare of the most important and majority consideration of domestic violence: children...

trish' comments did come across as incorrectly grouping all men into one abusive category and used isolated comments to further this assertion...nonetheless, the facts remain: men make up the majority of abusive spouses, more children than adults are the victims of that violence, children are victims of the efforts on the part of the abuser to keep the children in the violent situation, and they are victims of an abusive parent even when the abuser only abuses the other parent...
refuting trish' comments with yet more isolated comments and conditions serves only to shift the focus away from the most important part of the equation: more children suffer with domestic violence than anyone else...efforts by caregivers to get the children out of these situations are becoming increasingly thwarted by the abuser...the abuser is more often a man than a woman and the abused caregiver is more often a woman than a man...again, argue all day long for something or someone else, it will still detract from caring for the majority of victims of domestic violence: children...

contrasting a witness's post of one incident is gypsyman's personal experiences coupled with his knowledge of many
women having been further abused by the system's allegiance to the abuser's ability to appear and litigate sans personal injury to body, mind, and financial resources...
yes teri, it is about families, and both genders batter...the rest of the story is that families are no less families for the absence of an abusive father and both genders do not batter each other in equal numbers as one batters significantly more than the other...while i would not subscribe to trish' apparent all-or-nothing approach, i also cannot subscribe to the idea of approaching education and prevention from the angle that both genders fill the roles of abused/abuser equally when clearly they do not...

an abused man with little or no resources or recognition crying out against documentaries like the pbs program is reacting from the stance of a victim -- which he most certainly is if he is being abused by anyone, woman or not...it should surprise no one to find out he was also an abused child...further, his victimization started with the pain of domestic violence in his childhood having been obviously ignored else he wouldn't still consider himself a victim...
the goal of the pbs program is to insure the needs of these child victims, male and female, are no longer ignored even if one of the parents is a victim also and to insure the children's best interest is not thwarted especially by the abuser...

the majority of domestic court cases begin with a presentation of evidence that the father was abusive and in the majority of cases that abuse is later substantiated...that there are contests, appeals, and deliberately deceptive efforts made to overturn the outcomes of those cases doesn't negate the fact that the abuse took place...while the numerous rulings against abusive fathers make it easy for some to assume the courts are thus biased, it's no excuse for believing as much when the facts continue to prove this simply isn't true...

the pbs program presents the majority plight and points out the fallacies that currently exist that serve only to further victimize those who are already victims...those who would contest the realities of domestic violence (specifically who does what to whom) would do well to spend their next few days off in family court and/or volunteer in a shelter and/or an emergency room rather than jumping into the middle of the fray and opining from their limited point of view...

larry, that's not what the american bar association says, or the international child abuse network when addressing statistics in america, or the national center for ptsd...

in fairness, and because your findings so seriously contradict mine, i'm going to look further into this to see if i can find anything else that coincides with the study you cited from the u.s. dept of health and human services...

I don't why a bunch of knuckle-dragging men would so upset about a film that tries convince America that men are vicious and rage-filled, that they should be forever removed from thier childs lives forever. Never mind the fact that this film refuses to allow the truth to get in the way of it's message. However, I do believe that the father of those 3 boys, floating in that Bay next the the 'City of Liberal Enlightenment', might have some serious disagreements with the topic of this film, and the false premise it tries to support. I suppose even the lives of our might vulnerible children are acceptable fodder in the battle to socailize America. How many more children will die, before the left finally learns that they are wrong?

Dear Ms Wilson:
You should contact Teri in Cali. She has much unbiased information on this topic that you might benefit from studying.

We are all well aware that women and children are being battered and abused by men. It took many, many years for battered women to be taken seriously.

It is now proven by many studies that women can be/are as violent as men. The only difference is that women's abuse and violence towards children and men is excused by women's groups, the media and those with an agenda to demonize men.

This PBS show does absolutely nothing to help those women who are abusive. Do you know of any programs for female batterers? There are none. So, these abusive women are never held accountable and never receive the help they need and continue battering their spouses and children. Many boys battered by their mothers turn out to batter their spouses and children.

And as far as your quotes from father's rights sites, I could point you to many bitter, anti-male radical feminists sites on the web. The SCUM Manifesto is much quoted on various sites.

Gee like your sources are reputable.Trish Wilson is a one-sided person just like i imagine the documentary is......

you've got to be kidding!

I can't speak for the other posts (which don't seem far from the truth at all), but I can say that in my marriage I (the husband) was the "victim" of domestic violence (DV) on a few occasions. One time my wife threw a bottle of skin cream at me because I was teasing her. Another time she carved up my face with her fingernails because, when we were at the beach, I playfully carried her to the water and she did not want to get wet. Maybe it was my fault and she just overreacted. Needless to say, I didn't report her to the police. I learned my lesson though, and avoided provoking her in the future. [Note: I never hit or cheated on my wife]

I can also say from experience that when I worked in the family court (three years) I saw a significant number of men come in as victims of DV. Some had marginal injuries, others had knife wounds, black eyes, and one had a chunk of his hand bitten off. In a few instances, male clients told me that they tried to come in before, but the officers at the metal detector turned them away saying things like "come on, you're a guy, you don't need to come here," but they came back anyway. Overall, there were very few men and women coming in with serious injuries, most just meeting the legal definition of DV

Over time, I have learned that "definitions" can lead to unnecessary confusion and debate. I'm assuming that you, like me, think of DV in layman's terms (i.e., a partner got beat up bad one time, or a spouse has had repeated low impacts leading to Battered Spouse Syndrome). The legal definition is quite different however. The family court works with a very broad definition, which includes things like "emotional abuse", "verbal abuse", "economic abuse", "paternity fraud", "non-existent-but-perceived abuse", "fear or anticipated abuse", and the kicker: responding to a provocation or self-defense -if you are the stronger person (I think that is called "primary aggressor").

For example, I helped a woman get a DV restraining order because her husband called her fat. In addition to being true, it was considered to be verbal abuse. I also helped a woman get a DV restraining order for her and her son because her boyfriend threw a deflated soccer ball at her when he came home and caught her talking with another man -she actually didn't want to get the order for their son, but she said that after reporting it, Child Protective Services (CPS) got involved and they told her if she didn't include their son, CPS would take their son away from. Another time, I helped a woman get a DV restraining order because she had a flat tire on her day of court, and, although she didn't see anything, she was convinced that her ex did it out of spite. "Fat", "deflated soccer ball", and "flat tire" don't meet my definition of DV, but it does count for court, and probably the people who generate statistics.

So one of the first questions I would like to know is what definition you are using?

On a separate issue -DV sexism, I have a cousin who got pissed-off at her husband, and punched him in the face, I don't know whether or not he deserved it, but I know he didn't report it. Oddly enough, his mother did report my cousin, but lucky for her, the police didn't do anything to my cousin. On the other hand, a few months after getting divorced, they had an argument in which the ex pushed my cousin as he was leaving (he was mad that she didn't want to let him see their son). About a half hour later my cousin wanted to teach him a lesson so she called the police. He was arrested about an hour after that. Then, all of a sudden, she was sorry because she didn't expect the police officers to take it so far. I have seen and heard of many more situations where this pattern is repeated.

Again I can't speak for others, but from my own experience, and this is just a sample, I have seen that:
1) women can be just as aggressive as men,
2) in order to avoid unnecessary disagreement, it is important that both parties to the discussion are using the same definition,
3) although the written DV laws don't support sexism, in practice it is not at all uncommon, and
4) it would be naive or insincere to suggest that a double-standard for men and women does not exist.

So, if this PBS show is in any way trying to skew DV as a "only men commit DV" show, I'd liken it to Dan Rather's career-ending report on Bush, and say that the Rush Limough's of the world are accurate when the speak of a biased reporting media.

By the way, I did read about 70 pages of "Why Does He Do That", besides being boring; it seemed to cater to a subjective audience driven by emotion. I wouldn't recommend the book unless you want cover your own shortcomings by blaming someone else. It was a gift from a gorgeous attorney I was dating, who couldn't understand why I wouldn't commit to being her boyfriend until she grew-up, and reciprocated my fidelity. As a footnote, after I stopped seeing her, she met some guy, who she married, but continued to attempt to persuade me to come over for a bootie-call when he was away. Lousy book.

I'm in complete agreement that the entire "gender" war needs to stop and FAST.

WHO FREAKING CARES WHICH GENDER HAS "MORE" ABUSERS?????? In every single case there is a CHILD involved that is being emotionally and/or physically scarred for life from the situation!

I honestly don't see how all of these self proclaimed intelligent reporters and authors and whatnots can't see the forest through the trees and realize the the longer they focus on GENDER the more children will DIE!!!

Knock it off already!!!!!!!!!

The entire court system is a money churning cog-wheel that continues to suck money out of EVERYONE'S pockets (male AND female). One win to the "Fathers Rights" side just to piss of the Moms. Then the system will give a win to the Moms side just to piss off the Fathers Rights side again and keep them fired up.

WHEN WILL WE FINALLY BE ABLE TO JOIN FORCES???????????

If the Fathers Rights Movements don't think they are making an impact, think again. (And yes, in some ways I this is good). Less than a year ago I started an emotional support group for Mothers who have lost custody and in less than a year I've spoken with, e-mailed with, and posted on my boards with THOUSANDS of Mothers who have lost custody. NO DRUGS, NO ABUSE, just lost custody to the Father because he requested it. Most of the Fathers simply had more money, more power... WHATEVER.

But the problem is, these Fathers are NOT doing any better of a job than the MILLIONS of selfish, egotistical, and controlling Custodial MOMS who keep the children away from the Dads.

Why does it have to be an "all or nothing" mentality to the Custodial Parent?

When will divorced couples learn to co-parent?

When will divorced couples quit using the children as pawns?

There are so many more important issues that need to be addressed and resolved than "which gender abuses children more often".

I just wish the people who are in positions to write articles, produce television shows and get publicity for child custody issues would focus on issues that could MAKE A DIFFERENCE FOR THE CHILDREN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Beverly Morris
President & Founder
NANCM, Inc.
www.nancm.com

(A NON gender-biased support group for Mothers AND Fathers who may need emotional support dealing with not having custody of their children). NANCM believes in SHARED PARENTING when (and only when) both parents are fit and loving.

Thank you Nancy, for pointing out that children and parents of both genders suffer because of the inadequate adversarial family court system.

Teri
Feminist4Fathers (and mothers)

Shared Parenting Works
"86% polled favored the presumption of equal physical and legal child custody"

And thank YOU Teri for continuing your efforts for BOTH sides... which is what will ultimately help the children the most.

"those who assert that mothers are the majority child abusers define domestic violence without the inclusion of child sex abuse nor do they include those statistics wherein the abused is both mother and child...put it all together and fathers are the majority abusers..."

Not true. When you look at child sexual abuse FATHERS are the LEAST LIKELY TO ABUSE. The most likely male to abuse sexually is Mommy's new boyfriend.

When you look at child physical abuse and neglect mothers are the offenders a little more often than fathers.

But that's not the point!

You want children protected. So do we.

You think presumptive equal custody will put children in harm's way. We believe it protects them.

You have painted us with your own brush because of your past experiences with your perpetrators. We are not those men. We don't support abusers in any form.

We support, or are, good, fit, responsible, loving parents and grandparents who have not received adequate services from the family court system, just like you.

Teri
Feminist4Fathers
http://feminist4fathers.blogspot.com/

Thanks Bev. We'll show them how to work together. Someone has to do it. ( :

Teri

I would like to state the fact my two daughters and my twin sons are all the victims of parental alienation syndrome. It is real and sad but in the end truth and love can only repair the damage to the children . Good Fathers need faith to overcome the insidious affects of PAS . The system must address PAS now before we lose a generation of vulnerable children.Ask my kids about PAS if you don't believe me . 4 the children - dad4justice

Hopefully -- at some point -- the new epidemic, Meth Moms is going to wake up judges and legislators, and turn the tide in the inherent discrimination against men.

======

BTW: re gender as determiner of a good parent:

There are no absolutes. Anecdotes can cover monster men and monster women pretty equally, I would guess.

(Of all the situations I've known personally, the WOMEN were the violent NUT CASES -- so go figure.)

====

[as far as abuse dangers:

IMO: in general, men are physically stronger -- but women are generally wackier. Is that Nature's way of equalizing things?]

I would like to say, first and foremost, I did not watch the special as I knew it would make me angry. The most important people in this whole issue: THE CHILDREN are being ignored.

When are we all going to act like the grown ups we say we are and look out for their best interest and stop worrying about our own selfish pride. When are people going to pull their heads out of the clouds and truly do WHAT IS BEST FOR THE CHILDREN!!!

After an ugly battle over the last 2 years, my ex and I have finally pulled our heads out of the clouds and realized that the only best resolution for our children is to co-parent them. Our daughter is special needs; he knows the best place for her is with me because of my educational and professional experiences. He also knows that our son and our daughter are close because all they have been through in the last couple of years, they are their own best support system, and cannot therefore be separated. Rather than thinking of himself, he put his own wants and desires aside and realized the best place for her is with me, which means, the best place for our son is also with me.

PAS does exist. My own mother used this when I was younger to alienate my brother and I from our father and tried to do it to me and my ex with our own children when the courts placed them with my mother to keep the children out of harms way of mine and my ex's stupidity. My ex and I now realize that as adults, our needs come last, it is their needs that come first and foremost.

Parents should be parents, grandparents should be grandparents. CHILDREN should be allowed to be CHILDREN and adults need to act more like adults and set the example for the children. ADULTS NEEDS TO GROW UP, stop playing games like they did in high school. Stop playing the blame game, mind games, manipulation, abuse tactics (physical, mental, emotional, verbal) and do what is best FOR THE CHILDREN.

If you were abused in any way whether as a child or an adult, seek help for you and your loved ones. If you are to ashamed, then don't blame society for your failures and expect a hand out. You have to be willing to help your self. To some this post may be harsh, but I went thru being abused by my mother,molested for two years when I was a young teen, raped in my mid 20's(my daughter was conceived of that rape), abused by my ex as that is all he knew how to treat a woman because he never got counseling for it in his youth. I have gotten counseling, my ex has gotten counseling; we have made amends and reconciled to the fact that we need to do our best to co-parent our children, inspite of our differences. We did not divorce because of the abuse, but actually because we both realized I could get more help for our daugther as a single mom , then we could being married with him in the military. I am grateful that it got me out of the abusive situation, but we were more focused on getting our daughter's needs taken care of first and foremost.

When everyone can stop thinking of their wants and desires, and stop feeding into the money hungry court system, put aside their own differences, and think of THE CHILDREN. Stop giving money to a corrupt system. Judges who most often don't care, just want to make a judgement to where someone isn't happy, and then they will get tired of the court ruling and come back only to put more money in the pockets of these corrupt judges. If you work together, and keep the court out of parenting your children, stop paying money into the corrupt system and invest it into your best asset: THE CHILDREN!!!

Think of your childhood. Was it peaceful, if yes. You are fortunate. Did your parents divorce but get along, even "if just for the kids' sake". you are fortunate.Were you raised by both parents?..... you are extremely fortunate. Were you abused while one parent turned a blind eye??? Seek help and then be willing to help others.

Don't just complain about the system.....be a part of those who want to change it and make it better for all. Stop making it about men vs. women. Men..... women can't get pregnant without you. Women....you didn't get pregnant by yourself. If you are both old enough to sleep together, be prepared to raise a child if you both get pregnant(and yes, men get pregnant too; not just the women. Men sleep with women; they should be man enough to take the responsibility of "spreading their seed", and take on that responsibility as equally as the women do.)
I pray for each and every person who reads this post that they will hear the truth of the words I write, that they will see that changes need to start within before you can expect anyone or anything in the world around you to change.

link to article at democratandchronicleDOTcom

Deadbeat dads


Entertainers should stop making light of men leaving their kids




(October 23, 2005) � In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, rapper Kanye West made a lot of headlines by saying that President Bush doesn't care about black people. His point was that the government ought to have done more to rescue poor people, nearly all of whom were African American, who were left behind in New Orleans.

So it's ironic that West's single "Gold Digger" which is currently No. 1 on the Billboard music charts, takes up the banner for men who are annoyed by having to support their children. That attitude is a major reason many people, like those stranded in New Orleans, end up stuck in a cycle of poverty.

According to U.S. census information, children in single-parent households are four times as likely to grow up in poverty as those in families where both parents are present. In many poor communities, the number of single mothers, and sometimes fathers, who bear full responsibility for their children is growing.

Meanwhile millionaire rapper Young Jeezy is being sued by his son's mother because he has told child support administrators that he owns no property and makes only $35 a day.

That hasn't stopped him from appearing on TV draped in diamonds or offering the use of his Atlanta mansion to Katrina evacuees. His son, meanwhile, lives in public housing.

And these "artists" claim they're getting a bad rap. Please.

To Teri In Cali:

I read your story about "Is He Loser or Is He Dad." In it you said you divorced three of you children's dads, they left and were not there for their kids? Given your personal experience with your own children's fathers, what makes you think all dads want to be involved in their children's lives? Why did you divorce three of your childrens dads? Were they abusive to you?

MOM

Yes everyone, the differences of opinions go on.
Yup, Used to be a MOM, that's me. That is it thanks to my former husband who decided that I needed to be punished for leaving an abusive marriage. One more way of being able to control me is through our children. Yup,get her where it will hurt the most. Use those kids to do it and we'll call it Parental Alienation.
Whether it be the Mom or Dad who does it, it is 110% wrong. Kids do need 2 parents in their lives regardless of how we feel about our former spouses. Do I like my former husband? No. Would I ever say anything demeaning, demoralizing or hurtful about him in front of our kids? NO.
But then again, I never got the chance really. In order to avoid child support he repeatedly claimed child abuse to our local child services. They were taken away for 2 weeks with a "no contact" order. They were then released back to me with a "no danger" report.
Yup, after those 2 weeks when they were released, they were not the same kids...and never have been. We are coming up on the 3 yr mark...and yup, he still has me where it hurts. Yup, sad for me, but sadder for our kids. They have been denied the love of their mom and the rest of my family....but guess what?
Moms do it also. I have seen it done and it is so wrong....Moms and Dads are both guilty of it and it needs to stop.
I know some great custodial dads and great custodial moms......can't we all just do what's best for our children?

Countess,
I wish you would stop using quotes and claim they're Fathers' rights activists, when you don't even know who you are quoting! How would you like it if someone started using quotes off the internet and saying that they are quoting you?
And you do the samething with your articles. You use quotes and don't even say who you're quoting. How do we know you're not making these quotes up yourself?
Please stop protecting these people if they are as bad as you claim.

Pete, you know perfectly well that those are quotes by fathers' rights activists, in their own words. I know exactly who I was quoting. You aren't allowed to troll my blog anymore, and you're acting out here. Take it elsewhere, preferably to the fathers' rights mailing lists where you post most of your drivel.

If fathers rights activists care so much for children, why would they try and stop a PBS documentary that exposes court corruption that puts children in danger? Fathers rights groups put these children in this position when they demanded an end to the tender years doctrine and equal rights for men to get custody.

Tish Wilson wrote, "but most victims of domestic violence are women."
here reports that "Women also comprised a larger percentage of all (child abuse) perpetrators than men: 58 percent compared to 42 percent."
here reports that "Females were more often (child abuse) perpetrators than males (59.3% females, 40.7% males)."
I could go on. The question is, who do you want to believe, Tish Wilson or national studies into domestic violence?

Tish Wilson wrote, "but most victims of domestic violence are women."
here reports that "Women also comprised a larger percentage of all (child abuse) perpetrators than men: 58 percent compared to 42 percent."
here reports that "Females were more often (child abuse) perpetrators than males (59.3% females, 40.7% males)."


There is never an excuse for abuse of children but these stats are easily explained as most mothers are the ones caring for their children as most dads think their work is done after a day at the office. Many are single moms whos children's dads walked out and left them to do it all alone. Extreme stress can make people do strange things. I would like to know more about the dynamics surrounding these statistics. The stats are still pretty high for men considering they don't usually do most of the day to day hands on parenting.

It is so sad to see 2 women from NANCM, who both were admitted victims of domestic violence, espousing mandatory shared parenting for all other abuse victims (male or female) trying to protect their children. You both should be ashamed of yourselves. Promoting laws like that makes the bar that much higher to hurdle for victims and their children. If you really care about the safety of children, stop affiliating with father's rights activists, learn something about abuser's tactics, read a Lundy Bancroft book. Maybe then you can really adequately provide "support" for non-custodial mothers who were victims of abuse. Until then, all you are doing is fueling the FR machine to make more mothers lose their children. But I guess that will keep your support group running, as you'll then have more and more non-custodial mothers to share in all the grief and pain that you and your children have endured. Get a clue, ladies. Teri Stoddard is not your friend.

AMEN!

More "blanketing". Gosh, it gets so old so quick.

If you've looked at www.nancm.com, the Mission Statement, 3 areas of focus, core beliefs, etc. you will see that NANCM supports shared parenting WHEN (AND ONLY WHEN) BOTH PARENTS ARE FIT AND LOVING.

Simply because some of the responders on here are from NANCM and they are victims of abuse does not mean that they support an abusive parent getting partial custody. That's an ABSURD assumption!

Yes, unfortunately a good portion of NCM's at NANCM are victims of abuse. But NANCM is in no way a support group for abused women.

NANCM was created for the emotional support of ANY non custodial parent who is having a hard time adjusting emotionally to their limited or non existent relationship with their children! CAN YOU UNDERSTAND THAT?????????

Some of you... PEOPLE ... just can't seem to realize how many MILLION shades of gray there are. You want everybody to fit perfectly into your round little peg. Well guess what? Some situations have caused triangular shapes, square shapes, oval shapes, star shapes... and there is not a quick and simple answer that is going to magically fix everybody's situation.

Some murderers and rapists use the insanity plea to get away with their crime; knowing full well they aren't insane. Does that mean that insanity doesn't exist?? HELL NO!

Well, the same thing goes for PAS. Are there sick and twisted abusive parents out there (Mothers AND Fathers) who use PAS in reverse to get custody of their kids and continue their abusive ways? YOU BETTER BELIEVE IT!! But that DOES NOT mean that PAS does not exist.

I am a childhood victim of it myself. I was raised by my Father. My Father did an incredible job as a Father with one exception. He did not foster a healthy relationship with my Mother. He spoke badly of her and encouraged others in the family to do the same. I believed all of this until I got married and had children of my own. When my EX kidnapped our children a year after our divorce and I had my first taste of the family court system, I learned very quickly that the world is not the safe haven for Mothers I once believed it to be. It was a very big turning point in my relationship with my own Mother.

It's really so simple people. Anybody who feels the need to focus on gender is only in this for their own personal agenda and not for the CHILDREN.

Anybody who feels the need to focus on gender and point fingers at the other side is CLEARLY and BLATANTLY part of the problem, not part of the solution.

Period.

Beverly Morris
President & Founder
NANCM, Inc.
www.nancm.com

strawberry note on October 24, 2005 06:05 PM:
It is so sad to see 2 women from NANCM, who both were admitted victims of domestic violence, espousing mandatory shared parenting for all other abuse victims (male or female) trying to protect their children. You both should be ashamed of yourselves. Promoting laws like that makes the bar that much higher to hurdle for victims and their children. If you really care about the safety of children, stop affiliating with father's rights activists, learn something about abuser's tactics, read a Lundy Bancroft book. Maybe then you can really adequately provide "support" for non-custodial mothers who were victims of abuse. Until then, all you are doing is fueling the FR machine to make more mothers lose their children. But I guess that will keep your support group running, as you'll then have more and more non-custodial mothers to share in all the grief and pain that you and your children have endured. Get a clue, ladies. Teri Stoddard is not your friend.
Comment 23 posted by used to be a MOM (member of NANCM) on October 24, 2005 03:22 PM:
Yes everyone, the differences of opinions go on.
Yup, Used to be a MOM, that's me. That is it thanks to my former husband who decided that I needed to be punished for leaving an abusive marriage. One more way of being able to control me is through our children. Yup,get her where it will hurt the most. Use those kids to do it and we'll call it Parental Alienation.
Whether it be the Mom or Dad who does it, it is 110% wrong. Kids do need 2 parents in their lives regardless of how we feel about our former spouses. Do I like my former husband? No. Would I ever say anything demeaning, demoralizing or hurtful about him in front of our kids? NO.
But then again, I never got the chance really. In order to avoid child support he repeatedly claimed child abuse to our local child services. They were taken away for 2 weeks with a "no contact" order. They were then released back to me with a "no danger" report.
Yup, after those 2 weeks when they were released, they were not the same kids...and never have been. We are coming up on the 3 yr mark...and yup, he still has me where it hurts. Yup, sad for me, but sadder for our kids. They have been denied the love of their mom and the rest of my family....but guess what?
Moms do it also. I have seen it done and it is so wrong....Moms and Dads are both guilty of it and it needs to stop.
I know some great custodial dads and great custodial moms......can't we all just do what's best for our children?



JULIA(member of NANCM)LET ME CLARIFY:
I do not personally recall saying that there should be mandatory shared parenting. Nor do I state that the situation I have with my formerly abusive spouse can work for everyone. Nor did I say was befriending Teri Stoddard. That is an assumption on the part of the poster. I don't even know who Teri Stoddard is. I was only replying as I felt led to. It is only recently that my ex and I have come to the agreement. My children are not yet with me, and I am still at this point on paper an NCM....... because of the games that were played.


My ex was only abusive to me.........AND I DID STATE..........HE's GOTTEN COUNSELING...I didn't think I would need to put...........he is no longer abusive in any way towards me, and has never been abusive towards the children. Some people are mature enough to get past their own hurts and recognize that while I may not like the person my ex is or was during our marriage, does not change the fact that he is still the father of my children. Did he wrong me greatly from one human being to the next? Has he sought forgiveness, yes? Have I been able to put aside my own selfishness? yes!. Do I love my children enough to allow myself to be mature and look out for their own best interest? YES. Sometimes, the abuser is only abusive towards the spouse and not towards the children. That is the situation in my case. Help was sought, we both healed and learned from it. We have overcome our own personal obstacles to do what is best for our children. My post only asked that people stop being selfish and do what is best FOR THE CHILDREN.

It is so sad to see 2 women from NANCM, who both were admitted victims of domestic violence, espousing mandatory shared parenting for all other abuse victims (male or female) trying to protect their children. You both should be ashamed of yourselves. Promoting laws like that makes the bar that much higher to hurdle for victims and their children. If you really care about the safety of children, stop affiliating with father's rights activists, learn something about abuser's tactics, read a Lundy Bancroft book. Maybe then you can really adequately provide "support" for non-custodial mothers who were victims of abuse. Until then, all you are doing is fueling the FR machine to make more mothers lose their children. But I guess that will keep your support group running, as you'll then have more and more non-custodial mothers to share in all the grief and pain that you and your children have endured. Get a clue, ladies. Teri Stoddard is not your friend.

I am not a writer, I do not claim to be so forgive me if my post just rambles.

First off, I dont believe that anyone representing NANCM was promoting any laws. Second of all, alot of us see, and deal with PAS on a regular basis.

Our children ALL of them deserve better. My ex was/is abusive, and a control freak, to me. Never while I was with him, to our daughter. Now I know I am probably going to get flamed here, but should I have shut him out of her life completely?? NO. I would NEVER do what he has done to me. He still has custody. As a stay at home mom through out the marriage I couldnt afford the "fancy attorney" ect. So I lost.

Face it, as long as the courts feel that someone has to be the "custodial" the one with the more money, power and prestige is going to win in the court. Male or Female.


Stop the dang gender wars, people are bad no matter the sex, age, creed, ect.
If we promoted more co-parenting in cases where it COULD happen, I think we would all have happier, more rounded children.

As a child I was a victim of PAS. My dad tried to insist my mother was the worst person in the world. He had me in such a rage I remember hitting her and calling her a b***h, out of anger.

Now years later, practically walking in her shoes, I WISH I had the chance to say I am sorry...."I love you mom." I pray everyday that, God gives her the message.

JULIA(member of NANCM)LET ME CLARIFY:
"I do not personally recall saying that there should be mandatory shared parenting. Nor do I state that the situation I have with my formerly abusive spouse can work for everyone. Nor did I say was befriending Teri Stoddard."

Julia--Here is the article that links NANCM to the father's rights movement link

Thank you for the acknowledgement that co-parenting with an abusive former partner is possible for everyone.

Another thought. It feels good to talk here about knowing "good custodial dads" and "good custodial moms" and exploring all the feel good, fuzzy notions of cooperative, 50/50 parenting after divorce. That can happen in rare instances where there was no partner abuse, substance abuse, child abuse/neglect, relatively equal involvement in child rearing during the relationship, where the children can handle and want 50/50 custody. The subject of the film under discussion, however, is not that ideal situation. We are really going off on a tangent. The issue in the documentary is domestic violence, its effects on children and how the courts are failing those children. Let's keep on focus folks.

Ouch! Got quoted! Yup, I was the one who posted that Children's Crusade bit on soc.men. Too bad you didn't share any representative quotes from the person I was responding to. I encourage everyone to become familiar with writings by the soc.men poster known as Hyerdahl1, and to evaluate my words against the average level of misandry and bigotry she exhibits.

I do stand by my claim, which you have correctly distilled from my original wording, that children are routinely manipulated to make false allegations of child abuse. Your figure of only 2-8% of *all* CA allegations being false is of little relevance here. What is relevant is the percentage of CA allegations *in divorce and CC cases* that turn out to be false. If your "numerous researchers" have found *that* to be the case, please name them!

Anzv, soc.men posters tend to be obnoxious and nasty, but the men's/father's rights posters over there are especially obnoxious.

Children are not routinely manipulated to make false allegations of child abuse. Everson and Boat found that 17% of the false sexual abuse allegations arose during a custody dispute leading to an age-averaged false allegation rate in custody disputes of 0.8%. Also, An American Bar Association and Association of Family and Conciliation Courts study concluded that of 9,000 custody-visitation disputes, that fewer than 2% involved allegations of sexual abuse. Moreover, they found that allegations arising in post-divorce cases were even more likely to be valid.

Still more: In its Report of the Presidential Task Force on Violence and the Family, the APA confirms that, "false reporting of Family violence occurs infrequently... reports of child sexual abuse do not increase during divorce and actually occur in only about 2 percent to 3 Percent of the cases... even during custody disputes, fewer than 10 percent of cases involve reports of child sexual abuse (APA Report, 12).

More: studies examining this comparison do not find significantly higher rates of any abuse allegations raised during divorce or custody proceedings. (Cheri Wood, "The Parental Alienation Syndrome: A Dangerous Aura of Reliability", 27 Loy. L.A. L. Rev. 1367-8, n. 7 1994)

As it turns out, fathers are more likely to make false allegations of abuse than mothers. In the largest study of its kind in Canada, Nicholas Bala and John Schuman, two Queen's University law professors, looked at 196 custody hearings across the country. The research showed 71% of sexual abuse allegations were brought by mothers, whereas fathers initiated only 17% of the accusations. The rest were the result of concerned grandparents, siblings or partners who, as well as the parents, often sought aid from a child protection agency. Of female-initiated allegations, just 1.3% were deemed intentionally false by civil courts, compared with 21% when the man in the failed relationship brought similar allegations. Fathers' rights activists assume that only mothers make false allegations of abuse, This study clearly shows that it is mostly fathers who do that.

All of this is beside the point. I won't participate anymore in the he said/she said/who is more abusive discussion that is taking place here. I did want to counter your point that children are not routinely manipulated to make false allegations of child abuse, though. It simply is not true.

What is really important is that when children are being abused that they be believed. Too often, as is the case in the cases covered in "Breaking The Silence: Children's Stories", people who are in a position to help these children are allowing their abuse to continue. That has to stop.

Posted by Strawberry Rote:

"If you really care about the safety of children, stop affiliating with father's rights activists"

So you're against working together on this?? You're denying that there are ANY Mothers who abuse their children?

Quote:

"learn something about abuser's tactics"

Again, you're asking us to simply learn about how MEN abuse children? Not women?

Quote:
"Read a Lundy Bancroft book. Maybe then you can really adequately provide "support" for non-custodial mothers who were victims of abuse."

Yeah, because God knows that Lundy Bancroft (while the books may be very good) is the ONLY person in the world that knows about abuse and how to fix the problem, right? And I've said this before... NANCM is NOT a support group for "women who were victims of abuse"!!!! We are a support group for ALL non custodial parents who are having difficulty dealing with a minimized or non existent relationship with their children!

Yes, it's called NANCM (The National Association of Non Custodial Moms) because there IS a need for a group that is "primarily" focused for Moms. Only because a VERY high percentage of Non Custodial Parents are Fathers and there are hundreds, if not thousands of websites dedicated to Fathers and custody issues.

Quote:
"Until then, all you are doing is fueling the FR machine to make more mothers lose their children."

Do you TRULY believe this drivel???? How can you not CLEARLY see that it's gender biased, narrow minded, CHAUVENISTIC people like yourself that are fueling the CORRUPT COURT SYSTEM machine and making things worse???? And YES, there are males AND females who are equally guilty of this!

GET IT TOGETHER PEOPLE!! These problems are NOT going to go away and NOTHING is going to get better if you continue to make this a gender war.

Quote:
"But I guess that will keep your support group running, as you'll then have more and more non-custodial mothers to share in all the grief and pain that you and your children have endured."

It's people like YOURSELF that will keep my support group running, because as long as gender biased documentaries and "Mothers Rights" and "Fathers Rights" organizations continue to work against each other instead of WITH each other, the problem is only going to continually get worse.

Quote:
"Get a clue, ladies. Teri Stoddard is not your friend."

On the contrary, Teri Stoddard has shown in her writings and through our conversations that she is PRO CHILDREN.

I truly believe that what SO many "Females" can't get past is that a VERY VERY large percentage of Non Custodial Parents are Fathers. So it's obvious to RATIONAL and INTELLIGENT people why the majority of people fighting for more custodial rights in today's world are MEN. Are some of those men gender-biased themselves? YES!

So someone tell me, how do we round up all the non gender-biased men and women who want SHARED CUSTODY for FIT AND LOVING PARENTS and do something to make a difference and GET IT DONE??

And then (staying on topic as you requested) how do we get laws in place that protect children from abusive PARENTS.

Why does there have to be one "side" fighting against abusive Fathers and another "side" fighting against abusive Mothers?? There should be ONE "side", period.

The problem lies in the false allegations of abuse, in an attempt to gain custody. One parent trying to make the other parent look bad. The problem also lies in how is abuse proven?

Why can't we focus on THOSE problems?

So many people involved in this are like people on the titanic trying to arrange deck chairs, all the while not seeing that the ship is sinking AND CHILDREN ARE DIEING!!

Open your eyes. Deal with some issues that can make a DIFFERENCE.

THAT, my friend, is about as focused as you can get.

Beverly Morris
President & Founder
NANCM, Inc.
www.nancm.com

Trish: "I did want to counter your point that children are not routinely manipulated to make false allegations of child abuse, though. It simply is not true."

Mistype! It is true that children are NOT routinely manipulated to make false allegations of child abuse. Bona fide false allegations of abuse are rare.

BEV: AMEN. AS usual, you are straight to the point and right on target.

Glad you caught that mistype. I was about to ask you about it. :)

Bev--
While you are certainly loud in your arguments by using lots of caps and exclamation points, you aren't making any real points. You are also very mistaken. I think you will be hard pressed to find much about "mother's rights" groups, because there aren't any. Most people who are working on the issue of truly protecting children from harmful custodial arrangements are interested in the rights of the children to stability, safety, health and mental well-being. It is only father's rights groups and those women duped into helping them with shared parenting groups that spout off about parent's rights, constititional rights to parenting, etc. Chidren are not CD collections to be divided down the middle.

Strawberry Note,

So you're telling me that as a fit and loving Mother who divorces a fit and loving Father, that if the custody decision came down to the Father having full custody (because it happens a lot in today's world) that you would simply walk away and be happy with that decision.

You would not fight for your right to have a relationship with your child? You would not, as the woman who gave birth to the children, feel you have a right to half of the time with them?

CD Collection???? You can't compare children to inanimate objects. (Wow, it was hard not to use an exclamation point there!!!) But the fact remains that if a man and a woman have children together then the child is half their Mother and half their Father. What, you want to try to change science now to say one of the parents isn't TRULY a biological parent??

Get real.

And if I haven't made any "real points" to you yet, it's proof that you my friend are the one who is "duped".

As I explained before, it's women such as yourself who just don't get that there is a REASON there aren't many "Mothers Rights" groups. It's because in most cases women get custody, and in most cases Fathers are shut out of their children's lives by a controlling and manipulative custodial Mother.

NANCM happens to be the very small minority of Mothers who this has happened to and we can see clearer than ANYBODY the wrongs that are being done to Fathers all over the world.

I challenge you to walk one day in my shoes; reading e-mails from Mothers who have been alienated from their children. I challenge you to walk one day in my shoes, wondering what my kids had for breakfast, did they finish their homework, did they catch the schoolbus on time, what are they going to eat for lunch, what did they wear to school, what new friends will they make today, will they get home safely?

Did they even think about me today??

Just one day in my shoes. And let's see if it makes you use a capital letter or two, or an explamation point or two... when you get involved in a conversation with people who don't have a CLUE what they are talking about.

"Breaking the Silence: Children's Stories" presents a view of child abuse that is the opposite of the truth.

In "Breaking the Silence," men are portrayed as monsters and child abusers. Yet most studies that I've read indicates mothers are the perpetrators of child abuse in more than 60 percent of the cases.

Natural birth-fathers are protectors of their children - contrary to the message in "Breaking the Silence." Yet men are often hindered in protecting their children because the media like to portray them as evil - and they are pushed away from the families they love.

"Breaking the Silence" will contribute towards the problem of violence toward children, of fatherlessness, of judicial abuse; not the solution.

Please take a minute to read the poem below. "Monster Mommies," by Kristiana Colegrove, addresses the tragedy of the true perpetrators of child abuse.

Perhaps the producer's next film can address a real problem and offer real solutions.
**************************
Monster Mommies
The last thing these children
saw
before they were
killed
was the first face
they saw
when they were
born.
It's a treason on life.
It's omission of the agreement
sworn in for creation.
When the baby breathes first breath
you are obligated
to be the soft
be the welcome
be the guide
into this journey, this world.
The Universe granted
precious gifts.
Children.
Our society is shocked into
watching
shocked into acceptance.
Court TV
produces and profits.
Can't believe the Monster Mommies
get to live.
Benefits, cable, 3 meals a day.
The blood from their babies
is not dry.
To claim their God "demanded" it.
That they were "depressed"
to get off
to get life.
SERIOUSLY WRONG.
How the tears keep coming
long wails of grief.
Wishing to wrap those kids in safety
so they'd never
know such fear
such horror.
To see our boys
play in the sunshine
and feel the force of joy.
It is incomprehensible
how distorted that could be.
To turn playtime into homicide.
How many more Monster Mommies are there?
I want to crush
drown
suffocate
and starve
all the Monster Mommies.
Search them out while
tucking into beds
closing closets
kissing goodnight
hiding behind Band-Aids.
Search them out
so they will all be gone.

(KRISTIANA COLEGROVE)

Bev, I have walked in your shoes. I never willingly let a violent man have 50/50 custody as you did, blinding myself with fanciful ideas of cooperative co-parenting. You were set up. Set up in fact by the work of the very FR groups and policies you align yourselves with. Don't you know that FRs advise the men to go for 50/50 as a stepping stone for full custody? You are now shut out of your children's life? Well, guess what. That is also part and parcel of what abusive fathers do--isolate, manipulate, refuse visitation/telephone contact. Yes, I think about you and all the moms out there that never should have lost their primary caretaking role in the first place. And if you would educate yourself on family law policies, you might just learn you are now helping make more non-custodial mothers. Your support service is wonderful and very much needed, but your politics are devastating to the very population you seek to serve--and their kids.

MY EX HUSBAND NEVER ABUSED OUR CHILDREN!!! Please stop accusing him of such. My EX is a wonderful Father and loves our children very much.

Was he a good husband? NO! Was he verbally and emotionally abusive toward me? YES! But he never physcially abused me OR my children! God forbid my kids find this blog and read your ignorant (as in uninformed) post saying their Father is an abusive man.

GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT BEFORE YOU SPEAK.

Does this help clear up why I am in favor of 50/50 shared custody FOR FIT AND LOVING PARENTS?? Why can't you seem to absorb that when I've said it over and over and over and over again.

I DO NOT SUPPORT SHARED PARENTING IF THERE IS ABUSE INVOLVED.

I mean, Holy Shit. It's no wonder I have to spell with capital letters and exclamation points. You can't get very simple concepts into your thick skull.

I am not "aligned" with Fathers Rights groups. Nor am I aligned with Mothers rights Groups. I have my opinions, based on my own personal circumstances; which happen to be that a Father was able to move children 1,200 miles away from a fit and loving Mother based solely on the fact that he felt he could do an okay job on his own - with no regard to how it would hurt me and the children emotionally.

If you listen to nothing else, please believe me when I say that if you don't stop covering everyone with the same blanket and stereotyping genders, you are doing 100 times more harm than good.

NANCM: "CD Collection???? You can't compare children to inanimate objects. (Wow, it was hard not to use an exclamation point there!!!)"

She was likely referring to Lord Falconer's statement about his opposition to 50/50 joint custody. Falconer is the UK constitutional affairs secretary. Fathers' rights activists in the UK have been lobbying heavily for presumptive 50/50 joint custody for many years, and the UK has already rejected it twice. Falconer said: "There cannot and will not be an automatic presumption of 50-50 contact. Children cannot be divided like the furniture or the CD collection."

you've got to be kidding!

I saw the PBS show last night. Outright propaganda. No balance, no counter-views, pure agenda. Afterward, I remembered watching PBS as a kid. I remembered watching shows on the great Alaskan wilderness, and wondering why a big corporation like Exxon was sponsoring the show. So now when I see a show like "Breaking the silence", I think, this is just the same old story: an entity with an agenda and money purchasing PBS time.

The show was particularly painful when they talked about the girl getting put to bed. I tuck in my daughter, but when I do it, I make sure the sheet wraps under her feet, that she has extra blankets if it is going to be a cold night, and that the blankets are square on her and not pushed to one side. Then I give her a kiss good night on the forehead, she gives me a kiss on the cheek, and I remind her to go right to sleep so that she is not tired in the morning. It's terrible to think that I might be associated with the monster portrayed on the PBS show, just because I am an active father in my daughter's life. I would expect people to complain that she is too assertive or tomboyish from being around her dad too much, but not this garbage.

I was at a local chapter COPS meeting several days ago. COPS is a statewide shared parenting organization in California, which is often categorized as one of those fathers groups. The topic of discussion was the involvement of women in the organization. Several members insisted on clarifying that the organization is for parents not just fathers. In fact, there was one father there who had sole custody of his daughter who made it clear that he only had sole custody because the mom was a drug addict and had threatened to kill him. The point I'm making is that, from what I've seen, "father's groups" generally have the perspective that a child should have access to both parents (with the obvious exception of the few extreme cases), and would welcome non-custodial mother's who just want to share in raising their children, and would reject custodial fathers who use custody to alienate the child's mother.

Trish...
[edited]
It's about the children [edited]. Current family laws allow for decisions based upon accusations and not facts. Children should have equal rights to both parents, unless a parent is PROVEN unfit.
Most male abusers of childrenare significant others "NOT" the biological fathers. IE boyfriends and second husbands.
Not so of the female counterpart..

PAS is a reality that many of us can attest to.
That woman in NY and her girls for the TV camera's was a perfect example. Those poor girls didn't know what was wrong. Women like that should be taught that their actions hurt their children.

Everyday I hear of mothers bashing their children's heads in with rocks,
Drowning them in the bathtub,
or throwing them into SF bay. Rolling them into a lake ect ect ect. Yet I don't see ANYTHING in the news or programs about what is wrong with mothers......
It's women having sex with 12-14 yr old boys AND THEY ARE TEACHERS!
Oprah and other femanazis
make it sound like it's not sexual abuse it was LOVE...

If it were a man having sex with girls he would be drawn and quartered by other men... yet women say nothing!

Recent laws dictate that a person who kills a pregnant mother can be charged with both murders....
What about Mother's who abort their children? Is that not murder?
You can't have it both ways....
Women have complete and total control of their own reproductive systems and the choices whether or not to have children. Men on the other hand have no choices. If a man has sex and the woman gets pregnant, its her choice whether or not to bring the child into the world... the man has NO say... but he will Pay...
Don't worry though things will change that is guarenteed. However you stand
on the subject Gay marriage will change the family court system, when it passes, and it eventually will,from that day forward courts will need to be gender neutral.

Bev writes: "Was he verbally and emotionally abusive toward me? YES"

Domestic violence is not just physical abuse. The children were witnesses of what you describe above either directly or indirectly. Abusing the mother of one's children is not good fathering. In many states it falls under the child protection statutes of mental and emotional cruelty to children. I am sorry you are defensive, but that defensiveness comes from the discomfort of hearing the truth. And, if you look at the link I sent to Julie of your group, you will see that whether you want to be or not, you are identified as part of the father's rights movement. Time to examine some of your positions.

Give me a break, trishy pooh...

I have read your site and your "supposed" quotes from studies. I researched them. You blatantly lie and twist things to smithereens. You only quote what you want told and leave out the truth just like the PBS show will do as evidenced by those that have seen the screening.

You should be ashamed. Your misandry is showing...

Eric
Fathers' Integrity & Rights Movement (FIRM)


misandry (mis'-an'-dre') n. hatred of men. (1) the attribution of negative qualities to the entire male gender. (2) the claim that masculinity is the source of human vices such as domination, violence, oppression, and racism. (3) a sexist assumption that (a) male genes, hormones and physiology, or (b) male cultural nurturing produce war, rape, and physical abuse. (4) the assignment of blame solely to men for humanity's historic evils without including women's responsibility or giving men credit for civilization's achievements. (5) the assumption that any male person is probably domineering, oppressive, violent, sexually abusive, and spiritually immature.

Patrick M. Arnold, Society of Jesuits

from link

[Editor's note: Please don't paste large excerpts from other sources in the comments. Thank you.]

Strawberry Rote:
as you asked us to do: STAY ON FOCUS. IT IS NOT ABOUT MEN, IT IS NOT ABOUT WOMEN!!! THIS IS ABOUT CHILDREN!!!!!!!!!!!!

IT SHOULD ALWAYS BE ABOUT CHILDREN!!! Or do you wish to start separating them into boys and girls; "oh, we,should only focus on protecting girls because they are more or less going to be abused when they get older by men because boys grow up to be abusive men when they are abused as children". NOT ALL ABUSED CHILDREN END UP AS ABUSERS. SOME TAKE WHAT THEY WENT THRU TO BETTER THEMSELVES AND TO HELP OTHERS. LET's ALL GET REAL PEOPLE.

GROW UP!!!, STOP PLAYING WORD GAMES AND COME TOGETHER TO PROTECT THE INNOCENT: THE CHILDREN.

MOM said

"To Teri In Cali:

I read your story about "Is He Loser or Is He Dad." In it you said you divorced three of you children's dads, they left and were not there for their kids? Given your personal experience with your own children's fathers, what makes you think all dads want to be involved in their children's lives? Why did you divorce three of your childrens dads? Were they abusive to you?

MOM"

MY reply:

Yes, I've been divorced 3 times. I wish I had been wise enough to realize I wasn't mature enough to marry. I had low self-esteem. No, none of them ever abused me or our children. The MAJORITY of divorces do NOT involve abuse of any form.

Two of the men were around for awhile, one not at all. I can look back and see things I did that made the situation worse. I'm not taking full responsibility, no way, but I see how things could have been so much better for the children if we had worked together, and we could have. MOST people can put the kids' needs first.

I never said all men want to be great dads. I would never say that, just like I would never say that all women want to be great moms. I know too many custodial mothers whose kids never hear from their fathers and too many custodial fathers whose kids never hear from their mothers.

This WAR we fight is for GOOD parents. I understand that many of you are victims of abuse. I get it. I affects your perception. Let me assure you, MOST people don't abuse. MOST parents are GREAT parents. This fight is for them.

You only represent 5-10% of divorcing women, yet you want to control what happens to 100% of couples in family court. I just can't accept that.

Please read this article too:
link

Teri
http://feminist4fathers.blogspot.com/

Teri says" "You only represent 5-10% of divorcing women, yet you want to control what happens to 100% of couples in family court. I just can't accept that."

There is nothing to prevent divorcing couples in which there was no marital history of domestic violence or child abuse from agreeing to 50/50 shared physical custody. Surely you know that. You, Teri are trying to force this policy on those that are least able to protect themselves and their children. This is not about good fathers (and mothers) sitting down for tea and crumpets, holding hands and singing Kumbayah together. This is about parents who can not co-parent for safety or conflict reasons. Conflict of any kind is the number 1 reason children do not heal from divorce. Not every child can handle shuttling back and forth from home to home like a ping-pong ball. Have you ever talked to a teacher about how these kids fare? I for one have watched a little kindergartner sitting on a suitcase at the end of the day, crying because he had no idea where he was supposed to go at the end of the school day and who was to pick him up. Some kids can handle it, some can't. Some parent's can handle it, most can't. Custody decisions are supposed to be about what is best for the children--taking each case and child individually--not about the parent's rights or wants.

This WAR we fight is for GOOD parents.



How do you know which parents are good and which are bad? You want equality to be the presumption to begin with. That will include good and bad parents? How can you tell which is which? How many parents/fathers in this movement do you actually know personally? Have you ever spoken to any of their ex spouses? How do you know the parents you are defending are "good parents" you made bad choices in the past because as you say you have low self esteem? Maybe by supporting these fathers you are again making bad choices? Work on your self esteem!




I understand that many of you are victims of abuse. I get it. I affects your perception.


It doesn't affect my perception. I am not a victim of abuse I am a survivor of abuse. BIG difference! I can now smell an abuser at 20 paces!




Let me assure you, MOST people don't abuse.



No just about every woman I know has been in a abusive marriage/relationship. LOL maybe their perception is off? Maybe they just imagined it all?




MOST parents are GREAT parents.

Are they? Do you know most parents on the planet? You make very broad statements.

This fight is for them.

If they are great parents they are probably parenting and not wasting time in courts and on yahoo websites.



You only represent 5-10% of divorcing women, yet you want to control what happens to 100% of couples in family court.

We want to protect our children from abuse!



I just can't accept that.


No one is asking you to accept anything. You know nothing about abuse because as you said you were never abused nor were your children. How dare you come here and lecture women about how wonderful dads are? The dads of our children weren't wonderful. Thats what we are talking about! Our children's fathers abused the mother and the children! Can't you accept that? Seems you can but you are not going to shove it down our throats. If you had any education about abuse you would never be here making such insensitive comments. Our issue and yours is not the same so go seek recruits elsewhere!

Teri go rent the shining or the burning bed. In those movies you will see a pretty accurate picture (or was it just my skewed perception) of what my ex husband was like. Maybe my perception is a bit off because of the number of times I was beat around the head. Maybe some of my brains were pulled out along with my hair? [edited]

Strawberry Note said:

"There is nothing to prevent divorcing couples in which there was no marital history of domestic violence or child abuse from agreeing to 50/50 shared physical custody."

Are you kidding me??? You're really THAT ignorant about what's going on in the family court system today? There are corrupt judges, lawyers, mediators, evaluators and hundreds of others that are keeping EXACTLY that from happening.

You can tell yourself you know about my situation all you want. But I'll say it again; there was NO abuse in my relationship beyond my EX having an affair, talking down to me and treating me like his "property" (we'd been together since I was 15). It was NOTHING that I would categorize as abuse. It was typical BAD human behavior. Period.

Yet that didn't keep the courts from allowing a "loophole" to be open for him (a Notary's Jurat that was not signed properly) which gave him the opportunity to "legally" kidnap our children over state lines. My EX knew and his attorney knew that the techinicality was there and they used it as leverage when the Judge ruled in my favor.

HAD THERE BEEN A LAW IN PLACE STATING THAT CHILDREN ARE TO HAVE ACCESS TO BOTH FIT AND LOVING PARENTS MY EX WOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO TAKE MY CHILDREN OVER STATE LINES.

Instead of helping me to get my babies back and continue a 50/50 arrangement, the courts - YES, THE COURTS - told me that I would have to prove him as an abuser - as an unfit Father - to get my children back.

It's no wonder so many men and women lie about their EX spouses. It's what the lawyers and the court itself TELLS us to do!!

Excuse me while I go vomit now.

Mom,
Your comments take me back to my statement that we need to pull together and focus on the REAL problems, instead of constant gender bashing and making it a war of male against female.
No matter who is doing the abusing, the Mother OR the Father, the children need protected!!

1. Abused children need protecting

2. Fit and Loving Parents need protected from having their children taken away from them.

3. There are good Mothers and bad Mothers.

4. There are good Fathers and Bad Fathers.

How do we constructively put all of those statements together and subsequently work together to get some real issues SOLVED!?!?

NANCM sounds like you are in what we call denial.

Your ex verbally and psycologically abused you and if he did it to you I am sure he does it to the children too! When he cheated on you he cheated on his children too! Why didn't you and your ex have 50/50? HMMMMMM? Maybe because he wouldn't agree to it? He had his attorney put that loophole there to deceive you darling. Your ex abused you and he abuses his new wife and he abuses his kids! Once an abuser always an abuser! Stop defending him. Get some backbone woman! Wake up!

I am NOT going to pull together to give presumptive 50/50 shared parenting to men and women across the board. NO WAY JOSE! Everyone has a right to be heard. We all have a right to protect our children. NANCM, if your ex was soooo great a dad as you say why did he take them away from their mother? BASTARD! 50/50 parenting won't do anything to protect the childrten from a parent like that! They want to be vindictive they will still be vindictive. The only way to protect the children is to get such parents out of their lives altogether!

To Diana Hartman, she states:
those who assert that mothers are the majority child abusers define domestic violence without the inclusion of child sex abuse...

My above post actually includes both sides of the equation, and further Teri in Cali posts the majority sexual abusers is indeed "mommy's new boyfriend." The post I included earlier lists the link to the entire study that supports Teri's stance and my stance and debunks Diana Hartman's stance.

She refers to "twisting of facts" when the numbers are broken down merely because they do not support her stance.

I am a father who gets to see his children solely because the state in which I reside passed a legislative presumption toward shared parenting.

My ex-wife tried EVERYTHING in the book to deny me visitation. She accused me of molestation. This accusation was deemed by the Court to have been of high likelihood having been made with false or malicious intent. After the CPS records were turned over to us by a judge's order, we discovered that the ex had also accused me of being the DC Sniper. The State's Attorney actually laughed about this. What consequences befell the ex for this? None.

There is no depth of absurdity to which women are discouraged to sink in their path of vindictiveness. Women are not sugar and spice and everything nice. They use the family court system to exert their own form of aggression. They look at their children as their property, an entitlement like all the rest. Women virtually monopolize victimhood. The divorce is usually about THEIR attempts to maximize financial gain and exact retribution for whatever wrongs are supposed.

Certainly, men engage in this type of detrimental behavior as well. But, you CANNOT have it both ways. Are WOMEN the victims in divorce? Or do they TYPICALLY stand to have the most to gain by using the children as weapons to exact a more favorable financial settlement? We hear talk ad infinitum about work inequity, marriage financial inequity, about how moms enjoy a lower standard of living post-divorce due to these things. So, why does it stand to reason that men are the ones initiating a course of action most likely to be to their marked detriment? Women, according to the dogma propagated on sites such as this, are the ones in the weaker position. They have the most to win by using the Courts. Simple deductive analysis should make it obvious to anyone who is most likely to pursue this course of action.

If our focus is the "children," then we should be trying to strengthen families instead of developing marriage "law" which solely defines its own dissolution. There is no fault anymore in divorce, no penalties for misbehavior. What price did my wife pay for telling the ATF and FBI that I was the DC Sniper? NONE. Nothing. Zero. The system and lack of consequences encourage this type of behavior, of her disappearing with the children. Her own attorney chided her in open court about this. But, there were never any consequences. And, who suffered? Did I? No. Did she? Certainly not, despite being the instigator of everything. The kids DID. And, that damage cannot be repaired.

It is WHOLLY unrealistic to expect women who have grown up in a consequenceless society, where they can hit men and have it laughed off, where they can lie, steal, and cheat and have it be excused, to exercise restraint in a divorce proceeding where there are even FEWER consequences. Why should they exercise restraint? There is no benefit to it to themselves. This society is "me first" and everyone else second. Without real TEETH in a marriage, without FAULT in divorce, without CONSEQUENCES to actions, how can we expect people to do right by precious little humans who are viewed as no more than CHATTEL by their parents and courts alike?

If we want to solve this, we have to encourage people to stop fighting over things. Give them no arena, no reason, nothing to fight ABOUT, and they will stop fighting. If women know that there is no POINT to making baseless accusations, they will stop making them. If they know there are consequences to malice, they will stop. REAL penalties on PARENTS stop this nonsense. Equitable divisions of property, blackletter law, presumptive child support formulas, and sane assumptions about coparenting mitigate disputes.

I empathize with those who desire to move across country to have a better career or higher average surface temperature. But, sh!t, who is this about, YOU? When you have children with somebody, you GIVE UP YOUR RIGHT to do things for yourself and only yourself, just like that MAN, who pays support in the VAST majority of cases, gives up his right to a certain slice of his check when he fathers children. Encumbrances are a two-way street and children are not an entitlement nor property.

To MOM,

"Your ex verbally and psycologically abused you and if he did it to you I am sure he does it to the children too! When he cheated on you he cheated on his children too!"

What about the Mother doing the cheating? Statistics show women cheat on men just as often, thereby, destroying the family.

From what I read in Nancy's posts, she puts the children first. Bravo!

Dad I hope your ex never endangers your child and you cannot protect them because everyone will think you are reporting false abuse. Worse yet maybe one day your child will be abused but not believed because we all know children just make these things up don't they? Its a two edged sword but I would always rather err on the side of the child to ensure that they are protected from an abuser! Maybe as an adult that means I have to suffer but better me than ever a child!

just because some men be