I don’t know what the reporter Kia Gregory was smoking to come up with this sympathetic portrait of men who use the family court system to try to maintain control over women who’ve divorced them for years after the fact, but it must have been strong for her to miss all the ways that these “fathers’ rights” activists signal loud and clear that they are control freaks and abusers. Just like most abusers, they are open about how they treat their victims, because they have firmly convinced themselves that their victims are asking for it. But seriously, how hard is it for a reporter to grasp that there is something seriously wrong with these men?
But she maintains that the group portrayed is “helping” wronged men, even though the evidence is right under her nose that the wronged party isn’t the one she’s talking to.
Some carry bulky briefcases stuffed with journals of moments spent and lost, receipts for clothing and toys, doctors’ bills, police reports, letters to and from lawyers, emails to exes and highlighted cell phone bills…..
Some of the fathers haven’t seen their children in months. Some haven’t seen them in years…..
Lutz begins the introductions—starting with himself. He says he’s battled with his ex-wife over custody arrangements for their 11-year-old son for the past seven years…..
“You have to look at it as a game,â€? he says. “But it can be won.â€?…..
Mike, 44, went five years without a custody agreement with his ex-wife…..
“Who the hell is she?� another asks.
“Yeah, when did she get the name Immaculate Conception?â€?….
Bob, 33, is here with his fiancee, who gently rubs his shoulder. “I filed for a custody order five days after my son was born,â€? Bob says…..
Larry, 56, the group’s treasurer, is finished. “Both my kids are over 18,â€? he says with a Cheshire cat grin. “But I spent eight years in Family Court, fighting to be a father. I lost legal custody because I was argumentative. I spent six years not talking to my daughter because of parental alienation syndrome. I’d given up. I just couldn’t deal with any more rejection.â€?….
Note: “Parental alienation syndrome” is a disease that is not recognized by the APA, because it is just a fancy word for “my kids hate me and refuse to see me”.
I could continue to quote all the warning signs that go off that the reporter refuses to acknowledge indicate that these men are on the standard victim trip that abusers go on (see an example here where the abuser tells the woman he beats and berates that she’s not sympathetic enough to his problems and it’s her fault because she flinches and cries when he abuses her), but I think you get the picture. All these men cheerfully acknowledge that they’ll happily spend 6, 7, 8 or more years suing their ex-wives over and over again, all in an attempt to prevent their exes from actually completing the divorce and moving on with their lives. Abuse by court is a fairly common behavior, as Thistle, guest-blogging for Echidne, noted.
But while on the topic–and without, quite seriously, making any accusation against him specifically–I will note that using the courts to harass women is a common behavior of batterers. I saw this in my cases, and it’s born out in the research available on this topic as well. For example, studies show that batterers are more than twice as likely as other fathers to contest custody at all.* In my cases, I saw fathers contest custody (when they clearly didn’t want it, were not equipped to have a child live with them, and were not going to succeed in getting custody) fight for visitation (and then not visit, because all they really wanted was to assert the *right* to visit) and refuse to pay child support (when they were perfectly capable of paying)…..
*Peter Jaffe et al., Domestic Violence and High-Conflict Divorce: Developing a New Generation of Research for Children, in DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IN THE LIVES OF CHILDREN 189, 193 supra note 9 (citing J. Bowermaster & D. Johnson, The Role of Domestic Violence in Family Court Child Custody Determinations: An Interdisciplinary Investigation, Presented at the Fourth International Conference on Children Exposed to Family Violence, San Diego (1998) and J. Zorza, How Abused Women Can Use the Law to Protect their Children, in ENDING THE CYCLE OF VIOLENCE 147 (E. Peled ed, 1995).
What do you think they’re doing with the suitcases filled with receipts? How many of you with non-custodial parents would have been happy to find out that your non-custodial parent was trying to deduct birthday presents and phone calls made on visitation from your custodial parent’s child support check?
And I had to highlight the “Immaculate Conception” crack, because seriously, what’s more typical of a misogynist than claiming that because the woman he’s abusing isn’t a virgin, she deserves all the suffering that can be heaped upon her? The intense belief that ejaculation is all it takes to make a father is evident in the behavior of the man who filed for custody while his wife was still in stitches after childbirth.
Above all, their contempt for their families and their children is evidenced in the bitching and moaning about this fake syndrome PAS. In FRA-land, children never want to stop speaking to their fathers because they are angry about abuse or angry about withheld child support or angry about the never-ending lawsuits. No, it’s always a mental illness and it’s always always always the mother’s fault. Even when the reason that the kids don’t want to see their father because he’s a rapist—no, it’s not his fault. The mother is to blame for “turning” the kids against against him.
This kind of high level repeated lawsuits over a course of years behavior is despicable and abusive and it’s disturbing to me to see the Philadephia Weekly hire on someone who enables these abusive men by coddling them in public and assuring them that yes, it really is the victim’s fault that you need to sue her for the 15th time in a row.
83 Responses to “Philadelphia Weekly presents sympathetic view of abusive exes”
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
Amanda, thank you for running this. I actually got a personal phone call from Kia Gregory this afternoon, and while she was very nice and receptive to having a real discussion, she did bring up that hoary old standard- but there are these women who bring false abuse charges up, and that’s a real problem for these guys.
I asked her if she didn’t think that charging a spouse with child abuse was both humiliating and difficult to prove, and involves subjecting your child to physical tests, etc. that are terrible for a family. I likened it to “false rape hysteria.” It’s not a ‘widespread problem’- it’s not even real.
Anyway. She was very polite. And they’re going to print my letter… albeit a dissected version.
It’s not even using “Immaculate Conception” right, the fuckers.
The main thing that bugs me about MRAs is that often their arguments apparently sound vaguely reasonable to men I would otherwise expect to dismiss their whining out of hand. It’s like they hear “I’m not allowed to see my kids!” and stop there, and don’t think about it any further than that.
Ugh. Just…
Ugh.
The FRA bullshit is so transparent that you’d have to be stupid not to see right through it at a glance. I always feel like I need a shower after reading about crap like this.
“You have to look at it as a game,� he says. “But it can be won.�…..
You know, sometimes you just want to give these pricks a swift nutkick and send them on their way. Jesus, what a sick individual.
“Yeah, when did she get the name Immaculate Conception?�….
MORON ALERT:
Immaculate != without a male. Stupid prick.
I guess she doesn’t realize that men who abuse look like everyone else. It’s not like they have fangs and tails and you can just tell.
But a fairly good sign that they are sadistic and controlling and have no boundaries is they are willing to sue endlessly for years in an attempt to maintain control of women who’ve left them. Or keeps endless tallies of how much they’re “owed” because they supposedly went above the call of duty to buy….a birthday present for their own kid. Or they think their relaitonships are about domination, i.e. “winning the game”.
I think a lot of guys react the way they do to MRAs because male privilege is still the default. If a guy says he wants to see his kids and the court won’t let him, then clearly there’s something wrong with the system. Because we (guys) know that other guys are almost alway right, unless they’re voting for the wrong party or supporting the wrong team.
I know that sounds kinda excessive, but think about it: some guy makes a claim about something, and what do you generally do — check it carefully or assume they know what they’re talking about. (And also in general the press — whether smaller publications or larger — is set up to assume that what a source tells a reporter is basically true. Might not always have been so, but certainly is now.)
Wasn’t the Immaculate Conception actually the one that produced Mary, who was born without Original Sin?
Yeah, zuzu. God intervened when the Joachim’s sperm penetrated Anne’s egg to make Mary, the Immaculate, without original sin. Hehe. Religious people.
In my cases, I saw fathers contest custody (when they clearly didn’t want it, were not equipped to have a child live with them, and were not going to succeed in getting custody)
Sometimes they do succeed in getting joint custody. And judges obviously don’t listen to kids about neglect. Whatever assbag judge gave my father joint custody obliterated my childhood.
I get so frustrated by these “the poor fathers!” articles because the kids become pawns in them, just a tool for getting back at their ex, another way to control, and the kids are stuck in a crappy situation not because they have to choose between parents to live with, but rather because they aren’t given the choice between parents at all.
The FRA bullshit is so transparent that you’d have to be stupid not to see right through it at a glance.
I think it’s a little more complex than that. Men who are pulling this kind of shit tend to be skilled in making the case to their advantage. Their abusive behavior doesn’t just pop into existence after they are married - it starts as a pattern of manipulation long before they ever meet their future spouse, going back to their teens, most likely. There’s also the fact that there really are manipulative women who game the system to hurt their exes - sociopathy isn’t a purely male phenomenon. With the guy standing right there in front of you, making his case in terms that are convincing, it’s much more comfortable to believe that he’s one of the few victims rather than one of the much larger number of victimizers.
I think that the overwhelming majority of these guys are manipulative shits, but there are genuine victims out there. The news stories tend to be favorable to the shits in part because they are convincing, and lets face it - in part because at some level the reporter knows that pulling aside the curtain on the shits will turn their relentless hostility and victim complex on the reporter.
Notice that is is “father’s rights” not “parent’s rights”.
I might have some sympathy for these guys if they stuck to pointing out the needless and unevenly distributed genderizing of divorce created by any number of backward judges. By this I mean couples seeking joint custody being rebuffed and the like.
But that would be about egalitarian sharing of duties and responsibilities, not about money=control.
Honestly, I think this pretty much sums it up. It’s not about the kids, it’s about me, me me. The only thing that matters is my god given right to be with my kids!
Zuzu:
Depends on if your Catholic or Protestant. Mary was immaculant and then gave virgin birth (if you are Catholic, and correct me if my theology is wrong). Protestants believe that Mary was normal, she just gave virgin birth (and they normally don’t care if she got it on with Joesph or not afterwords).
And he should be allowed custody why?
I saw the cover of this week’s issue in the newsstands and didn’t even want to bother reading. It had MRA written all over, literally.
I think one of the reasons “normal men” get taken in by the FRA rhetoric is that some of the heartless crap the abusive tyes pull is really just so completely alien to them.
My friend was just starting her last semester at a private college, 3.6 GPA, pre-med with good MCATs, when her 21st birthday hit. Her father (six figure income, investments, agreed to pay for college for the kids in the divorce settlement) cut her completely off. See, at 21, she was no longer “a kid” and he was no longer legally obligated to pay.
At that point in her education, she can’t transfer to another school, she didn’t have enough money to pay for the final semester, she can’t continue her med school applications…she’s totally and completely screwed–and he took four years to set her up and then yank the rug out. If he had simply said up front he was cutting her off at 21, whether college was finished or not, she would have sucked it up and gone to the state school, even though the private school had a 97% acceptance rate into med school. But no, he encouraged her to go to the private school, and told he not to worry about the cost because he promised to cover her college.
None of my male friends at the time could imagine hating their ex wife so much that they would literally ruin their daughter’s life. And more than that, do it deliberately and purposefully and take four years for the punchline.
I don’t want to defend these people, but since Mary was the one supposedly conceived immaculately, this means Mary might reasonably be referred to as the Immaculate Conception (and she often is). Therefore, an MRA implying that his ex-wife thinks she’s the Immaculate Conception could reasonably interpreted to mean he’s trying to say that she thinks she, like Mary, was a virgin mother.
Granted, this seems like way more religious literacy than I’d expect from an MRA, so he was probably just spewing disconnected bile. But nevertheless, the sentence as it stands is correctly constructed, regardless of how it may have been intended.
It could also be that the ex-wife was from a Catholic culture where children are given names like Concepcion. Guess somebody thought he was getting a little obedient mail-order bride.
Yeah, you’re right about that, Anne. I just assumed they were fucking it up since so many people are mistaken on that. Plus I only heard Mary refered to as the Immaculate Conception as part of “Mary, the Immaculate Conception.” Never just “The Immaculate Conception.”
Regardless, that guy is a fucktard.
Ick, I didn’t think of that interpretation, mythago. Wouldn’t be surprising in context though, eg., “When I married her, I knew her middle name was Concepcion. I just didn’t know her first name was ‘Immaculate’.”
You’d think Kia Gregory would want to, I don’t know, maybe interview the ex-wives and children here. She obviously had the column space to do so.
And it’s amazing how blatantly these jerkwads commodify their own children. That’s some USDA Grade-A parenting right there.
At my local pride parade recently, the MRA guys dressed in Superhero costumes had a “float”. Well, they hired a limo, and wore their superhero getup.
It was just… odd.
I’ve had dealings with some Australian ‘father’s rights’ groups, and believe me, I’m no more enamoured with them than you guys. I am in total agreement that some of these actions are more about control than about fathering, and that the reporter should have interviewed people from both sides.
That said, I think some of Amanda’s interpretations are too quick to condemn, when there’s a different, and possibly simpler reading.
“What do you think they’re doing with the suitcases filled with receipts? How many of you with non-custodial parents would have been happy to find out that your non-custodial parent was trying to deduct birthday presents and phone calls made on visitation from your custodial parent’s child support check?”
Well, given that there’s no evidence for this being the motive, I assume that they’re trying to prove their love and involvement in their children’s lives. Men tend to be taught that Good Father = Good Provider, and the legal system notoriously gives weight to documentation over oral evidence. If I were an estranged parent I too would be keeping those receipts, to prove that I was buying my children things that made them happy, because I loved them.
“And I had to highlight the “Immaculate Conceptionâ€? crack, because seriously, what’s more typical of a misogynist than claiming that because the woman he’s abusing isn’t a virgin, she deserves all the suffering that can be heaped upon her.”
Or he’s trying to say, as Anne said above, that his ex-wife’s refusal to acknowledge his right as a parent is equivalent to denying that her child has a biological father - was it an Immaculate Conception, that she can ignore the other parent that created the child?
I have immense sympathy for women who are unable to move on because they’re being dragged through the courts innumerable times. But I also have sympathy for men who find themselves cut off from their children when there is no proof that they were unfit parents.
yeah, because using your kids as a weapon against the hated enemy woman is the only reason for having kids. Pretty accurately sums up their mental age & general approach to life, I guess.“‘I spent six years not talking to my daughter because of parental alienation syndrome. I’d given up. I just couldn’t deal with any more rejection.’” WAAAAAAAAAA!!!!
Thanks for highlighting this, Amanda. “Parental alienation syndrome.” Ugh. That about make me want to puke.
My dad was the kind who whined when my parents divorced that he “didn’t want to be a weekend dad.” Of course, when it came time to take my brothers for a week (I was 17, and had the choice to stay with him or not, so I didn’t fucking go), he would flake out. And yes, he didn’t pay child support, and when he did, it wasn’t enough. When my brother was 17, he started to get into some trouble (nothing huge, really), and my dad tried to take custody of him and send him to military school. He hadn’t had regular visits, even weekend visits, for three years.
I’m fucking sick of these MRA guys. Their pathetic posturing at being a victim and their unwilligness to actually look out for their children’s interests is disgusting. Ugh.
My father received oodles of sympathy from the neighborhood because his kids cruelly refused to spend weekends with the guy who beat and raped their mom throughout their childhood.
My mom finally got us out of there when I was eleven. When the police kicked him out of the house and we moved back in 2 weeks later dad had killed our dogs. That’s love, isn’t it?
There’s a “fathers’” group here in Victoria, Australia called the Blackshirts. They revel in fascist trappings and organise bullhorn pickets outside divorced mothers’ houses so their neighbor’s will know what “sluts” these women are.
Pathetic loser fucktards.
My dad is an abusive asshole, and he blames my mom for EVERYTHING.
He blames her for his shitty relationship with his kids, completely ignoring the years of abuse he heaped on us. He blames her for “ruining his life” by not helping him with his business, ignoring the fact that my mom tried to help him for years, and he would never listen to her. He blames her for his poverty and “inability” to pay child support, ignoring the fact that he drinks up all his profits.
He really, truly, honestly believes that she just should have shut up and put up with his abuse, his drunkenness and his stupidity, because she married him and marriage is until death. It’s been more than a decade since the divorce, and my dad still fiercely maintains that everything that’s wrong with his life is 100% my mom’s fault, because she divorced him.
The cracked ribs he gave her, the rape, the beatings, the scathing emotional abuse, the child abuse, the laziness and drunkenness and hatefulness, all that is irrelevent; HE’S the VICTIM, because she dared to file for divorce.
Thank God he’s functionally illiterate or he’d probably be in one of these FRA groups.
Amanda, these guys are aided and abetted by more than the media. One of my 4 sisters was married to a man who knew all the tricks - he had been arrested 8 times for DUI and had bullied his way out of being tried; he never saw his children by his other wives, but managed to con them into speaking on his behalf in my sister’s divorce trial; he dragged out the divorce from my sister while demanding more time with the kids, had even kidnapped them and fled to Georgia twice during the divorce proceedings, and her lawyers - her own freaking lawyers - told her not to upset him, and everything would be ok. The night before the divorce would have been finalized, on their son’s birthday, he shot her and then himself.
The police, the DA, the judges and lawyers in the system - they all failed to hold this man accountable in spite of the fact that he had thumbed his nose at the system and flagrantly violated the law whenever and wherever he could. Any time one of these jerks turns himself into a “businessman” - and you can bet I cringe whenever I hear someone referred to with that term - they automagically become respectable members of the community, much more so than the women and children they abuse.
Although the media could do much better, we also need to hold our elected and appointed officials to a high standard whenever this kind of behavior comes to light, because it really is only a small step from the guy who’s keeping every receipt to the man who’s gunning down his ex-wife.
Here in the Uk, we have groups like this. Adn we also have a press that is sympathetic to the father no matter what. I don’t know if you have heard of this man: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bristol/4801053.stm
John Hogan, aka ‘Tragic Hotel Plunge Dad’ last week jumped off his hotel balcony with his two children in his arms, killing his 6 year old son and breaking the arm of his 2 year old daughter because his wife said she wanted a divorce. The following day, most British tabloids ahd pictures of him in his hospital bed with headlines like ‘What Have I Done? Tragic Hotel Dad’s Anguish’ and banging on about how much he regretted what he had done and what a tragic life he had had. I was just completely gobsmacked - I could not even begin to imagine the mauling he would have been taking over his actions had he been a woman. To illustrate my point, this woman: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/4797631.stm
was in the papers just a week before, and she was portrayed as some kind of monster, even though she never actually killed anybody. From her picture, I’d guess she had had her fair share of ‘tragedy’ and ‘anguish’ in her life too, but I don’t think she’ll be getting the front page of every tabloid to moan about it on any time soon.
Just to be pedantic:
“Immaculate Conception” (as already stated) refers to Mary, inparticular to her being conceived without the stain of original sin. (Celebrated on Dec. 8th)
The conception of Jesus without benefit of a father is the “Incarnation”. (Celebrated as the Feast of the Annunciation, April 4th)
The actual exit from the womb is the “Virgin Birth”. (Christmas)
Hey, at least those 12 years of Catholic schooling had some value, huh?
I usually don’t comment on your posts regarding MRA’s because i have no experience with divorce and unless they legalize gay marriage soon, it’s unlikely i ever will. But i sometimes think that the fathers are in a damned if you do, damned if you don’t situtation. If they go for custody then they’re vindicative and controlling and if they don’t then they’re negligent and uncaring.
pablo: exactly.
I never had — nor would I have accepted — an MRA as a client, but I did have a few men who needed every one of those receipts, etc., because their ex-wife (or ex-girlfriend) was claiming that no contact ever took place, no money was ever spent, etc.
Sometimes spouses reach verbal agreements whereby “oh, you pay for this and we’ll knock it off child support”, but later in court deny that arrangement. The receipts won’t necessarily result in the verbal agreement being enforced but they do prove active involvement, or prevent misplaced enforcement action.
This was especially useful to one of my clients who faced “arrears” of over $10k when the ex-girlfriend did this: she had been denying to Welfare that he ever paid a dime and was facing repayment of the funds (at best) criminal charges for fraud (at worst) unless she could lay the whole debt on him. Unfortunately for her he kept enough records to disprove her allegations.
It is also interesting to remember that the local child support enforcement agency was supporting the ex-gf in this. They denied ever approving of this arrangement, despite his allegations to the contrary. I subpoenaed their records and showed that their staffer had indeed approved the verbal agreement, and had logged it in the file.
No, it’s not vindictive to seek custody of a child/children when you honestly care about that child’s well being, health, happiness, emotional upbringing and numerous other variables.
It is, however, vindictive to repeatedly seek “custody” in a thinly veiled attempt at harassing your ex-spouse, keeping them tied up in legal fees and court proceedings, just so you can punish them for daring to divorce you, for any reason. To shift blame to your ex-spouse, to abuse them through the children [and abuse the children by default], to spend your waking hours solely intent on screwing them over by contesting custody or needlessly prolonging court proceedings.
There are a lot of parents, female and male, who have to fight for custody and actually prove the other parent may be unfit to raise the child/children. But the cases being discussed here are the ones in which an abusive person manipulates the system to work in their favour, most of the time never actually caring about what happens to the children. The guys in this article clearly are not in this for the best interests of their children - no, they are in it to continue the harassment and abuse of their ex-wives, via the legal system.
I don’t think that’s true, Pablo. No one here is talking about all fathers, just the fathers who only seem interested in their children as a way of getting back at their wives. There are plenty of good fathers out there who love and care for their children, it is men like these who give them a bad name.
For instance, as bad as these fathers are it can go the other way.
My stepfather fought for joint-custody for 6 years for his kids, because he loves his kids and wanted to be a part of their lives and he has always supported them in every way possible. He was awarded joint-custody because his ex-wife promised in court if she had full custody he’d never see them again because she hated him (for filing for divorce). Their divorce is over 20 years cold and my sisters have both stopped talking to her over the years, they are still close to him. Although no matter what she put him through, legally and emotionally, no one has ever heard him say a bad word about her.
Then there are men like my father, my parents divorced when I was 8, my father didn’t fight for custody, he automatically gave it to my mom, but has always been a big part of our lives. He has always been my father, neither one of my parents have ever said anything bad about the other– because after the marriage was over they put their children first.
The commonality between both men is that they geniunely loved their children and NEVER used them as pawns to hurt their ex’s, no matter the circumstances. As kids we were all in the dark about everything going on between the adults, all we got were explanations without any personal commentary.
Yeah, but seriously — how do you tell? A guy who fights for five years for visitation — is it because he’s desperate to see his kids, or because he wants to put his ex-wife through hell?
It helps having background on each guy, knowing the guy, knowing his relationship with the kids — all the crap the courts have to wade through.
My former uncle is a total ass about his visitation (not that he had to fight for it — my Aunt wanted an equatable arrangement, although she has primary custody), often using it to try to get back at her. (Sadly for him, she raised her kids well — they refuse to help him play his game, and he’s stopped trying as often).
But then, a guy I know had his wife divorce him to marry another man, and try to cut him out of visitation or any form of custody of their twin sons. He fought that one for years before finally getting joint custody. He didn’t do it to screw her — he just loved his kids.
I happen to know the idiots in the Father’s Right’s movement — and agree with the general assesment that they’re controlling assholes using the courts to keep trying to assert their supposed privalege over the women they’ve fucked.
But I know that there ARE fathers who do get screwed (just as their are mothers who get screwed), so I’m a little uncomfortably making wide assertions.
Yeah, but seriously — how do you tell? A guy who fights for five years for visitation — is it because he’s desperate to see his kids, or because he wants to put his ex-wife through hell?
A lot of the Fucker’s Rights Assholes make it easy enough, with their bitching about how they shouldn’t have to pay child support so their ex-whores can live in diamond-studded luxury if they don’t get to see their kids.
I think the really twisted thing about the Father’s Rights people is that they suck a lot of fathers who propably do have genuine grievances against the courts into cesspools of misogyny. Someone who’s just gone through a difficult divorce is pretty vulnerable, and the MRA’s take advantage of that, and turn these people into worse people.
Me: Junk Science hits the nail right on the head.
These guys out themselves in extremely obvious ways. The language is one of the first things to look at - the ex-spouse is almost always portrayed as a gold digger, a “whore”, “unfaithful” or “slutty”.
They try bring her character in to question and insinuate that she is somehow getting rich off their child support payments, no matter how meagre [or non-existent] they may be. They make arguments as to why they shouldn’t have to pay child support, yet insist they be given custody because “they’re my kids”. The kids are treated like property.
Every argument for the father getting custody starts begins with a rant against the mother and why she is unfit - it’s all about the spouse and why she is “bad”, it’s never about the children and what is best for them.
Most of the guys quoted are assholes, clearly. And I think, without a doubt, the shitbag “dad” who bails on multiple mothers and children without a look in the rearview mirror is more common by orders of magnitude than the evil mom who steals the kids away from a loving dad and devoted husband.
On the other hand, I would say that the reason that these stories resonate with men is because there is no denying in most states there is a strong (and well known) presumption in favor of the mom being made the custodial parent (which I think is generally warranted, but that is beside the point), and the idea of your kids being taken away and there being nothing you can do about it is any parent’s nightmare. Like most terrible scenarios that resonate with people (like your child being kidnapped, for example), the odds of this actually happening are pretty slim, but that doesn’t mean you don’t feel empathy for people who claim that it’s happened to them.
Well, Jeff, I guess a lot of us are amazed that the same guys who happily let their wives handle most of the gruntwork of rearing children suddenly turn into Mr. Nurturing Joint Custody Guy when their wives leave them.
I do have a great deal of sympathy for men who are unfairly cut off from their children. I note that such men tend to complain about how they miss their kids, rather than describing visitation as an afterthought to the child support they pay, as though seeing your children was some kind of tribute you exact from the ex-bitch for her daring to have the temerity to claim any of your money.
Yeah, but seriously — how do you tell? A guy who fights for five years for visitation — is it because he’s desperate to see his kids, or because he wants to put his ex-wife through hell?
Simple. Any man so selfish as to make his kids suffer for five years while he works on *his* desire to see his kids is an abuser. No need to wonder if he’s convinced himself that he means well by making them suffer. I’m a little pressed to believe that there’s any need to file lawsuit after lawsuit for years to get visitation, unless there’s something seriously fucked up about you.
The intense belief that ejaculation is all it takes to make a father is evident in the behavior of the man who filed for custody while his wife was still in stitches after childbirth.
What can you say, then, about the xCLP’s father, who announced his intention to apply for custody some two months before the expected date of delivery?
His stated reason for wanting custody: get out of paying child support (some sob story about how his employers would fire him if they learned that he’d fathered a child out of wedlock). His stated reason for why he should get custody: I had sex with several different men, and “some people might have a problem with that”.
(Afaik, he didn’t apply for custody. He just said he would, which adds yet another layer of weirdness.)
I’m a little pressed to believe that there’s any need to file lawsuit after lawsuit for years to get visitation, unless there’s something seriously fucked up about you.
No, there can be something seriously fucked up with your spouse, if you are unlucky enough to draw a judge who’s of the opinion that children belong with the wimminfolk and it’s silly to think a mother would ever lift a finger to her darling child. That said, the solution to those attitudes is feminism, not more of the same.
some sob story about how his employers would fire him if they learned that he’d fathered a child out of wedlock
Which they were more likely to find out if he were paying child support than if he actually had to use his sick leave to stay home and take care of the kid? Weird.
If he didn’t pay child support, they’d find out when his wages were garnished.
Which they were more likely to find out if he were paying child support than if he actually had to use his sick leave to stay home and take care of the kid?
Oh, he had that all worked out. He was going to “get some people to help”.
I want to respond to Dorothy’s comment about her pre-med friend. Your friend’s father certainly seems like a selfish vindictive SOB, to say the least. But I think your friend’s life isn’t quite as screwed as you suggest (assuming that this was relatively recent, and she still has time to react to it). She certainly can transfer to another school if that’s what she wants to do - she just can’t do so and still graduate on her original schedule, for most places. On the other hand, if she still wants the cachet of a degree from the Elite Private University she is attending (any private school with a 97% acceptance rate into med school qualifies as an EPU as far as I’m concerned), she can probably do that too, given additional time. If she hasn’t already done so, she should contact both the Dean’s office and the Financial Aid office of her EPU as soon as practical to find out how they might be able to help her and what her options are now.
The thing about most EPUs is that they tend to be pretty damn protective of their undergraduates. Once you make it past the admissions gauntlet, you’re part of the club, and they will work to try and keep you there. That’s the advice I got from my high school guidance counsellor thirty years ago, and it matches up well with both my personal experience and that of friends. The EPU I went to had something like 98% of each entering class go on to graduate eventually, and they worked hard to keep that number up.
There are institutional reasons for that attitude. An EPU is far more dependent on the continuing support and good will of its alumni than your typical Big State U is. Your friend is one semester away from being numbered in that group, and headed for a career with major earning potential. Twenty years from now, when it comes time to raise funds for a new Biology building, do you think they will prefer to be soliciting Dr. Neurosurgeon, who remembers EPU as the place where Dean Jones fought to help her finish her degree after Daddy Dearest flaked out, or Ms. Proletariat, who remembers EPU as the place where nobody gave a shit about her future? EPUs tend to take a rather long-term view towards those issues. (Also, in my experience, Deans at EPUs tend to be people who genuinely care about the students - I’m just pointing out that there are institutional motives beyond pure altruism that support such a stance.)
Now granted, it may not be easy for your friend. EPUs don’t want to make it too easy for parents to duck out on their responsibilities without consequences. So maybe your friend will have to take an extra year or two off to demonstrate financial independence from Daddy Dearest, and maybe she’ll have to borrow more than she wanted in order to finish up. But I’m pretty sure that if she lets the right people know about her problem, she will find both sympathy and help, and if she really wants to finish her degree there, she should find them more than willing to meet her part way. I wish her luck - she’s in a tough spot, but it shouldn’t ruin her whole life.
That article made me sick. The reporter is clearly a shill for the Father’s Rights orgs.
The PA Weekly either needs to run an article discussing other points of view on child custody issues, or a retraction and apology for the entire article.
As it stands, the article makes it seem like the Weekly wants its readers to contact their legislator to vote for the forced shared parenting bill. Not biased or anything.
The following is completely anectodal, but I have a lot of things I would like to say about this topic, but find that I am biased with regards to these FRA’s.
We run a supervised visitaion and custody exchange center where I work, and I come into contact with this abusive a-holes on a regular basis.
The whole victim thing is part of their MO, and it continues. I must state that most of the program’s clients are there for domestic violence, sexual abuse (of both mother and/or child), child abuse and neglect. Most of the mothers have restraining orders against these guys for a reason (that being stated some of the non-custodial parents are women but for the most part they are court ordered for services due to drug use and/or by some rare fate their abuser has convinced the courts that she is the one that the kids need protection from (many abused women turn to self medication and become addicted)).
I can tell the abusive ones right off the bat because they are the ones that call 5 times a day until there first visit, and they don’t like to deal with me because I am a woman. When their visitation is set up they are often late, or don’t show up, and refuse to pay for their services (that they are court ordered to do, which are provided on a sliding scale), and often break the rules of their conditions of participation within the first month (this is a document that they sign that tells them all the rules of the program and explaines consequences which they also get a copy of). Furthermore, three months down the road they decide it all wasn’t worth it and terminate services. We don’t hear from them again until their next custody hearing, and they want us to testify to their fitness as parents.
All complaining aside, the worst part of the job is having to be there to pick up the pieces after the visits, and to see the fear in the eyes of the children that are forced to visit with a parent whom they don’t want to see.
Sorry about the long post…
I have just gone back and brought myself up to date on the other posts, and re-read Pheather’s post. (FWIW, Pheather, your experience with such shitbags corresponds to my own, save in one case where the alleged abuser was actually on the receiving end of a rather vicious plot amongst his in-laws, complete with tailored perjury. Had the case occurred today they wouldn’t have got away with it, but back in 1992 the police were totally clueless about female-on-male domestic violence.)
One thing amuses me though. In posting on the Leskun case I realized that the ex-wife, with her manic obsession on dragging her ex-husband through the courts no matter how high it went, living only for the court case and the multiple levels of appeal, determined that he would financially pay for rejecting her, was a first for us here: our first woman acting like an MRA!
Dave–
Thanks for the concern–yes the school helped my friend work everything out and she got on with her life. (I probably should have mentioned that, but it wasn’t the point of the discussion. More details in response to your comment on my blog, if you care.)
And I don’t know that I would describe my Alma Mater as “elite”–more like “really tiny with a killer bio and chem program.”
Let me see if I get this right:
The ONLY reason men want to be involved with their kids after a breakup and/or divorce is that they want to “control” the ex, right? and that they are “selfish
assholes”, or words to that effect?
Women NEVER want to control their exes, do they?
Never want to “get even” do they? Are always above using the system to their advantage, aren’t they?
This is a bunch of festering bullshit……………..
The dark fire will not avail you, Flame of Udûn!
Let me see if I get this right
Nope. Sorry. Please don’t try again.
Go back to the Shadow. You cannot pass!
Morgoth musta got lazy.
hey, a creative troll
cooleth
Make all the “troll” references you want.
It is man-hating bullshit to assume that men who
fight with their exes in court over the kids are “abusers” who are trying to “control” their ex-wives or girlfriends.
Balrog, it’s obviously trolling to pretend that anyone has said women are NEVER evil and that men seeking custody are ALWAYS control freaks. Isn’t there a nice MRA board where you can vent?
The title of this (post, blog, whatever) is “Philadelphia Weekly Presents Sympathetic View Of
Abusive Exes”. If that is NOT implying that all of the men interviewed in the article are “abusers” then WTF?
Where the fuck is Glorfindel of Gondolin when you need him?
Jack, cut the “Lord of the Rings” BS- that joke wasn’t all that funny the first time.
Sorry, it was The Silmarillion. The way is shut, jackass.
Well, if you join one of these groups, you have an abusive need to control. It’s tautological, really. Kind of like saying the sky is blue.
If that is NOT implying that all of the men interviewed in the article are “abusers�
Oh, hey now, I thought you were talking about men seeking custody, not the particular men in the article?
“Jack, cut the “Lord of the Ringsâ€? BS- that joke wasn’t all that funny the first time.”
Oh, yes it was.
Maybe the first four or five thousand times you hear it………
Don’t say dumbass shit and you won’t have to deal with Narya.
“If you join one of these groups, you have an abusive need to control”……..Like I said, bullshit……
Are you trying to tell me that whenever a couple (with kids, of course) breaks up the man should just accept whatever happens?
I’m “abusive” if I want to see my kids more often?
If I go to court to try to get my ex to abide by the agreement we have, I’m “controlling”?
I’m pretty sure every man in these groups isn’t going around wearing superhero costumes and trying to get out of paying child support, as you routinely try to
imply. In, fact, THEY (NCP’s) are more often than not
the ones being “controlled” and “abused” by the system.
Calling me and people like me “trolls” doesn’t change a goddammed thing about it……
Gothmog you are not.
Assuming that all men who are MRA are controlling and/or abusive is like assuming:
-Everyone in the Civil Rights Movement were Communist;
-All feminists are man-hating lesbians;
-Anybody who opposes the Bush Administration is “Anti-American, etc…..
It’s a simple but dishonest way of denigrating someone
who does not follow your own agenda…………
The same goes for this “troll” bullshit……….
Going entirely off your nut without actually reading the post or the discussion and whining that you’re the one being abused doesn’t make you appear the rational person you want to be seen as. Should have held back a bit there, Sparky.
I read the ENTIRE post and ALL the comments, and I still say the premise is dishonest- the idea that the men depicted were “abusive” and wanted to “control” their exes.
I found it particularly interesting how (first Amanda, then, most of the rest of you)CHOSE to deliberately mis-interpret the man who referred to the “Immaculate Conception”- it should be obvious to anybody that his ex considered his role in their children’s life to be neglible, in his opinion…
Then there was the idea that “This course of high level repeated lawsuits over a course of years behavior is despicable and abusive”- What that implies, I’m not exactly sure- it seems like she’s
either saying 1)the lawsuits are all frivolous or 2)
the men should just accept whatever terms the courts give them the first time and leave it at that..either way, more dishonesty….
I’ve got to give you some credit though- even though you are just plain wrong about this, at least you didn’t cop-out and play the “troll’ card……
Heh. Valarauk doesn’t understand “Immaculate” either. Surprised? Hell no.
I talked to Echthelion of the Fountain and he said this guy is laughable so I THINK that he might not worry about it.
No, Jack, I just understand it when some (not all) women act as if they are the ONLY ones responsible for bringing their children into the world….
More troll refrences, Jack? Keep it up- you’re winning this hands down- it’s not like you have to make any substantive response, right?
But ironically, you don’t understand it when some (not all) men act as if they’re the ONLY ones responsbile for bringing their children into the world.
Oh, and try laying of your “period” key just a bit. Ending every sentence with an ellipsis is the written equivalent of up-talking.
Actually in my experience it is the woman who goes on and on about “her kids” most often……this sense of entitlement is reinforced in Family Court every day….
Oh, I see you want to play the “grammar and punctuation” cop-out card- hey at least it’s better than all the “troll” cards that are usually thrown around….
How about spelling “responsible” properly before you play “writing cop” with me, OK?
Nope, sorry. Reading MRA brochures doesn’t count as “experience.”
And you might want to look up the word “cop-out.” It doesn’t mean what you think it means.
Oh, yeah, and the fact that you’re whining about everyone calling you a troll doesn’t actually mean that you aren’t one.
And — last one, promise — it’s cool if you get off on writing like a valley girl and don’t mind the perception of obtuse vapidity that goes along with it. The occasional typo doesn’t bother me, since I can at least take comfort in the fact that I don’t write like I’m an Alicia Silverstone wannabe.
Dear Grammar Cop,
cop-out (kop’out) n. Slang “An act of or excuse for copping out; a quitting or backing down.”
When you refuse to debate the SUBSTANCE of what I am saying and choose to QUIT (before it even starts) by throwing around refrences to “trolls” (or playing Grammar Cop), YOU, my friend, are “copping out”.
Reading MRA brochures doesn’t qualify as experience?
I agree- however, being in the middle of just the type of long protracted court struggle that was described in the original article is, I would think.
And since no one else here is representing the POV of these so-called “abusers” and controllers”, I thought I would. (Frankly, I’m suprised I’ve been able to say THIS much).
Finally, “Alicia Silverstone wannabe”? “Valley Girl”?
How does that jibe with being a “misogynistic troll asshole”? And “perception of obtuse vapidity”? Who’s “uptalking” now?
Keep your promise, Dan- go to bed…..
Just slow down, there, bubba. Put an ice pack on your head, or something, that thing’s getting a little overheated.
I’m really not sure whose post you were reading. I certainly didn’t refuse to debate the substance in what you said (what little there was, anyway).
I’m genuinely sorry that your ex-wife thinks you’re as much of an asshat as most of the rest of us do, but the plural of “anecdote” is still not “data.”
And in a rather humourous and ironic way, you’re doing a fabulous job.
Heh. The fact that you don’t get the joke doesn’t mean it ain’t funny.
Dan, Dan, you promised!
I’ve gotta go to work soon, man!
Actually, once again, I bring facts, you bring drama…..copping out as usual…….
I don’t think my ex thinks I am an “asshat”, as you put it….probably some variation of “Motherfucker”, if you must know…..Regardless, whatever she (or you or anyone else) thinks, that doesn’t give her the right
to BREAK THE LAW regarding our visitaion and custody agreement….
About the “anecdotes”- I don’t see anyone else here quoting from any “data”, either. Of course you convieniently overlook that, don’t you, hypocrite?
If you see me as an “abuser”, it’s not that you don’t get it- you CHOOSE not to get it…..
I didn’t “get the joke” because the “joke” did’nt make any sense, Jokes that don’t make any sense aren’t funny….
Actually, once again, I bring facts, you bring drama
Actually, the only person acting like a drama queen is you, Valarauk.
Why are you trolling here? It’s not going to change the fact that your ex knows you’re a jackass and tries to make sure her kids don’t have to be around complete ineptitude. She’s breaking the cycle of stupidity, from what I can tell. Good for her.
As for you, you’ve offered nothing but anecdote and circumstantial evidence to back up your asshattery. Not verifiable in the slightest. And just so you know, http://none/ isn’t a URL, so quit inputting it as your website. Asshat.