Many thanks to Opinionated Man for allowing me to talk about my book at his HarsH ReaLiTy blog.
Good for you, Navigator and thanks OM! I’m liking the reblogs.
Thank you, Madam ib22. Your continued support is much appreciated.
I want to be supportive because separation from children is a terrible thing, no question. I guess I would want to understand what caused this in the first place. I don’t know anything about Canadian custody laws, but here, when a father is denied access to his children, it is due to a perceived physical menace. I assume you never gave anyone any reason to fear you? And here, feminism has little or nothing to do with custody. I am not sure anyone even thinks of the concept anymore, except for a far right wing fringe group here that is anti-women, militantly so and tries to attribute anything they don’t like about women having equal rights, to a forty year old movement. It is a false construct, in my view. But, the US is not Canada. Any form of abuse, which is just a variant of mis-use, no matter who commits it, is wrong and should be fought, of course.
Thank you, Beth. Academics have documented that ideological feminism is far more entrenched in Canada than it is in the U.S.
I never gave anyone reason to fear me. Elements of the Duluth Model of domestic violence, which I believe constitutes academic fraud, have been incorporated into our child protection regulations. Mother not automatically getting child custody / $$$ is considered to be a form of “woman abuse,” in that he is “using the child against her.” (Actual Duluth terminology.)
Further, the Child Protection Standards in Ontario cite Ontario’s Professor Peter Jaffe as a reference. Jaffe is a hero to feminists for his research and activism regarding “woman abuse” (which is a fraudulent concept created to “prove” patriarchy). His discredited research alleges a high degree of correlation between “woman abuse” (which every man is guilty of, by definition) and child abuse.
Thus, father not automatically surrounding child custody and support $$$ is women abuse, which then means there must be “woman abuse,” which means there must be child abuse (per Jaffe), so child “protection” to drive father out is okay.
If there was legitimate child protection concerns, the social workers and court only had lawful power to apprehend the children. Besides, they violated the explicit provision in the Standards that when the only allegation is domestic violence (between parents), the children are not in need of protection.
I agree with you – no form of child abuse is tolerable, regardless of the parent’s gender.
Things must be very very different in Canada. We agree on kindness, equity and parity. As for the rest, I think we are seeing different data — certainly different in the US with, I am sure, some notable exceptions. Parenting and marriage are far more difficult than people realize, when they casually enter into both with good intentions. Sigh!
I like that statement Beth. It IS people casually entering into something that takes a lot of time… and effort.
I second your thoughts on parenting and marriage, Beth. Indeed, I love Winifred Reilly’s blog http://speakingofmarriage.com/ for her similar views. (I met her at O.M.’s Project O)
Two McGill University academics have written that feminists have been more successful in implementing (or having implemented) feminist policies here in Canada than in the U.S.
I’m thinking about possible causes for the disparity. Regardless, I fear that if given half a chance, feminists in the U.S. would seek to achieve the same ends as here in Canada, especially as much of what goes on here is based upon the foundational work of U.S. feminists. (e.g., the discredited “research” of Lenore Weitzman).
Again, I support reasonable equality, genuine justice, and mutual respect for both genders and individuals. Sadly, feminism as a social movement does not reflect these values. As I intend to argue in my sequel, all major social “isms” likely are narcissistic social phenomena.
I respect you and much or even most of what you espouse, Beth. Our primary divergence is that my undeniable experience is that feminism does not in reality reflect what you believe it to be. My observational data, if you will, cannot be reconciled with your theoretical understanding of feminism. Scientific integrity demands that my data not be ignored.
I would never ask you to abandon your rational championship of noble causes such as reasonable equality or actual justice. Indeed, it is in defence of these that I challenge feminism as their false champion.
Well, Nav, I believe in scientifically gathered evidence, not anecdotal. I addressed this topic on my blog under several posts on what science is and is not, as well on one I believe I called “The Last Straw-Woman”, on this topic of so-called “feminism” a now vestigial term no longer used by serious political or social science thinkers and observers.
All you have to do though, in order to understand why women would need to mount certain defenses in specific instances, is to look at what the SCOTUS just handed down in the past 48 hours regarding, of all things, contraception. Employers can now reject paying for the most effective forms of birth control based on a vague term “deeply held religious beliefs”. The “closely-held” corporation, as legally defined for tax purposes in the US, are all those where 50% or more of the stocks held, are held by 5 or fewer individuals. That definition applies to up to 90% of US Corporations and potentially affects millions of women workers, the poorest, the most heavily. If they are to avail themselves of the most effective forms of birth control, chiefly, IUDs, they will be paying a month’s salary on a minimum wage/poverty level hourly rate, in addition to being taxed to cover the government subsidies of those who have no income at all.
This form of contraception is held by those who apparently do not understand it, to be a form of abortion. IUDs simply prevent ovulation, no gamete or zygote or fetus is harmed by preventing the dropping of an egg.
I contend but won’t argue it here — I do it on my own site, that “feminism” is a false construct. There are only behaviors, no “isms” — those terms are facile devices that enable those who wish to fight against them to pejoratize behaviors with which those people do not agree.
There is no harm in putting out a theory, but as Richard Feynman, one of the greatest scientists of all time, said: no matter how wonderful a theory, if it is not proven by experiment (the scientific method), it is false. Period.
Hope I am not offending by re-stating this position, because I know you have had a terrible experience that I hold to be a failure of the justice system in your and apparently other similar cases. I think it has nothing to do with anything called “feminism” by some people, forty years ago in the US, just as I would no longer refer to in current social phenomena the outdated and highly limited catch-all terms such as “liberalism”, “conservatism”, “libertarianism”, “nazism”, “communism”, or “socialism”, no matter how tempting and convenient it is for all of us to lapse into doing so.
Peace and friendship, above all, as we continue to roll this around intellectually here. 🙂
My apology for the delay in responding—life has this habit of trumping blogging.
A proper response must wait for a while. Notwithstanding any disagreements that I may (or may not) have with your positions, my respect and admiration for you remain undeminished.
Going over to read other side…
Blogging about feminism today Nav, and I mentioned your book. Hope you don’t mind.
Not at all, ib22. I am honoured.
I’ve been thinking about you, Michael, as summer unwinds. I hope this O.M. exposure has helped your book cause. Have you and the unseen one been able to pull all of the darts from your back yet? Enjoy the weekend. Is she over in Portugal yet? Our holiday weekend got off to a good start yesterday here.
My apology, Mark. I’ve been occupied with retirement from the RCAF, new employer and job, and my ex-wife’s latest legal machinations.
The book appears to be stuck in the laziness of summer. Perhaps it will pick up in the fall.
As for The Nameless One, Portugal is the first two weeks of August. The week after sees her and I in Boston, with my first ever visit to Fenway. Having been to a Cubs game at Wrigley Field, after Fenway, I can die a happy man.
Happy retirement, and quick turnaround, too, Michael.
Bon voyage to the Nameless One. Happy traveling, wise and pretty. from Karen and I.
Yes, Fenway and Wrigley. Every baseball fan of a certain age’s dream. Lucky man you will be!
Glad to see you spreading the truth about how children are being victimized by unbalanced, unstable, and quite frankly by women who have lost all sense of accountability and responsibility that is our children’s birthright. My thoughts and prayers are with you and OM you guys have a way of piercing the veil of insanity. Keep up the fight, I believe folks need to come to their senses and spare are children emotional and physical abuse. JBC 😎
Thank you, JBC. It seems as if we, as societies or a civilization, have forgotten that children are our future, and the seminal role that women play in ensuring that future.
O/T, played my delightful Art Blakey / Jazz Messengers “Three Blind Mice” album last night. With new 12AX7 tubes in the phono preamp, it was sublime. Super recording.
You are so right. Art Blakey, and the musicians from that generation seemed as though they were dedicated to the sound as we are to words. Either way, it’s all goof! JBC 😎
In my opinion, this whole “issue” is about false stereotypes because some people just have to fight something and will even create a straw woman where there is none: http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2014/07/rightbloggers_take_back_the_culture_with_anti-feminist_tumblr_religious_film_reviews_etc.php
I will admit that the whole topic hits a few trigger points for me… And yes, I do consider myself a feminist, but don’t judge just yet…
I believe that all people should be treated as equals, and that gender stereotypes should not exist. BOTH parents should be responsible and have equal opportunity to care for their children. It shouldn’t automatically be assumed that the parents each have some nuclear family role to play.
In my case, by the time I left, he had managed to alienate the children all on his own. He was a religious fundamentalist who pushed his beliefs so hard that we were all pretty much done with all of it. He even told my daughter, on more than one occasion, that she was evil. People who witnessed his behavior with the kids throughout the marriage and the subsequent break-up could tell you he had some serious issues. But I know he viewed himself as the victim.
When we were married, he was very controlling and manipulative. I have plenty of saved correspondence that I’ve allowed some of my inner circle read… The men I’ve allowed to read the correspondence were as deeply offended by what he wrote as the women were.
He also wasn’t exactly great when it came to meeting the children’s needs. Because I was worried about their safety and well being, I did everything in my power to make them as self sufficient as possible as quickly as possible. While they may never have a “normal” relationship with him, it does seem as though it is getting better.
Each and every situation is different. People are different. It’s not always the woman who is the victim. Women can be every bit as abusive as men. Don’t lump women who believe in equality and call themselves “feminist” because they believe in gender equality with the corrupt system you’ve had to deal with.
And yes, Justice is rare. It’s not one sided, either. Of course, it is always healthiest when children of divorce are allowed to have a healthy relationship with both parents.
The thing to remember when writing about bad relationships when there are children involved is that when you speak ill of their mother, you hurt them in the long run. They share DNA from both of you, so if you say or imply that there is something fundamentally wrong with the woman who birthed them, in their eyes you are telling them, albeit on a subconscious level, that there is something wrong with them. Sometimes you really do have to make a deal with the devil and appease the other person, even when they are doing wrong. Contention breeds more contention, and in the end, nobody wins.
Hopefully somewhere deep in her heart, your daughter stores good memories. I’m willing to bet that at some point in her life, she WILL seek you out, despite any brainwashing that may be going on, and at that point, you will be able to build a loving relationship with her. You will never get back the years you’ve lost, but maybe moving forward, you will still build something beautiful. I wish you, your daughter, your sons, and yes, even your ex-wife, the best possible outcome – that though there is a divide between the parents, you will all come to an understanding that brings you all peace.
d&h, I have to leave shortly to watch a movie with Madame gf. I’ll respond later this evening or perhaps tomorrow.
I do want to thank you for such a thoughtful, caring, and civil comment, though. It’s always a pleasure making the acquaintance of such a nice person, even if there are points or issues that we respectfully disagree upon, now and then.
K.E., I’ll enumerate, to help keep things clear in my mind:
1. I appreciate your kind sentiments and wise words. Thank you.
2. According to alienation expert Dr. Amy Baker, Ph.D. (she testified at my divorce trial), the average time to reunification for a severely alienated child is 20 years. Other research shows a 5% that we’ll never re-unify.
3. According to the expert psychiatrist in my case, when such a child does come back to you, they tend to be the sort of person you don’t want in your life. Narcissism is intergenerational.
4. Your case sounds like one of justified estrangement, in that your children’s attitude of their father is the result of his behaviour and personality. This is different from alienation, obviously, and is why experts who can make the differential diagnosis of parental alienation are required in cases like mine.
5. I’ve never bad mouthed my ex to the kids. I don’t fight child abuse with more child abuse.
6. Your ex sounds narcissistic. The controlling and manipulative parts are giveaways.
7. I will respectfully disagree with you, regarding feminism. I use the term exclusively in its negative sense–the radical, ideological, or “gender” feminists. I realize that there are reasonable and even wonderful women who self-identify with feminism. One example is Christina Hoff Sommers, Ph.D., who refers to herself as an equity feminist. Yet, even Dr. HS admits that the bad sort of feminists have taken over the women’s movement, as per her book “Who Stole Feminism? How Women Have Betrayed Women.” My experience was unequivocal: feminism is a horrid, wicked, and heartless social movement that has nothing to do with equality and justice, despite what it purports. I argue that moderate and rational women like Dr. HS are actually doing a disservice to society by self-identifying with the feminism: they provide a deceptive cover of legitimacy to a movement that otherwise has a dark psychopathology at its core.
I other words, I find that moderate feminists associate with the movement based upon an idealized vision of what they want feminism to be, versus having the courage to see it for what it really is. One lady that I really admire is University of Ottawa Professor of English Dr. Janice Fiamengo. Prof F used to be a dedicated moderate feminist, but eventually saw through feminism’s fraudulent ‘scholarship” to appreciate its abusive nature. She nows writes and speaks out against the movement, having seen the harm and suffering that it causes in people’s lives.
8. I agree that both parents should be engaged in their children’s lives, from the start. I disagree that everything should necessarily be shared equally throughout childhood, however. Given the biological differences between men and women (complimentarianism), it seems to me that it might be advantageous for the mother to be a bit more involved during the early years (e.g., nursing), and the father to be a bit more involved in the later years. Having said this, there is no universal magic formula, and two dedicated and loving parents will usually figure out something that works with their children and their circumstances, without state intervention or ideological demands.
Were there not some truth to this, then there’d be nothing special about mothers or fathers, and I reject this as being evidently false. This isn’t to stereotype, but rather derives from human biology and experience (e.g., the sorry statistics for children who grow up fatherless).
9. My ex-wife gleefully executed a prolonged, vindictive, and rabid campaign to have our children reject me. She has expert-confirmed narcissistic personality traits, and, when I refused to mirror her grandiosity any longer, her true self came out, and it was nasty. Civil is as best as it’s going to get; my existence constitutes a never-ending narcissistic injury to her, and she’ll maintain control over our kids’ perceptions to whatever degree she can, and she’ll try to stick it to me, however and whenever she can. That’s the nature of narcissism.
10. 100% in agreement with this statement of yours–well said: “They share DNA from both of you, so if you say or imply that there is something fundamentally wrong with the woman who birthed them, in their eyes you are telling them, albeit on a subconscious level, that there is something wrong with them.”
Let me know if your ever interested in reading the book about my experiences: http://www.michaelmcconaughey.com/reviews.html (complimentary, of course). No worries if you aren’t. It might challenge your views on feminism. Not that you can’t still believe is reasonable equality and justice and be against sexism. It’s just that feminism isn’t really about these things.
“you’re” – apology for the typo.
I hope you remember who I am. We did a lot of conversing while you were working on your book. I was wondering if you have the time to help a DESPERATE fellow Christian military guy, from USA, whose wife just left him and took their children with her? He is in a very BLACK hole and I told him that, although it feels like it, he is NOT alone in his nightmare. His name is Ted Baccich. You can look him up on Facebook, where he is very active, in his grief. He really NEEDS to talk to you. He needs to know that he can survive this horrendous ordeal. I know you can help him over this bridge of fire. He really needs to talk to someone who personally understands what he’s going through. Sadly, Ted’s circumstances MIRROR yours. Thank you very much. Hope all is well.
Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:
You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Twitter account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Facebook account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Google+ account. ( Log Out / Change )
Connecting to %s
Notify me of new comments via email.
Notify me of new posts via email.
All of human existence is a geometry. I seek its axioms.
Michael M. McConaughey - www.michaelmcconaughey.com
Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.
Join 562 other followers