April 29, 2009

The woman blaming runs rampant over THERE

pjk is not the only one who blames women. Read on for many many more below:

feelbreeze64 Says:

April 29th, 2009 at 2:59 pm
Spoken like a true victim. Maybe she should of thought twice about who she was having children with, instead of having childern with a man that can't take care of him self but still expecting him to take care of his childern. She is just as at fault as he is for making poor decisions.

SerenityNow Says:

April 29th, 2009 at 2:58 pm
I was going to say what pjk said- that Ms. McCaffrey chose to have a child with (if we take her words as fact) an irresponsible drug addict, and now cries BOO HOO HOO.

Offended_Dad Says:

April 29th, 2009 at 3:15 pm
Wow, April, you had not one, but *TWO* children with an alcoholic / drug addict that can't hold down a job. What moment of genius inspired this life decision that affects not only you, but the two children you deliberately created? You aparently take ZERO accountability for your bad decision making, but rather propose that the government force someone to work and confiscate their wages to make up for it....

Imagine if women were branded "lying goldigging tramps" until proven otherwise, and you'll start to understand the point of view.

Editor Note: Offended_Dad - women ARE branded liars, god-diggers, and tramps every single day by abusive men. This is why the women file for divorce in many cases.

Lonnie Says:

April 29th, 2009 at 10:44 pm
why doesnt she elaborate on her decision to sleep with and have a child with a man who was a drug addict? Or did she drive him to that point lol. Why is it never their fault? Why do they never accept any part of the blame for their decisions? How about taking into consideration that before you spread your legs and get pregnant you think about whether you can afford to raise a child by yourself?? she is a clear loser who wants to pass the blame for her poor decisions.

And my favorite (hack gag puke) comment of the night:

JeanB Says:

April 29th, 2009 at 11:00 pm

Because then she would have to admit she is stupid. Heaven forbid anyone takes responsibility for their own actions anymore.

Let's blame the mom some more

pjk Says:

April 29th, 2009 at 2:49 pm
re: "My own daughters' father is a deadbeat. He can't seem to hold down a job or residence long enough to be caught by the system, and he's a drug addict."

...she sure knows how to pick 'em.

Again nothing more needs to be added here. pjk says it all.....

It IS all about the money....... (according to E. Steven Berkimer)

E. Steven Berkimer Says:

April 29th, 2009 at 2:26 pm
Without the money, many children (and their parent that actually raises them) go without health insurance and regular check-ups. Without the money, children lose out on opportunities for a better education if they can't afford to live in the right neighborhood or pay for private school or pay for tutoring. Without the money, some single parents have to work more than one job and spend less time with their children...

Wellllllll....... If you can't afford to support the child on your own, should you have custody?

Do I need to add anything to this?????

April 28, 2009

Attila update yet again :-)

Attila L. Vinczer Says:

April 2nd, 2009 at 12:55 pm
...Now the feminists will hang me with another blogpost with a picture of a pig (I think it's the BAD ASS MOM not sure) Now I have a clear picture of what "Lipstick on a pig." means.


Actually Attila it is not just "one" mom it is a whole platoon of us. We are growing in numbers and one day people with common sense will see the light. And yes it is a train and it is headed straight for all the MRA/FR types. Better get off the tracks before it is too late, Attila......

April 27, 2009

Attila, Attila, Attila (or otherwise entitled Getting it WRONG in PAS cases)

Attila L. Vinczer Says:

April 26th, 2009 at 9:35 am

I attended the Canadian Symposium for PAS in Toronto. I strongly recommend for you to contact the Rachel Foundation at www.rachelfoundation.org I met with both Pamela and Bob who run the reintegration program for alienated children. They have both phone and email support lines to get you started in the right direction.

Attila, please do not forget to mention the lawsuits that Rachel Foundation is a party to. Pamela has filed bankruptcy. No mention of who this "Bob" is but I am sure the Plaintiff is well aware of any new members to this scary group. To those who do not know about the lawsuits please visit http://rachel-foundation-lawsuit.com/ to get more information. Rachel Foundation will go down!!!!

On another note Attila, how was the PAS symposium? I heard you all had the best turnout yet (20 people)... (smiles at Attila)

Oh and have fun searching for yourself this time big boy....

UPDATE!!!!!We now have a visual for Attila!!!!

Kudos yet again to Georgia Girl!!! (or Getting it right in PAS cases)

Georgia Girl Says:

April 25th, 2009 at 9:14 pm
I have no doubt that PAS is a real condition of alienation, but not in the context JeanB speaks. I firmly believe the the girlfriend or boyfriend in a divorced spouse's life has no business trying to intervene with the "children" of that spouse.

It is the spouse's responsibility to negotiate with both his ex-wife and with his children. And in jeanb's case, the father of the children was NOT the one who took the initiative. To me, this kind of generosity coming from the new girlfriend would only serve to aggravate the ex-wife (trying to put myself in the shoes of the ex-wife).

It's curious, also, that in this particular case, the father waited until they were college age before taking "action" to involve himself in his daughters' lives. Something sounds skewed here.

Georgia Girl if you read other comments from jeanb you will see that her boyfriend is what one commonly refers to as a deadbeat dad. They have even taken steps to ensure that the state cannot come after him (putting everything in her name). I wonder if when they file taxes does he file or does he ignore that little law too? You see in MRA world, we must do everything to ensure that little court order called child support is never followed.

Oh and step two in the MRA handbook? Make sure that everyone sees how BADLY the father has been alienated from HIS chidlren. Do not allow anyone to see if the FATHER may have actually done anything to turn the children against him on his own. You see yet again women are all powerful and we control the world (okay who is on drugs now).....

Another for the stepmonster hall of shame

Here we have another woman who is PROUD of all she has done to ensure that her new partner's chidlren will not get the support they deserve. I do not think any commentary is necessary here. Oh and notice the veiled threats made also (Durham might get beat?)

JeanB Says:

April 27th, 2009 at 2:48 pm
First of all, Durham is putting his life on the line here. Given the volatility of these situations it won’t take long to come across one that is so PO’ed he just beats the hell out of Durham. Not too smart of Durham, I think.

Oh, buddy, I dare Durham to try to hound my BF. I DARE HIM! House is in my name, haha! Sorry, couldn’t resist. Seriously, though, I don’t shake easy, and he doesn’t get shook up, EVER. I almost hope Durham does show up, and he just might since “her” state falsely claims my BF is in arrears. Might be fun.

Polite letter to Lifetime, et al, will be written and sent off for sure.

John M on Blackmail

John M Says:

April 27th, 2009 at 10:52 am
BTW, what exactly do we know about this Mr. Durham? No man's closet is so clean that it doesn't have a few skeletons in it.

Now the MRA's are behaving normally :-) What fun would we have if we did not stopp to a good ol' fashioned blackmailing or extortion? I can see the headlines now. John M (or insert name here) - Blackmail and Extortion. (Article) It seems dear John is angry about child support. And he wants the world to know it. Lifetime in an effort to show how the system routinely fails chidlren by not being able to receive the child support due them, has run with the show Deadbeat Dads. John, however feels this is an insult to all men as they are NOT deadbeats. Enter the Internet and blackmail/extortion.

Now you, gentle reader may finish the article.....

Mike Lordi on DV

Mike Lordi Says:

April 27th, 2009 at 7:45 am
In addition, we should also send letters to ABC about last nights "HOme Makeover". The mother of the family works with a domestic violence group since her daughter was killed by her boyfriend. So the team decides to raise awareness of DV and sets up a demonstration which included cutouts of people who had been killed by DV. There was 7-10 wooden cutouts with names on them, all women. So in all of Alabama there wasn't ONE victim of DV that was male?

We MUST make sure that no victim has a voice, no child is allowed to tell of trauma. Men must be allowed to return (RETURN?!?!?!!?!?!?) to their reigns of all-knowing and all-powerful. A man is the king and all others must follow HIM!!!

Oh puke gag, puke gag.........Mike, do a search for "Alabama domestic violence murder victim." The only time a male is mentioned in the first 10 pages is when he is the perp or he is a dv worker assisting the family of the murder victim. In all of those pages, there were no mentions made of a male murder victim through dv.

(Mike's crybaby response) But the media doesn't mention those men, they live in a dreamland where only women are victims.

(Petunia) Well Mike that could simply be because men are more violent than women and cause more damage. Men use guns, knnives, fists. When you read of the odd case of a woman who truly was commiting dv, it is an anomoly. Women are violent generally (you see I used the word generally not "all the time" here) in response to violence. They are being abused, their children are alleged to have been abused. Generally women do not "beat" a man if he does not "do" what she wants. Unless you call keeping HIS hands to HIMSELF doing what she wants.

Women's default rate on child support

Mister-M Says:

April 27th, 2009 at 7:31 am
Maybe in our letters... we can also point out that as a gender, women TOTALLY DEFAULT on their child support obligations (and partially default) at a significantly greater percentage than do men.

It's almost 2-to-1.

I wonder if they'll be tracking down any deadbeat moms?

Mister-M, again you MRA's are confused....How do women "TOTALLY" default on their child support obligations? This is suggesting that EVERY woman ignores chidl support. A handful of MRA's on a website with sob stories on how they have been wronged by family court do not lead and cannot lead to that assumption. Women default due to lower earning capacities compared to men who have typically been in the workforce longer. Women are typically in and out of the workforce. Men typically work more dangerous jobs, whereas women are your service workers who are "safe" and as such are paid less, which will lead to a higher default rate. Also you have fewer moms who are required to pay child support and as such simple mathematics rule here. You have a group of one million men and a default rate of 10% that is 100,000. If you have a group of mothers required to pay support again it is always smaller so the percentages will be larger even if the amount is smaller. This is also the theory behind why more moms are found to be abusive or neglectful of their children using MRA quoted statistics. Again sheer numbers of women who are responsible for the care of children and the amount of time for each parent in their periods of responsibility will increase these stats.

I know several women who are paid up and ahead in their obligations. I also know many women who are "homeless" due to child support and due to the man lying about his income in order to get more support. I also know many men who default on their support, I know many who are responsible and I know quite a few who fall somewhere in the middle. I know one man who, even when faced with a court order to have the support deducted from his weekly paycheck, the custodial mother is lucky to see a payment once a month. It is only until this woman files court papers that payments start rolling in. I also know this women is doing everything in her power to obtain better employment so she does not have to rely on the child support, this money can in fact be used for extras for the child. This woman in fact has increased her income by more than 4 dollars an hour in the last 3 years. She has bettered her employment so the hours are more suitable for the child and herself, she has bettered her working conditions to a point. She also attends school so she can increase her earning potential which was cut short due to her abusive and controlling spouse, (no wife of mine will work, she needs to serve me - me Tarzan, you Jane). Sadly, the children involved in this family sees the mother's steps to better herself, and they also see the father's continued degridation of the mother. Who do you think will "win" in this situation?

Nobody.....but the mother will no longer have to rely on a man to provide for her.

Oh and Mister-M why don't you share these statistics? I am sure that they can be debuked just as MRA statistics on intimate partner violence (those stats using the Conflict Tactic Scales) have been.

Phil Leigh must need new reading lessons

In his comments on balls websites he states this:

Phil Leigh Says:

April 26th, 2009 at 3:27 pm
One annoying irony is that it remains politically correct to teach that girls mature faster than boys. Yet when boys do wrong they are invariably punished more severely than girls even though girls should have better judgment owing to their (presumed) more rapid maturity.

Actually Phil, maturity is based on several criteria. Emotional and psychological maturity are not identical across the board. This is why you can have a group of 15 year olds and all will be at different levels of maturity (physical, mental and emotional). Some of these 15 year olds are responsible enough to be left to care for younger chidlren. Others quite frankly are not. You also have differing levels of physicall maturity with several factors deciding on when a child will reach complete maturity. It has also been shown that boys mature quicker than girls on a physical level. You also have varying degrees of that also.

One simply cannot base anything on a blanket statement. This is why many so-called "feminists" have an issue with the MRA/FR type. On nearly every forum/blog/message board available to the MRA you see blanket misogyny. This is yet another case of - oh I was screwed over by one woman, so all women are bad, even female children are bad; men are good, there are no bad men, and boys are good since they have an appendage hanging between their legs and are by virtue - male.

There are bad men, there are bad women, sadly society is comprised of individuals who are less than perfect. We rely on some of these less than perfect individuals to mete out punishment for crimes. Sometimes they get it, sometimes they don't.

So Phil, next time why don't you think before you post in the future. To make such blanket statements does not bode well for your cause.

April 17, 2009

Ahhhhh he closed comments on that post poor (ball) sacky (oo-pay)...

...couldn't stand it any longer....

He had to go and close comments. Shucks and I was having soooooo much fun posting the rants and raves of the "wonderful" MRA and FR activists...

Oh well there will be another day......Can't keep those loonies down long Glenny.


More manure spewing from Duncan Macleod....

First without further ado, please visit this site before you jump to conclusions.....False rape has been statistically proven to be between 2-8%. False Rape does NOT include cases in which a jury found the perp "not guilty" - that simply means they did not believe it was a proven case, not that it was false. You mehnz sure do need to clean out the wax in your ears, shut your pieholes and listen for once....

duncan macleod Says:

April 16th, 2009 at 8:47 pm
Seriously . are you even on this planet ?????? you have been posting here for how long now and you still trot out the 2% lie ............ http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=cdc+false+rape+claims&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&client=firefox-a

A few links to data, cdc uk information the lot that shows the 2% fact is a lie.

We never generalize "ALL WOMEN"...

Lying Sacks of horse manure...
SteveinTX Says:

April 16th, 2009 at 11:49 am
All women lie, at times.

Feminists lie at all times. (e.g. GG)


Another one for the L on your forehead award

Pankaj Says:

April 16th, 2009 at 11:27 am
"And yes I think you'd be naive to believe he didn't tape his romps without intending to drool over them at a later time."

Ah! What a terrible crime! drooling over something - sure throw him in prison for that

Ahh it matters not that quite possibly the woman did NOT wish to be video taped, nor did she give consent to be taped, and even more possibly she had been not able to give consent....

Oh yeah this one gets an Honorable L on the forehead award....

And you, Rubic, are not very bright - you must look at all state statutes....

Rubic Says:

April 16th, 2009 at 11:25 am
According to http://definitions.uslegal.com/v/voyeurism/ his actions do not necessarily constitute voyeurism for one key reason: He was recording himself. Now, if it was provable that, despite filming himself and this woman for private use, that he also planned to sell and distribute the video, then it would be chargeable as voyeurism.

long story short: He's not legally a voyeur since it cannot be proven that he wasn't recording to see himself in the act. That would, instead, be narcissism, which isn't illegal as far as I know.

Now how do you explain to all those MEN out there who have taken to running around with a digital camera or camcorder in order to catch women unawares and take either still pictures or video up the skirt shots? And most all of these MEN claim that these pictures/videos were for their own personal enjoyment....I am tired of posting the video so why don't you RUBIC, shut YOUR piehole?

Actually yes in the US voyeurism IS illegal

gwallan Says:

April 16th, 2009 at 10:51 am
Maybe I'm a bit late but is "voyeurism" actually illegal?

Why do you think there is publicity about MEN trying to shoot still and moving pictures up women's skirts and how when these MEN are caught they get prosecuted?

Oh yeah I forgot - it is because all of you men are just so horribly persecuted.....

Why don't YOU, gwallan...

April 16, 2009

Woohoo this video is coming in very handy!!!!

duncan macleod Says:

April 16th, 2009 at 6:57 am
...Fact ......... it was coke that was used, not a " date rape drug " ( of which there has been no case ever seen in the uk ) if she had been drugged she would have been unresponsive, there would have been proof in the video that she was not capable.

I have only 3 things to present to you DUNCAN MACLEOD....

1. UK bans date-rape drug

2. Date Rape Drug find in victim for first time

and last but certainly not least

Bring it on Attila.....

Attila L. Vinczer Says:

April 16th, 2009 at 9:24 am

...Thankfully most of that is now behind me and the only thing that remains is for me to sue and bring to public light every detail of the injustice that was made against me and I will post most of the audio and video data for others to see and listen to what happens when a woman decides to unlawfully destroy a man!


So why wait Mr. Attila (Named after the "other famous Attila? - you know the marauding HUN???) If you do not want to bring it on then why don't you just......

Another who needs to shut......

women should learn to shut their pie holes and not antagonize a man who is twice her size. That's the problem...women don't know when th STFU!

This comment was left (umpublished as it rightly should be on that blog) for a fellow protective mother on her blog. Well you know what happens when Petunia hears about things like this?

Yep you guessed it.......


April 10, 2009

gwallan tells it all.....

gwallan says:
I've been reliably informed that New Friend was banned by Glenn Sacks due to persistant personal abuse. Glenn was quite happy to give her an opportunity but her use of a fraudulent email address prevented any negotiation toward that end.

Posted On: Tuesday, Dec. 2 2008 @ 9:30PM

You may access this by clicking here. gwallan lets the world know that the reason for my being banned from Sacks' site is due to personal abuse? Where oh where did I personally abuse anyone? I can name hundreds of instances where "I" was personally abused by his cult followers and "I" reacted in kind, but to say I initiated personal attacks and abuse is....well....typical.....

gwallan says:
Yes new Friend. We understand your paranoia and narcissism. You have our sympathy.

Glenn Sacks has tried to communicate with you over your personal attacks. You made that impossible.

I quote from Glenn...
"New Friend" was banned because she repeatedly violated rule # 1 of My Rules on Blog Comments prohibiting "Personal attacks." Normally when someone violates the rules I send them a note explaining what the violation was. If they continue over and over again, I'll ban them, but usually not until they've had several chances. Because "New Friend" refused to leave a valid email address, I had no way of communicating with her after she violated the rules, so eventually I banned her. She could come back if she wants, but only with a valid email address."

I must also point out that I did come back, provided a "valid" email address (an email address that I created, I use, and nobody else has access to this email address, and not only was I banned, but all of my posts were also removed. How is that for double standards? Petunia already has her opinion...set in stone also I might add. What is your opinion gentle readers?

April 9, 2009

Shut your Piehole!!!!!!

31 JeanB Says: March 18th, 2009 at 12:11 pm ...From everything I have read, not one person is taking up for Chris Brown. The level of his response to her hitting him was out of line. What everyone is saying, and I agree with, is that Rihanna needs to take responsibility for her part in the fight. He didn’t just start beating her because he felt like it. There was a whole lot that led up to their fight.

NOBODY knows what happened that night except two people, Chris and Rihanna. And since your name, JeanB, is JeanB, I really think you need to follow Dr. Buddy Rydell's advice to Dave Buznik (click play below)......

Are you drunk, metalman? Petunia thinks you are......

metalman Says:

March 18th, 2009 at 9:44 am
I think a lot of people are missing the point here, which is, I believe . . .

Reliable studies show that the majority of SEVERE DV injuries sustained by men and women occur when the DV is reciprocal - in other words, when two losers are habitually beating the crap out of one another. In that kind of situation, there is usually a long history of strife - to the point where it doesn't matter who started what particular fight. All cops know this, which is one of the reasons why they wince at answering DV calls - because in addition to tending to and subduing angry and violent people, they are forced to listen to hours of he said/ she said from people who are drunk and/or high.

I know this because my brother, who is a cop, and his cop friends, have all told me the same thing.

April 7, 2009

WOOOHOOOOO!!!! Come out come out wherever you are RONDA!!!!

Ronda Says:

April 7th, 2009 at 12:40 am
Mr. Franklin, we will make progress on DV when idiots like you walk a mile in these women's shoes before you make your accusations that DV is only "political ideologues".

Let's take you and put you in a home where everyone on the neighborhood knows that DV is occurring on a daily basis and have you be the woman thats on the other end of those beatings and lets see if you still feel the same way.

Oh yea we are going to listen to the expert scientist because they are right about everything. One day we can't drink milk, then the next we can, we can't eat eggs the next day we can. What is the make up of these scientist you refer to? I bet there are more men then women.

I feel sorry for the women in your family.

Ronda where are you? We need you!!!!!!!

April 6, 2009

Future Olympic Long Jump Champion of the Millenium?

SerenityNow Says:

April 6th, 2009 at 3:21 pm
On April 3, 2009, at 10:PM Jeana said:"I have a young son, so I would NEVER be for the statutory or otherwise rape of boys. Yes, please dig that up for me. I’d like to see where I said it was ok to have sex with children."

On July 2, 2008 at 3:19 Jeana said: "I don’t care if they were all in the same age range. Whether 15 or 16 or 17—it doesn’t make a practical difference. It was consensual"

There may be other examples, but I am disinclined to waste any more of my time on this.

From the looks of this INCOMPLETE post (and only one) that SerenityNow has managed to locate (and one must wonder why there is no linkback to this "alleged" post) it appears to Petunia (from her vast perusals of the cult site and her first hand knowledge of the many cult followers (and the few rebels as well), that jeana was speaking quite possibly of a case where all underage children were involved.

Okay first some background for this...

jeana had made some comments on a blog post on the cult site about mandatory sentencing for teacher/student sex crimes (see below):

jeana Says:

April 3rd, 2009 at 10:12 pm

I have a young son, so I would NEVER be for the statutory or otherwise rape of boys. Yes, please dig that up for me. I’d like to see where I said it was ok to have sex with children.

I think you are referring to a 13 year old (not nearly 18) who had sex with a 22 year old. I could care less if a 17 or 16 year old had sex with a 22 year; but a 13 year old is not ok.

And if I “excused” the teacher because the boy “consented”, I did so to make a point—you males love to excuse even little girls if they “consent”. Make no mistake—I think sex with a child is DISGUSTING! And should be punished by jail. Got it, SerenityNow?

So SerenityNow had decided to be snarky and rude and just downright mysogynistic towards jeana with this post:

SerenityNow Says:

April 3rd, 2009 at 9:51 pm
Jenna formerly excused female statutory rape of boys if the boy wanted or consented to the sex. I don't have time to dig up her post right now- I have to leave. Perhaps someone else would like to illuminate her hypocrisy.....

jeana then goes on to (as always) pointlessly debate with these one tracked mindless cult followers and we arrive at the last post on this article:

SerenityNow Says:

April 6th, 2009 at 3:21 pm
On April 3, 2009, at 10:PM Jeana said:"I have a young son, so I would NEVER be for the statutory or otherwise rape of boys. Yes, please dig that up for me. I’d like to see where I said it was ok to have sex with children."

On July 2, 2008 at 3:19 Jeana said: "I don’t care if they were all in the same age range. Whether 15 or 16 or 17—it doesn’t make a practical difference. It was consensual"

There may be other examples, but I am disinclined to waste any more of my time on this.

SerenityNow you need to try out for the Olympic Long Jump Team, because the distance you covered by using this comment from jeana to saying that she condoned teacher/student sex, or any underage/adult sex is mind boggling. You could easily win gold......

April 5, 2009

Shouldn't you say it is not okay to hit - PERIOD?

I find these little jewels of wisom and must say each time one pops up I gain more understanding into why DV flourishes. Just continue on gentle reader.....

Mike Kitchens Says:

April 4th, 2009 at 8:53 pm
I have been brought up to treat women and girls with respect, and I firmly believe in that. I also agree that it is not OK to hit a woman without provocation.....

Women are not allowed to compare all men......

I have been called out numerous times for comparing all men because my ex was a nasty, mean-spirited, narcissistic abuser. Yet we have so many on the cult board who do this same thing. Read below for one such comment and realize there are many, many more of these:

Bob Denton Says:

April 4th, 2009 at 8:23 pm
Women are so physically attractive,but their moral bankruptcy and aversion to personal responsibility makes them otherwise unappealing

Now Bob Denton is saying women - he is not quantifying that with some women, most women, a few women - he is just saying women. So Bob, are you speaking of all women?

Louise Uccio - sisters in a battle - but what side?

I have been reading your blog and I see you are a mother torn in half by an abuser. I can also see no amount of pleading will get you to climb down from your PAS tree. You see I know this because I have to force my children to visit the abuser, these children come home and are terrorized by him as much if not more than I was. They are also traumatized by his new wife as well. This runs the gamut from telling old stories about me to them (mostly in an attempt to scare) or finding any excuse that can be found to get the state involved with this case. Then there are the extreme cases of attempted control and manipulation. LU, I have two prayers for you in your own case. The first is that you will see that by claiming PA/PAS you are HELPING the abusers. Women just do not suffer as a targeted parent in PAS cases. Gardner assured that this would be so.

Historically he presented PAS as a hysterical women who was claiming the father was sexually abusing the child. It has grown in recognition because there have been psychologists available (money grubbers) who will perpetuate this myth. You are not a good way to perpetuate this myth since you have very little money. Does your abuser have money? Have family who has money? These are important questions because this is generally one of the several factors of PAS abuse cases. Then if you look at what constitutes true PAS according to the abusers, women who have lost custody to abusive men are being handed down severe cases of PAS. But they cannot say anything (they are ignored) because men cannot commit PAS according to the KING of PAS.

What we have simply suggested to you LU and many others like you, is keep track of all statements made by the abuser, his family, your children, etc. These statements are abuse (mental abuse). Please do not give abusive men any more rope with which to hang more victims. By you touting PAS, by you saying this is what is happening in your case, you give an abusive man more rope with which to hang another mother.

Your children are suffering from ABUSE - and that abuse does have a name.....Maternal Deprivation. There have been studies done on this - studies which have been peer reviewed (not like Gardner's studies which were published in his vanity press). Claiming PA/PAS gives the next abusive man the ability to remove a child from his or her mother and continue to allow children to suffer as your do, as mine do, as many thousands of children suffer.

I want a better world for my children, I do not want my daughters to have to be chained to an abusive man. I want them to be able to leave if they have to do so and be able to still raise the children if there are any.

I have thought much like you - my ex badmouths me to the children, I should claim PAS. But who would that help? Might help us temporarily, but sadly these men always win in the end. Our money runs out and unless we are extreme fighters, moms and the children lose. So I blog, I empower the children to say no to abuse. I give the children the freedom to ask questions and discover on their own what is happening. I am also keeping great records for when these children come of age.

There are many groups out there available to help moms in your position. Align with those groups rather than helping the pro-abuser campaigns.

April 1, 2009

Canadian Symposium - good news abuse victims!!!

Attila L. Vinczer Says:

March 31st, 2009 at 4:57 pm

There was not ONE JUDGE at the groundbreaking Canadian Symposium for Parental Alienation Syndrome. How can we expect Judges to be able to rule and pass judgement when they are ignorant in many ways!!!


Well thank god for small favors. Maybe someone does get what PAs is all about after all.......

Calling out an alleged victim?

Well John Boy, a feminist like myself would have to have more than just one side of a story. You say we do not come to the cult blog and duke it out among you mehnz? Well this ol' gal has learned (from my abusive ex) that duling it out with psycho mehnz is just not the answer. I simply blog about yoru misguided brain lapses, the short cirrcuits you mehnz suffer from, in order to show other victims they are not alone. Yiou would be surprised at the emails and comments I get (that nevcer see the light of day due to requests for anonymity.

But then again this is trying to preach to the devil in a church, so that might explain my lack of success with you mehnz.
John Boy Says:

March 31st, 2009 at 3:45 pm
Feminism has created a Golem or "Frankenstein" that they originally thought they could control. It appears that they have become so successful that everbody now wants one.

It will be interesting to see at what point the true victims of DV tell the imposters to shut up. There is a code of silence within feminism similar to the Mafia or the police. It has been my experience with false DV that few women will "out" a fellow sister. This is true not just in the blogesphere but in the courts and legal system.

Child support? Is that all you MEHNZ think about? Guess so....

tweesdad Says:

March 31st, 2009 at 3:40 pm

...Kick the kid out and they'll go straight to mom, and from there straight to court to tell a judge that I can't "handle" raising a child. Followed by the transfer of custody and $$$ to them in child support.

Guess child support was the first thing on his mind when he fought for custody.

Make up your minds.............PLEASE

So pjk, explain to me if these children are not puppets on a string, then how is it mothers have sooooooooooo much control according to the little cult you follow and are able to turn these supposed puppets into mindless little robots who will only spout - I don't want to see daddy, daddy is mean, daddy hurts me (or my brother, or my sister...)? So which is it pjk?

The DUHnce goes to this one!!

pjk Says:

March 31st, 2009 at 3:24 pm
re: Um, guys. This is painfully obvious that the parents are at fault here. Any child acting like that does not do so for no reason. She was definitely poorly raised.

...I disagree. It is possible, probably likely, that the parents did absolutely nothing to cause this kind of behavior in the child. Children aren't like puppets on strings - they are under their own control.......