Glenn's Cult?: This is your brain on PAS/PA/PAD

April 7, 2010

This is your brain on PAS/PA/PAD

Remember those scare tactic videos about your brain on drugs? Don't know about you but they worked for me. Now lets take this on a new spin. What is someone who believes PA/PAS/PAD doing to their brains? Why are women the only ones ever accused of alienation or gatekeeping? We have a case here which to my eye appears to have the ever present gatekeeping and alienation tactics happening.

So quick run down on this story. Mom "allegedly" kidnaps child and returns to her native country amid accusations by her of violence in the marriage. Mother remarries after divorce has another child and dies in childbirth. Father to older child goes on rampage in order to secure custody of older child - even amid allegations of violence by mother's family in foreign country and mother's widowed current spouse. Father eventually uses American politicians and television news stations in order to carry child out of mother's native country. Now grandparents want to see child, want child to have a relationship with half sibling and father refuses.

What do you mean - father refuses? I thought all family should be allowed a relationship with children? Even with mother deceased shouldn't siblings and extended family of mother's be allowed continuing contact with child?

Apparently not and apparently the well known father's rights blogger, Glenn Sacks, REFUSES to run any stories on this "gatekeeping" of the child by FATHER. Even Ken Walker (kc9bdr@yahoo.com) agrees that Father should be allowed to keep child from maternal family - in fact he even quotes: "The maternal grandparents take the grandson to Brazil for 5 years, (mother dies) then complain when they don't get placement. Give it time!". Mother does this and it is automatically a given that mother is gatekeeping and engaging in PA/PAS/PAD. So why is this not true for FATHER? Is FATHER not gatekeeping and possibly engaging in PA/PAS/PAD? The child in question has been around the maternal relatives for years now. Are we punishing another innocent young child by denying that child the RIGHT to have a relationship with the older sibling?

Well, let me explain this so you get it really good, okay? Just as in this commercial about heroin use, PA/PAS/PAD has some rules too.

Women are the only ones who can gatekeep a child. Ladies, ladies. Here's how it works. It's only PAS/PA when we accuse you of doing it. When WE do the exact thing we just accused you of doing ("gatekeeping," obstructing visitation, etc.) it doesn't count. WE are the ONLY ones who can protect our children. These children are not your children, they are only our children. Just like that nice new car we fought for in the divorce, just like the house. Oh and forget about any equitable split, that is all ours too. Any questions?

So go back and watch the video again.

Frying pan is PAS/PA/PAD.

Egg is your brain.

And the violence you see portrayed is what COULD happen if PA/PAS/PAD is bought hook, line, and sinker. Our children, our future will be destroyed if abusers are allowed to continue to use JUNK SCIENCE in order to remove protective parents from a child's life and place children with an alleged abuser. Do we want to place these children with potential alleged abusers? Don't know about you but I do not. And now a young child is being denied a relationship with a sibling by a father and Glenn Sacks, Ken Walker, and who knows who else in the FATHER'S RIGHT MOVEMENT think this father is completely justified. Ken by his own words, and Sacks by his lack of words. Or is it just that as long as it is a father who is being allegedly denied this is a travesty that must (MUST!!!) be rectified, but when it is a mother or maternal relatives - ahhh who cares? One need only look at the case of Jean Paul Lacombe Diaz in Texas to see this is true. Where are the Ken Walker's, the Glenn Sacks for this mom who has proof of abuse, has court orders granting her custody of this child? The courts were TRICKED into turning the boy over to father. He did this ILLEGALLY yet we see nobody in the Father's Rights Movement speaking to the tragedy of this court's actions.

Oh gee I keep forgetting. That is because the parent who is being denied the child is MOM. Who cares about moms right? After all, the only thing moms are good for is carrying the child, giving birth to the child, feeding the child life supporting breast milk. When the child can walk and talk, the mother should be gone. Fathers are the only important ones now.

ANY QUESTIONS?

2 comments:

Cold North Wind said...: All we have to do is read reports of mothers thrown out like garbage- to the streets-or forests etc.- in - the 1800's- . Change the dates to the 21st century. Same shit. Different century. The - "women are pieces of - crapchattel" beliefs that serve men so well. SOME "men". The ones who are severely twisted.Children, in their view, are NOT human beings- they are- pieces of property- and can be used and abused. Same ideas in the church- among some hockey coaches -etc. etc.- Happily, there ARE many men who are more evolved. Just not enough - -; April 07, 2010 1:13 PM
jeana said...: I thought you kept up on MRA theory? Women are not necessary in children's lives. Only men are. Without a father, a kid will become pregnant, go to jail, be on welfare, and do drugs. Without a mother, kids are, well, better off. So it's just natural that this father would deny his kid any contact with the kid's dead mother's family and the kid's own sibling. It's for the kid's own good, after all.

And of course, only women keep kids from men. Men don't do it, or if they do, it's ok. Father's Rights means fathers should have ultimate control and final say. So what's all the "shared parenting" crap about if men refuse to share?

Another reason to ignore the peabrains.; April 09, 2010 7:03 AM

Post a Comment

WARNING!!!!!!

WARNING!!!!
I must warn all who come to this blog about clicking any links I provide. Unless I state this is a safe website you should take precautions in visiting any site listed as an MRA/FR site. To do so one could open up oneself to being stalked, hunted down, victimized, and even in worst case scenario - assaulted in real life or even killed. The men (and sometimes women) who post on the MRA/FR sites can be dangerous. One nly needs to read the venom spewing from their moouth to see evidence of that. I also post this due to the recent blogs and forums I have discovered over the last few weeks. These will slowly be added to the Cult Wall Of Shame. Please take adequate precaution when visiting these sites.

Fair Use Doctrine

Section 107 of the Copyright Act, entitled, "Limitations on Exclusive Rights: Fair Use," is the statutory codification of the fair use doctrine. This judicially developed concept strives to balance the public's need to know and be informed against authors' incentives to create. The copyright law contemplates that fair use of a copyrighted work without permission shall be for purposes such as (1) criticism and comment, (2) parody and satire, (3) scholarship and research, (4) news reporting and (5) teaching, and that such fair use will not result in the infringement of a copyrighted work. As one may expect, authors and publishers usually take a restrictive view of the fair use doctrine, while users of copyrighted materials generally take a more expansive view.

http://www.publaw.com/work.html

Thank you too!!!!

I am now friends on a message board with a wonderful man. And you all thought we hated men :-) We despise abusive controlling men and women. We like men and women who are decent, honest, and caring. I will say no more as I do not want to ruin this. But those who fight this same fight, keep going!!! We are being seen and our message is getting out there.

Thank you. And thank you for the important work that you do. It gets my dander stirred up when little men hide behind a pen or a computer and spew out fear, hate and stuff that they think makes them look like "real men" but in fact exposes them for the big bullies that they really are. My father and mother are both deceased. But my dad treated my mother the way every man should treat his wife. She was the Queen in our home and he doted on her like she was still his sweetheart until the day she died at age 84. Abraham Lincoln once said, "The greatest gift a father can give to his children is to love their mother." So many men are unhappy with their own lives and they blame women. That way they don't have to accept responsibility for their own shortcomings. Sad. Pathetic. Again, thank you for your very good and important work.

And thank you for giving us hope as well - the hope that there are good and decent people out there - both men and women.

My blog, My rules.....

I would like to welcome everyone who has arrived here - no matter the road you traveled. I only have some very simple rules. Please try to keep your comments clean (I am a mom and as such I do not like extreme vulgar language). I despise the "c" word so it will never be published. Otherwise I will be very lax as I want this site to be a release to those of you who have an issue with the MRAs in general and Sacks and his followers in particular.

I must also slide this little disclaimer in here too (just to protect myself from those pesky little creatures called lawyers and those MRAs who would think they will file a lawsuit or something silly like that against me). I am using YOUR WORDS on this site as well as publishing my opinion of those words. Nothing more, nothing less. I am "not" responsible for comments made by others on my site and if MRAs can behave then they might very well be allowed to post here. Like I said, this is intended to be a release for the women who have been attacked on various sites online to have a little comic break from these constant attacks.

I am posting this blog and all of my comments as a naturally born citizen of the United States and am exercising my right to free speech.

I must also caution my followers and posters against posting any identifying information. This is for your own safety, as I foresee this blog quickly becoming a very hated tool against MRAs who abuse and those who assist them. I mus also make one additional rule concerning posting other people's (such as our exes) personal information. I have been through a very nasty divorce and I know how our exes can react. As such I must make it a number one rule, as much pleasure it would give us, against posting any information which could identify our exes. First names (or initials if the name is uncommon) is fine but no last names. This will be enforced on this blog, unlike "other blogs."