Wednesday, April 8, 2009
Well stated and we must keep the focus clear as to why we are there. No nation has ever conquered the Afghan tribes nor should we "force" our values on them. Perhaps some of our better traits can "rub off" but given the entrenchment and brainwashing over centuries of religious dogma anathema to the west it is unlikely.
I've said in another forum awhile ago Canadians ought not to be too smug or self-righteous about Afghan patriarchy something akin to your example.
In Canada, indeed the USA as well, a form of gender apartheid is applied by our government each and every day based on mythological gender feminist ideology. In a ratio of about 9-1 females get custody of children upon family breakdown and dads are marginalized to the sidelines as visitors in their lives. We, according to our current Government, at both levels are only good as ATM's in supplying money to support the ex's lifestyle. Money that, as previously noted, is tax free to the recipient but taxable to the dad. As a sidenote the biggest deadbeats are those rare females ordered to pay child support. There are far too many incentives for females to seek a divorce in this country and they do at least start the process 66 to 70% of the time.
In Belgium shared and equal parenting was initiated in 2006 and has reduced the divorce rate. The agency responsible for collecting support payments has disappeared from that role - think of FRO in Ontario - and does other things. If one parent withholds access they may well go to jail as that is considered abduction. They are child centered not vaginally coerced as are our lawmakers and Judges in Canada. Do you know what else that was startling? The Minister responsible for getting it rolling was a feminist who wanted to ensure her husband had the children 50% of the time so she could pursue her career. Her selfishness (or rather career oriented posture) worked for the benefit of all men who were marginalized but more particularly the children as it is truly in their best interest. She did believe in the equality of the sexes which is a breath of fresh air. Judges in Canada think it is in children's best interest to lose 50% of their genetic makeup by marginalizing fathers. Can you think of anything more repugnant than that? Yet it flies under the radar everyday.
If Harper and McQuinty are looking for savings then change the law. We can reduce the massive bureaucracy's involved in the divorce industry, free judges up for more important work, reduce divorce, increase the well being of children who will have two legal parents in their lives again on an ongoing basis and according to Dr. Edward Kruk's recent research we should have much better adjusted children reducing social costs.
That is not only in the best interest of our children but in the best interest of our nation because families are its basic building block and married families the most solid of those blocks are now a countable minority according to Stats Canada. It is the canary in the coal mine.
Afghan President Hamid Karzai, the green-robed statesman who tries to rule between a rock and a hard place, first signed, then unsigned (well, sort of) a piece of legislation governing relations between men and women in his country. Now Western commentators are congratulating themselves on having successfully pressured him. Before the punditry gets carried away, though, we should remember three things about the nation of tribes nestling among the peaks of the Hindu Kush.
A good analysis. Wendy takes a more reasonable approach to the issue than many feminists. She even believes in 50-50 shared parenting which you would think is the norm for all feminists given their equality focus. She knows children are used as weapons and it is not gender specific. I think that is why many gender feminists hate Gardiner as he only found females’ performing the behaviour and this has skewed their thinking.
Is Parental Alienation a Syndrome?
on Sunday 05 April 2009
by Wendy McElroy
Parental Alienation has been a hot topic in the Canadian courts of late with a mother losing custody on the grounds of her continuing campaign to vilify the father and distance him from their children. The father received full custody. I have mixed feelings about the attempt to introduce parental alienation as a psychological syndrome. I fully admit the existence of cruel, vicious parents who use their children as weapons; whenever custody arrangements cannot be agreed upon privately, I endorse the idea of shared parenthood (50/50) through which children are part of the lives of both parents. But, again, I have reservations about making the pattern of behavior into a psychological/legal "syndrome."
I expressed them in an article I wrote a few years ago, which is reprinted below. http://www.ifeminists.net/e107_plugins/content/content.php?content.451
For those of us who have been abused by our ex's and seen this abuse manifested through our children's behaviour toward us there is no doubt. My then 11 year old daughter told the Children's Lawyer Clinical Investigator she could not remember her older Sisters both of whom who she adored and had seen every year twice a year or more over her life. She could not remember events I was involved in but could remember all events related to her mother's activities or very brief encounters with her mother's family. These are but a few of the many symptoms she displayed. The invective, with bullets made by her mother, she acting as shooter was distressing and heartbreaking.
A child who is sexually molested has been damaged. One cannot escape that fact. The child must be treated for any physical damage and emotional trauma. No syndrome is involved but we know there is suffering. Its not rocket science. The same is true of PA. The child is damaged and that damage can range from mild emotional trauma to psychotic breaks. In the most extreme of cases death can occur. Pamela Richardson's son killed himself and recently in the Toronto area a mother killed her 18 month old toddler so the dad could not have access. That was Parental Alienation of the most egregious kind but not necessarily PAS. It was still extreme behaviour.