Thursday, October 12, 2006

Answering the Red State Feminist

Red State Feminist attacks this blog, and argues:
1. Abusers do win custody cases. See the ABA FAQ (PDF) about this if you don't like Silverman's study, his is not the only study which demonstrates this.
I couldn't find any more studies. The "ABA FAQ" is just some false domestic violence propaganda. The closest I could find was this CDC study:
A strong relationship was seen between the number of adverse experiences and self-reports of cigarette smoking, obesity, physical inactivity, alcoholism, drug abuse, depression, suicide attempts, sexual promiscuity, and sexually transmitted diseases. Furthermore, persons who reported higher numbers of adverse childhood experiences were much more likely to have multiple health risk behaviors. Similarly, the more adverse childhood experiences reported, the more likely the person was to have heart disease, cancer, stroke, diabetes, skeletal fractures, liver disease, and poor self-rated health as an adult.
In other wordds, adults who complain about an assortment of problems tend to also report childhood problems. This is not a surprising correlation, and correlation does not imply causation. It is a nonsequitur to conclude that the child of a wife-beater is less likely to later suffer from obesity or alcoholism if that child is raised by the mother.

Red State Feminist goes on:
2. Domestic violence can and does continue post-separation, post-divorce and frankly as long as the abuser wants it to continue until law enforcement stops him.
Maybe so, but this should have nothing to do with child custody.
3. Abusers do not make good parents because they are abusive.
This is like saying that crazy women do not make good mothers because they are crazy.
4. Assertion that "mom is a head case," -- I don't know, but this reeks of stereotype to me.
I was referring to Genia, not all moms. According to Glenn Sacks:
1) The allegations of abuse against Genia's ex-husband, Timothy, were never once substantiated.
2) The abuse allegations coincided perfectly with every custody hearing.
3) Genia was caught--on videotape--at a supervised visitation center coaching her children to make remarks against their father.
4) During the hearing resulting in her contempt charge and jailing, she was warned over 15 times to stop interrupting the judge.
5) Despite a position with IBM, paying $80,000 per year, Genia refused to pay her child support.
6) A court appointed psychologist characterized Genia as highly controlling, and said the biggest hurdle to an amicable custody arrangement was this fact.
7) Her previous attorney had quit the case because she was too volatile and unpredictable.
If true, Genia is a head case.

Red State Feminist goes on:
5. And regarding the phone calls, apparently Angry Dad doesn't know that if you tell someone to stop calling you and they continue to call you more than three times a day, that's telephone harassment. Yeah. Federal Law. ... Tell you what, anyone that calls repeatedly in the middle of the night - barring emergency - is using harassing behavior. If Angry Dad doesn't think it's so, his definition of "phone harassment" is very different than the Section 43 Telecommunications Act 1984 and the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.
If the father has violated some federal criminal law, then Genia the head case can notify her local FBI or USDoJ office. She apparently has the tapes to prove it. Since he has not been prosecuted, then we should give him the presumption of innocence under the law.


Anonymous said...

I went over there and I don't think they like you. But then again, I don't think like any males. LOL!

Txfeminist said...

Nice try, Angry Dad.

I like how you simply disqualify the American Bar Association FAQ as feminist propaganda. Do you do that with any information that you don't agree with? It's irrelevent? You haven't offered any insight or supporting facts into why you find it to be so.

See the world through whatever color glasses make you feel better, I guess.

I don't see how your CDC quote relates to domestic violence.

Further, I have already refuted Glenn Sacks' talking points here one by one.

For you to simply repeat the talking points, in defense of the talking points, is tautological in nature. The existence of the talking points do not defend arguments made therein.