The feminist “case” that fathers who want to stay involved in their children’s lives after a divorce are batterers, rests on an ideological pyramid scam.
Charles Ponzi certainly couldn’t be faulted for a lack of ingenuity. Way back in 1920 Mr. Ponzi began to lure people in with the promise of double your money in 90 days. Word spread, and soon Ponzi found himself ensconced in a 20-room mansion and was raking in $1 million a week.
A similar Ponzi scheme is at work today. This time it’s an ideological pyramid scam, and it has to do with families and fathers.
The Mother of All Confabulations goes back to 1986. That’s when feminist Phyllis Chesler alleged in her book Mothers on Trial that divorcing fathers win child custody in 70% of cases.
Never mind that the actual number of fathers winning custody was only 15%. And don’t worry that Chesler’s conclusion was based on a sample of 60 discontented women referred by feminist lawyers — still, it made for a great story.
A decade later, the National Organization of Women was beginning to run out of real issues. So it set out to invent new outrages calculated to rally the faithful.
In 1996 the N.O.W.-nincompoops passed a resolution that repeated Chesler’s bogus 70% custody figure. Then they added a new twist, claiming that patriarchal oafs who wanted to stay involved in their children’s lives after a divorce represented an “abuse of power in order to control in the same fashion as do batterers.”
How’s that for high-decibel gender-baiting?
That claim may have succeeded in swelling the N.O.W. membership rolls, but it still needed some scientific apple-polishing. So they brought in the Wellesley Centers for Women, a group with an impeccable reputation for research integrity.
Well, almost. It was the WCW, of course, that had earlier published that fraudulent fiction of female academic underachievement, How Schools Shortchange Girls.
And sure enough, the Wellesley women delivered. In 2002 the WCW published “Battered Mothers Speak Out: A Human Rights Report on Domestic Violence and Child Custody in the Massachusetts Family Courts.” People were ecstatic because the report vindicated everything that the N.O.W. had been saying.
Take a closer look, and you see the WCW report is based on interviews with a small group of 40 Massachusetts women. Worse, the report lacks any objective proof of their allegations of rampant legal bias.
Which once again proves you can reach almost any conclusion, just so long as you’re allowed to hand-pick your subjects and don’t ask too many hard questions.
Soon, the whole M.O.M. Squad — Joan Meier, Jay Silverman, Lundy Bancroft, and others — was singing the Chesler catechism. Take a look at what they pass off as “research,” and you’ll see they all reference each other in an ever-expanding circle of self-serving citations.
Most disturbing of all is the tale of sociologist Amy Neustein. She was one of the featured speakers at the M.O.M. conference that was recently held in upstate New York.
Last year Neustein wrote a piece in The Jewish Press alleging her ex-husband sexually abused their daughter Sherry. Neustein won lots of sympathy points telling people she lost the custody battle due to a “malfunctioning court system that punished me for trying to protect my daughter from abuse.”
But a few months later Sherry, now a graduate student in New York City, came along with a rather different account: “She would begin by telling me a sordid — and false — story about my father, such as a detailed account about how he had molested me or about how he had thrown me violently against a wall.… The truth, however, is that my father never sexually abused me.”
And let’s not forget Sadiya Alilire, the woman who was portrayed in PBS’ Breaking the Silence as a heroic mom who was done wrong by the legal system — but was later outed by court documents proving her to be a serial child abuser.
Seven months after Charles Ponzi set up shop, his house of cards began to collapse. On August 10, 1920 the newspapers revealed Mr. Ponzi was bankrupt and pronounced his scheme an odious ruse. He was later sentenced to five years in prison.
But 20 years after Phyllis Chesler made her preposterous claim, her siren call of family destruction continues to make the rounds. Worse, the Mothers Opposed to Men are on the offensive, setting up websites, attracting sympathetic media coverage, and lobbying state legislators.
This time, it’s not persons’ money that’s at stake. It’s our families that need to be shored up, and our children who desperately need their fathers.
Remember how the Great Society evicted fathers from their homes and turned Black families into wards of the government? That’s what the M.O.M. Squad has in mind for the rest of us.
Ponzi scheme… let’s see that requires money.
Arguments against feminism… they require proof.
This is what you hamsters call research? All of your links except one take you to this web site. And the one the goes somewhere else is a single page with no link to a home page and one disabled link.
Let me guess… you all constructed that link out of thin air and the rest of the links didn’t need to work because the faith based crew is going to eat up everything you spew without the need for evidence or reasoned argument.
Hail Hamsterland…
Home to mindless tools
I wrote this comment earlier but here it is:
Its simple folks:
-Get rid of the draconian Bradley Amendment
-Child support should be based on acceptable minimums. Not tied to income up or down. Women or should I say custodial parents should not benefit from a man’s income after divorce. Father’s can be trusted to provide as much as he can afford above socially agreed upon minimums for living.
-States should not receive a penny in compensation from child support collections. All this has done is magically call for wild ass increases in child support computation indexes which increase the state’s coffers to the detriment of divorced fathers.
-Punish mothers for false patrimony and force DNA tests on women who are father/income hunting
-Equalize choice in Abortion, if the women gets the sole choice then she gets sole responsibility, not the taxpayers or some poor sap who may or may not be the father.
These steps along with some other commen sense laws towards visitation and move away issues would go a long ways towards fairness towards non custodial fathers.
That should be; ‘force DNA tests on children and fathers’ to see if the man is actually the real father’ if not then he should be let out of any support obligations. Conversely if he is held to obligations he should automatically get 50% custody. Child support should be taxed when the custodial parent receives it and the non-custodial parent should get the tax break. Sounds pretty fair to me.
batteredmotherscustodyconference.org? ifeminitsts.net? now.org? census.gov? I don’t see how these could be considered “this web site,” Will C. All the information that the article claims is there. You have no basis for accusing the readers of this website of “eating this up” with no evidence.
the only link that goes anywhere for me is different account. all the other ones take me right back here.
While I do not agree with Will C.’s comments on the article, he is correct about the links, they do not seem to be set up correctly
and send you back to IC’s web page. However, if you look at the url and eliminate the reference to IC, you will go to the site
designated in the article. One just has to work a little bit more to get there.
Will C. obviously is avoiding the gist of the article. It would be amazing to see an iota of fairness in family courts towards, ahem: non-custodial parents (men). But as long as we allow emotional based legislation to rule the day we get emotional based policies based on hype and monthly anger bouts.
I had no problem with the links, and they make sense in the context of the article. However, I agree the author has used an superficial analogy at the outset that has, somehow, confused the argument.
A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment operation involving abnormally high returns (profits) to principal investors out of money paid in by subscribing or subsequent investors, rather than from net revenues generated by any real business. To be a Ponzi, the scheme must
__a) be predicated on fraud or fraudulent claims
__b) exploit a lack of judgment based on greed
__c) have abnormally high short-term returns enticing a stream of new investors
__d) require an ever-increasing flow of money from investors in order to keep the scheme going
__e) be doomed to eventual collapse because there are little or no underlying earnings from the money received by the promoter.
Pyramid schemes are non-sustainable business ventures involving an exchange of money primarily from recruiting other people to the scheme, usually without any product or service being delivered. To be a pyramid, the scheme must
__a) confuse potential clients into a complicated but convincingly fool-proof money making venture
__b) no actual product, product has no intrinsic value, or product value is misrepresented to exaggerate potential earnings
__c) clients make single or a limited number of initial payments
__d) clients are promised exponential benefits from other people as a reward
__e) no real end benefit (only the expectation of one)
__f) an income stream that depends on commissions earned by enrolling new members or purchase by members of products for their own use rather than sales to customers who are not participants in the scheme
__) a tendency for only early investors/joiners to make any real income, and
__h) assures it is perfectly legal to participate.
Pyramids have a diminishing return as you go down the pyramid simply because of the way they are structured. Ponzi’s tend to diminishing returns over time, but not necessarily as regards order of membership. Both schemes have as ultimate victim those who invest at or near the collapse of the scheme. Most pyramid schemes require investors to make a single payment which goes to their recruiter, and, to receive any benefit, they must recruit others in turn. Ponzi’s may use chain recruitment, but don’t depend on it; and all recruitment may be by a single person or agency (e.g., Social Security). In the case of women accusing their spouses of abuse, participants make no investment other than to alienate themselves and children from their spouse or ex-spouse.
How is the anti-father campaign like a Ponzi scheme?
1. predicated on generally unsubstantiated claims that women and children are abused by virtually all men; that men are inherently abusive and women are not or are not substantially abusive (i.e., fraudulent claims)
2. exploits emotional state of women to convince them of a need to characterize their spouse as abusive as a means to get favorable judgments (appeals to greed and suspends rational evaluation of true situation)
3. there are abnormally high returns on investment
__a. custody of children
__b. monetary support
4. success of accusations entices more women to use same methods
How is the anti-father campaign not like a Ponzi scheme?
1. does not require ever-increasing flow of money (or any money) from investors (accusers) or stream of investors to keep scheme going; all rewards are coerced from third-party (husband/father) who is not a participant to the scheme other than as victim
2. not doomed to collapse due to any lack of earnings (custody/support), regardless of source, because neither accuser nor advocate risk anything
How is the anti-father campaign like a pyramid scheme?
1. confuses clients into complicated but convincingly fool-proof money making venture
How is the anti-father campaign not like a pyramid scheme?
1. although false accusation may be nearly fool-proof, they have been foiled on occasion
2. custody and support are very real and tangible rewards
3. clients make no investment other than the emotional alienation of someone who may still have more interest in the clients wellbeing than do her lawyers and feminist supporters
4. income stream does not depend on commissions earned by recruiting any new members or the purchase of products for investor/client’s own use
5. Historically, early participants to this scheme have reaped fewer rewards than later participants. As courts have shifted to a presumption of guilt over men, women increasingly hold an unequal advantage at settlement.
6. it is perfectly legal to participate
The misrepresentation of men as abusive is often a self-convincing delusion that accords with the objectives of women in custody and other battles over the spoils of a marriage. Sometimes, the abuse is real and sometimes it is mutual, but often it is inflated by the determination of all parties to shift blame. The blatantly anti-male complaints of feminists groups have brought about a change in the way our courts decide custody based on an assumption that even an accusation of abuse must be taken on its face as indicative of real abuse that cannot be proven but must, nonetheless, be guarded against. The application of this assumption is overwhelmingly against men as the more ‘obvious’ aggressor (only more obvious if one assumes greater body strength guarantees aggression). Prior to the 1970’s, the courts tended to place principle custody in the parent best able or likely to provide for the physical needs of children, and presumed parents equally capable of providing for emotional and other intangible supports. That did favor men over women, as most women did not have independent means. Women still lag men in career and earnings, but not uniformly and not sufficiently to give one or the other undue advantage. Women were considered more nurturing, but that wasn’t deemed an overriding factor for custody.
Feminism began as a demand for equal representation and as a protest against the delegated roles of women. The politicization of minority movements in the late 1960’s and since has resulted in a tendency to overstate every position as a necessary expedient to redress iniquities, whether intrinsic or extrinsic. The cudgel that is used, and which has been most effective for women, is the supposed brutality of men and the devastating effect men have on their own families. Convincing the public of this ‘truth’, the overwhelming response has been to accept male-brutality as a given, and alienation as the most reasonable safeguard of the weak. This is, on its face, a reasonable assumption, but one that breaks down on every close examination.
Undoubtedly, the anti-male, anti-husband, anti-father campaign is a hate and suspicion driven misrepresentation of fact by groups of women (and some men) convinced of a number of weak premises. The stated aim, of leveling the playing field, is instead a crusade to dominate the entire landscape of male-female interactions. Any objective not supportable on its own merits, yet having proponents convinced of its truth and dedicated to a forced outcome, will always be advanced and defended by means that are unscrupulous, disingenuous, and fantastic. Such is the case with the more radical feminists who start from an assumption all men are abusive and deliberatey hold women back, and deny any equivalent behavior among women. This is not the same as Ponzi and pyramid schemes, or similar forms of fraud, which have as their object the fleecing of wealth and honestly regard their victims as victims and not as persecutors. The objectives of this fraud are power and false security.
“Breaking the Silence”, as an agenda based pseudo-documentary, is typical of the anti-male screed that is today taken as gospel. It is not surprising it has made outrageous claims it either cannot or does not bother to support with any sort of data. The presenters did not start from an inquiry into abuse, because they are already convinced of it. The public accepts these misrepresentations no less than judges allow the alienation of children and fathers as the least risky position to take. Surveys, statistics, and other forms of data are, in any case, too often biased or full of errors. Even those by government have been repeatedly shown to have been compiled by individuals and agencies with axes to grind; and must be interpreted in light of understanding who they are and represent. Statistics and surveys are useful starting points to understanding, but too often they are given undue weight and taken as proof. Particularly bad in this regard are any surveys of opinion. Opinion is just that, and the only thing they prove is how distorted we see our world.
A better barometer is asking critical questions and then applying reason to the possible answers catalogued. Is it reasonable that men are as abusive as radical-feminist would have us, or is it more reasonable that most men care as much about their children as women, only differing somewhat in emphasis on character? Is it reasonable to presume all men capable of character shifts from virtuous father to sexual predator, or is it more reasonable to assume most men can be relied on to put his child’s welfare ahead of base impulse and is, in any case, conditioned against such infantile ideations? How many men do you know who are ‘proved’ to have abused their child at least once? How many of these are known to have a pattern of abuse? Who defines what constitutes abuse, and is it reasonable in the context of actual events. This is a simple survey anyone can do that does not rely on the hyperventilated claims of an agenda driven lobby. From such surveys we can determine that outrageous claims of widespread and epidemic abuse are patently false.
The question regarding sexual predation must be reinterpreted in light of the recent and increasing number of cases of women as sexual predator. It is generally assumed sexual predation is the sole preserve of men. Men do tend to be more sexually aggressive physically than women. Yet, women are capable of sexual aggression, of an inappropriate interest in underage partners, and even sexual abuse of her own child. Women don’t typically resort to physical attack to press their intentions, yet they too are capable of it; and, in the case of children, all sexual interaction is equally predatory. History is spotted with cases of women sexual aggressors, indicating this is not an unprecedented phenomenon. Women in positions of royal power were notable for having pressed their interest on courtiers and subjects, only to later accuse them as ravishers in order to escape punishment or censure. Incest was known between noble women and young relatives. We don’t have equal information regarding commoners because history does not record them. However, we can be sure commoners reflected the same mores as their superiors. If we can say with certainty these things happened in the tabooed and punitive middle-ages, why would we suppose them less prevalent in our age which labels ill-behavior as a response to environment and regards punishment inappropriate. The notoriety of such women arises from the incongruity of their behavior from the putative norm, not from any special circumstances (victimhood) surrounding them. In the far past, they were treated more severely than male counterparts. Today, they are treated more leniently as a sort of over compensation for our past. It is as if to say, because men unfairly stoned women a thousand years ago, we must let her descendant go unpunished today. The crimes of these two women, one a thousand years ago and one today, have no bearing on each other and punishment should fit the deeds of each according to the current and uniform standard.
Will C is correct about the Ponzi scheme and money, but the burden of proof is on feminism. Feminism has radically altered the relation of men and women, has us at each other’s throats, and seeks still greater power for women at the cost of an emasculated society. Even the more reasonable demands of feminism have resulted in sustained insult to half of society and oft times do more harm than good. The damage to families is especially execrable and a blight on well-intended women who esteem advancement for themselves uncritically. Feminism has gone from a reasonable demand for fair play to an unreasoning scapegoating of men in the pursuit power and little else. The movement has lost its way and needs to regain perspective. Individually, feminists are no more unreasoning than anyone else, and can be reasoned with on individual points. But, like all radical movements, feminism tends to a mob mentality that silences all but the imperatives driving it forward. Thus, it is not unreasonable to ask that feminists explain their movement’s anti-male policy and incendiary rhetoric; else tone it down and concede men are not the enemy.
11 Woe to the wicked! It shall be ill with him,
For the reward of his hands shall be given him.
12 As for My people, children are their oppressors,
And women rule over them.
O My people! Those who lead you cause you to err,
And destroy the way of your paths.”`
Isiah Chapt. 3
I was always taught that God’s judgement is being raised
against a nation when He hands it’s rule over to women.
What we exhibit in our ‘democracy of equality and at all
costs’ is maintained in pretend. It is a pretend game that
runs dreadfully counter to what the bible teaches. To this
I attribute the source of our own peril.
It is really easier to allow women to hide their weakness.
They are dreadfully tired of it and, many, so young are on
anti-depressants and eating prescription drugs like candy.
They should ask themselves if winning these silly turf battles
is worth losing the entire war. I mean, given that “The hand
that rocks the cradle rules the world”, if women can only
imagine, through corrupt concepts of “equality” that little boy
babies are just “sissy girls” and women raise them that way,
it could be a self fulfilling prophesy. We have sissy men, but
isn’t that what we set out to raise? These are serious things
we should think twice about. Emasculation will have us with
an utterably unanswerable question of dread; “Who is your
Daddy?”.