Condoning Paternal Alienation
Horse’s Behind
A few months ago, within the span of one week, a pantyless Britney Spears exposed her bare genitals four times to the paparazzi. In doing so, she violated California Penal Code, Section 314.1, which labels indecent exposure a misdemeanor, punishable by imprisonment in the state prison or in the county jail, not exceeding one year.
Why did the authorities not arrest or charge Ms. Spears for these willful, lewd acts? Because women, who disingenuously complain about inequality, actually have more privileges and rights than men. Had Kevin Federline, Britney’s ex-husband, behaved in the same manner as the out-of-control mother of his children, does anyone question the severity of prosecution he would have faced? This double standard exists not only in criminal courts but in family courts as well.
Mothers are raising most of the children in this country — the average divorce rate is 50% and average out-of-wedlock birthrate is 37%. According to ABC’s John Stossel, mothers get physical custody 90% of the time. As a result, mothers dictate the attitudes, biases, feelings, morals, behaviors, and lives of American children. Consequently, the influence of their fathers is either anemic or negligible.
Not only do children learn to hate and disrespect their fathers at home, they learn it from TV as well. I’ve written extensively about the pejorative portrayal of men on TV — in sitcoms and countless commercials. The latest offender is Sony Electronics, and its ad agency BBDO, which is promoting its Cyber-Shot camera through a new commercial called “Your dad is not a horse’s behind” (CLICK HERE to view the Sony commercial). Writes AdWeek:
Indeed, it’s a clever and attention-getting way to sell “face detection,” a Sony digital camera feature that ensures faces (not background images) stay in focus. If “face detection” is the brief, we get it, with both a carrot and a stick. Those views of the equine hindquarters stay with you. It’s not subtle, but it sells.
Clever. It sells. Those views of the equine hindquarters stay with you. Unbelievable! Is anybody in America awake? Do people not grasp what’s going on here? The marketing execs at Sony and the creative chiefs at BBDO greenlighted this commercial. They had to say, This is good stuff! And, why do they think it is socially acceptable and “funny” to disrespect fathers? Because the viewers feel that way, too. Most divorced fathers, and many married ones, watching this perverse Sony commercial know that it reflects American attitudes towards them.
Can you imagine, in your wildest of dreams, seeing a spot like this on TV with a mother shown, literally, as a horse’s ass? Don Imus was kicked off radio and TV for offending one team of female college basketball players. Who will pay a similar price for offending tens of millions of fathers?
If Bill O’Reilly would expose misandric advertisers and sitcoms with the same vigilance he uses to expose lenient judges, we might turn the tide. Otherwise, disrespect for men, unchecked and unchallenged, will beget more of the same.
Children raised in today’s misandric homes, while witnessing powerful, unfettered public misandry like that in the Sony commercial, will become our next legislators, judges, prosecutors, mayors, governors, presidents, TV and movie executives, newscasters, magazine and newspaper editors, and, worst of all, parents. If you think fathers are irrelevant now, stay tuned.
“Family” Court
All of this father-bashing has been seeping, drip by drip, down the societal funnel into the so-called “family” court, which (no surprise here) favors mothers. It has culminated into an invisible crisis that few want to address — because it affects fathers. This crisis is called parental alienation, or PA. Because fathers are the overwheming targets of PA, I call it paternal alienation (uncannily, paternal is an anagram of parental, and PA is a diminutive form of father).
PA arises in divorce and custody situations, the result of alienating behaviors by the mother, whereby the relationship between a child and his or her father is severely damaged or destroyed. The typical child affected by paternal alienation exhibits severe opposition to contact with, and/or overt hatred and disrespect of, his or her father. This happens because the mother, on a daily basis, through verbal and nonverbal means, manipulatively drives a wedge between child and father.
Shortsighted Society
On April 27, 2007, I appeared on Fox News Channel’s The O’Reilly Factor to debate Wendy Murphy, a female-rights advocate and adjunct professor of law at New England School of Law, about Alec Baldwin’s unfortunate, publicly exposed experiences with paternal alienation. Ms. Murphy, not displaying any lawyerly reason or objectivity, couldn’t accuse Alec enough for being the culprit.
In case you don’t know the situation: Out of frustration of repeatedly calling his daughter at prespecified times, each time finding her cellphone turned off, Baldwin finally lost his temper and left an angry message on her voicemail. He called her a pig and accused her of playing her mother’s game. In a spiteful action that ultimately hurt their daughter even more, Kim Basinger, Baldwin’s ex-wife, allegedly released that angry message to TMZ.com.
Soon afterwards, every news organization in the world picked it up and, purporting to care about the 11-year-old girl, played it ad nauseam. They all pilloried Alec Baldwin’s behavior. Bad man. Bad father. Only Bill O’Reilly, host of The O’Reilly Factor, refused to air it because he didn’t want to add to the pain of the Baldwins’ daughter.
Sean Hannity wanted to see Baldwin thrown in jail. Raoul Felder, divorce lawyer to well-heeled women, attempted to vitiate PA as nonexistent pseudoscience. Geraldo Rivera, self-admitted rogue, blamed all divorce and custody problems on men, who always “try to chisel their ex-wives so that they can afford to be with young chicks.”
I’ve seen only five prominent newspeople willing to examine Alec Baldwin’s outburst from his perspective: FNC’s Bill O’Reilly (The O’Reilly Factor), Alan Colmes (Hannity & Colmes), ABC’s Rosie O’Donnell and Barbara Walters (The View), and ABC’s John Stossel (20/20). Why so few? I believe Sony Electronics summed it up pretty well.
In my debate with Wendy Murphy, she railed against Alec Baldwin for not being a “real man,” for not taking personal responsibility for his actions — even though he had and has done that profusely. The vitriol was amazing. Yet, the criticism of Kim Basinger’s role in this was practically nonexistent.
The media presented neither “special programs” on the inner workings of family courts and biases towards mothers, nor acknowledgements of International Parental Alienation Awareness Day (April 25th).
Alec Baldwin’s detractors have criticized him for wanting personal sympathy and not being 100% concerned for his daughter. In other words, his pain and mistreatment are irrelevant. After all, men are not supposed to have feelings or care about them, right? Baldwin’s detractors are wrong: This issue is not all about children; it is about a system that encourages, tolerates, and condones mothers who alienate fathers from their children.
During the flight of any commercial airline, the flight attendents always instruct parents that, during emergencies, they must place oxygen masks on themselves before doing likewise on their children. Why? Because if the parents become incapacitated, they cannot help their children. Similarly, a father alienated from his children is legally, logistically, emotionally, and financially incapacitated, and he cannot help them. But, someone forgot to mention this to lawmakers, judges, and the media.
Paternal alienation exists precisely because all the focus is myopically on children, and THAT is why we will not eradicate it. Remember welfare? It was intended to help the very people it hurt. There’s a lesson here, folks. A shortsighted society is a dangerous society.
Family courts condone ignoring and hurting fathers; by doing so, they are damaging children. If PA were a crime, lots of mothers would be in jail. But, PA is not a crime — because mothers commit it and can manufacture endless excuses for doing so.
The NoNonsense Bottom Line
Because Alec Baldwin is a public figure, America is talking about paternal alienation — at least until the next contestant is eliminated on American Idol. Millions of men suffer the same fate in obscurity, their voices forever unheard. After appearing on The O’Reilly Factor, I received e-mails from men around the world in situations similar to Baldwin’s.
Why did Alec Baldwin lose control? I don’t know him personally and cannot comment as a friend familiar with all the facts. But, I can look at the situation that he, like so many other fathers, faces. I can examine the options of any man who experiences PA:
- He cannot talk to his ex-wife, either because she is his enemy or the court orders him not to contact her, or both
- He cannot complain to the court, because the judge doesn’t acknowledge PA and doesn’t care about fathers
- He cannot talk to his daughter, because she has become a hateful, disrespectful clone of her mother.
What happens to a father in this predicament is that he becomes so sad and depressed and feels so helpless and hopeless that he eventually explodes — and the masses call him irresponsible and selfish. These are the same people who give a pass to a mother who publicly flashes her vagina.
If mothers were experiencing PA, every news organization would be blaming men, and the problem would be solved tomorrow. There would be a federal law against it. But, because it is happening to fathers — America’s horses’ asses — nobody cares. And, children, whom everyone claims to love, are the biggest losers.
About the Author
Marc H. Rudov is an internationally recognized author of 50+ articles and the books Under the Clitoral Hood: How to Crank Her Engine Without Cash, Booze, or Jumper Cables™ (ISBN 9780974501727), and The Man’s No-Nonsense Guide to Women: How to Succeed in Romance on Planet Earth™ (ISBN 0974501719).
Rudov’s books, articles, blog, and podcasts are available at TheNoNonsenseMan.com.
Copyright © 2007 by Marc H. Rudov. All rights reserved.
Stumble It!
Posted in: Vox Populi | 20 views
Comments • comment feed
Marc,
Excellent! This is a really well written summary of tricky situations and presented in a clear and concise manner.
It is clear that the term “The Best Interest” of the child is strewn about as a mantra of family courts and society at large yet the big missing consideration here is that the best interst of the child is inextricably linked to the best interest of that child’s parents – Both of them!
Interestingly the “Best Interest” paradigm that has been adopted by the courts as dogma was originated by Anna Frued and some of her screwed up disciples. The lot of them authored a book about the subject as if they were the authorities on the subject and the courts went crazy to adopt it’s underlying messages. This sounds a little like Timothy McVeigh writting a book on criminal procesecutions and the law and the US government and legislature clamoring to have it enacted into law..
Thanks for your dedication to this issue.
I have been through the family court system in NY and clearly know how screwed up things are.
Tom
April 29th, 2007
I will copy this and share with a few friends and others….good job Marc.
April 29th, 2007
Yes. Family Values means sticking it to Men.
April 29th, 2007
`Best interest’ is what legal culture calls a `term of art,’ which in this case means simply that the judge has essentially unrestricted _discretion_ to order custody and related aspects of child rearing.
It originated long before the time of Anna Freud, however the Goldstein-Freud-Solnit doctrine is the foundation of the unfortunate notion that there cannot be joint custody if there’s conflict between the parents, which drives most of the false accusations and other mischief which dominate family court proceedings.
April 29th, 2007
Marc, that was the best, most passionate and strong piece that I have read from your keyboard. Concise, accurate, well directed, well composed, Powerful. I fully concur with every word.
(Hey, my friend, that’s a first, shirley!).
Like Steven, I will pass it on to many.
April 30th, 2007
I concur, and thanks Marc for doin some of the heavy lifting by standing out front debating these kneejerk fools.
April 30th, 2007
Marc-you are on a roll. Awesome piece of writing.
“In my debate with Wendy Murphy, she railed against Alec Baldwin for not being a “real man,” for not taking personal responsibility for his actions — even though he had and has done that profusely.”
“real man” It was of course a tactic. And had you raised your voice in an overly agressive manner she would have tied you up in this “real man” put down to undermine your main points and credibility.
It’s a tactic of feminists (and many other women who do not consider themselves feminist) and one that today’s “chivalrous men” fall for blindly. I too noticed the attitude of Sean Hannity and Geraldo Rivera. This battle is as much (and perhaps more) against such men as it is against such women as Wendy Murphy.
“Ms. Murphy, not displaying any lawyerly reason or objectivity, couldn’t accuse Alec enough for being the culprit.”
It is also what she did to the Duke Three. She had electronically lynched all three and refused to discuss the remote possibility of their innocence on a previous appearance on The O’Reilly Factor. She is a dangerously dishonest law professor. Her type of lawyering has a history in Nazi Germany and Stalinist Soviet Union.
April 30th, 2007
Gentlemen,
Thanx for your kind feedback.
=================================
Denis,
As you know, I have written many times before that misandric MEN are largely responsible for the lopsided situation we face — they are literally frightened of women.
On Saturday past, I was watching a financial show on Fox News. One of the male panelists claimed that female CEOs actually make more money than their male counterparts because, according to his calculations, their companies are not doing as well, on average, as those headed by men. He prefaced his remarks with: “I’m going to get killed for saying this when I go home tonight.” I hear that all the time. Whenever a man on TV criticizes or comments on women, he always displays fear. It is a reflexive action.
Also, male-bashing men, like Geraldo Rivera, populate legislative and judicial seats all over this country. They also are responsible for creating and greenlighting commercials like the one from Sony Electronics.
If you’d like to know how to spot one of these eunuchs, go to any bar or restaurant. Look around. When you see the pathetic guy who feels he must wine & dine women, the one who has no spine and no balls, he’s your culprit.
April 30th, 2007
Here here on the culprits!
From the Pauper Gallery.
April 30th, 2007
I have brought this up in the past, that being how men standing in a group will tend to toss in comments like “I gotta check with the boss”, or “my wife won’t like that”, or even now as I search for a new home I get the jokes from the (male) realtor about how its nice if I like the place but they (realtors) know where the power resides.
And more directly as it realtes to the wife, I had asked a pastor why he always joked on men etc., he said because his wife is in the audience.
Men do not want to believe the truth. They don’t want to see how pitiful it looks. I see the hurried sweaty man in the airports all the time, bags hanging off him, kids hanging off him, while wife tells him, go get me this go get me that, and then he gets that ever longed for pat of approval on the head…good doggy.
April 30th, 2007
Marc I watched your interview just now, and I commend the way you handled it, and the way you got the needed plug in there at the end. You were clearly opposite a wench, after her comments on how the legal system is sexist, and you came out looking like the serious commentator while she smirked and sighed.
I wish O’Reilly would bring you back and do a segment on the issue you tried to touch at the end…men and their station in society.
Thank You.
April 30th, 2007
conservativation,
Thanx for your comments — and for your recognition that men do kowtow to women. As long as women witness this wimpy male behavior, they know they hold the power.
By the way, O’Reilly’s producers at Fox News also liked my appearance and expressed a desire to have me back. Stay tuned…
April 30th, 2007
“By the way, O’Reilly’s producers at Fox News also liked my appearance and expressed a desire to have me back. Stay tuned…”
Fantastic. You can count on that Marc… Proof positive that you handled your appearance exactly right.
April 30th, 2007
I’ll sure be watching for it.
April 30th, 2007
Marc,
You absolutely deserve the kind feedback. Your performance was excellent.
April 30th, 2007
Marc:
It boggles my mind that these sweaty little weasels are in any way attractive to women. Once they were likely more masculine men then the women turn them into something they really don’t find sexy at all…the men allow this change to occur, and then the women sometimes seekm out the poolboy. The men may like to then chase the young secretary because she makes him feel manly again.
I’m not laying it all at womens feet here but the evolution I described is a common one in American relationships. One thing is for sure, that sweaty little guy I see is NOT attracting other women of same station as the wife, they want men not bellboys.
I hope you give us advance notice, I will direct all my friends to watch if you get a slot on O’Reilly. It was unfortunate this had such a narrow focus this time as there is so much to talk about, and if a person could just find out how to tweek Oreilly’s buttons and get him on this, men may have a new champion that could actually get the word out.
Keep it up Marc, you’ll make a good public voice of advocacy for us humble MND folks.
April 30th, 2007
Excellent article Marc.
Thanks for what you are doing.
April 30th, 2007
COns – on comment #10, makes one woder if the ORthodox keeping the women seperate is for teh sake of the Men, in that the speaker feels freer to exhort the men if that is all he sees before him.
April 30th, 2007
I don’t think so thurston, but I could be wrong, not having been involved with the orthodox church. I stood outside the doors of one once in Sibiu Romania, does that count as being authoritative? nah. But, exhorting genders in their own groups exclusively is preferable to what occurs now.
April 30th, 2007
marc… i want to take this opportunity to informally nominate you as “the most effective mens rights advocate of the year” (07)…
April 30th, 2007
The American male has been emasculated and feminized beyond recognition. Boys emerge from today’s estrogenized schools, where competition is frowned upon and male students are often drugged into passivity, into a comfortable, safe nanny state where the sensitive metrosexual is the new “real man”.
April 30th, 2007
Let me refine my award for you marc…
the “WOMENS MATRIX DECONSTRUCT AWARD”.
Ive nominated you..and taken a vote with myself, and you won….
If i run into some money..Ill’e hold a ceremony and Ille give you a custom trophy for youre efforts…
Hey man… this is a very prestigous award….
April 30th, 2007
All of you are right, of course.
But in addition is the basic primary incentive of government, which is to expand at the expense of everything else in society, these men who destroy the rights of other men do it because they personally profit from it.
If you are a lawyer, family law practice is the second easiest way to earn a living. The easiest way to earn a living is to work for some bureaucracy for a salary and package of benefits, provided you are not trying to prove defendants committed crimes beyond reasonable doubt.
That is the thing. Having to prove a defendant did something wrong, or trying to prevent the proof that a client did something wrong, is hard work and risky.
We have the 5th and 14th Amendments, and most state constitutions, including language that reads to the effect: “no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law”. The “due process of law” has traditionally meant a requirement of proof that the person being deprived
DID SOMETHING WRONG.
That is certainly what it means in criminal cases and in civil cases alleging tort or breach of contract.
But with no-fault divorce, we stripped out the risky due process of law part and went straight to the highly profitable (for lawyers, judges, bureaucracy, agencies, advocates, feminist organizations, etc.) deprivation of liberty and property part. Because the higher the divorce rate, the more money to be made by fleecing the breadwinners, we have the one-sided practice that all but forces any woman in a less than ecstatically perfect relationship to run to the courthouse.
And of course, the more disfunctional families we create by stripping them away from the fathers and destroying the fathers, more messed up children we have growing up to be welfare moms, prison dads, convicted felons, drug addicts, bums begging quarters on the streets, etc. to feed the government’s incentive to grow at the expense of everything else in society.
The prison industry, booming.
The police industry, booming.
The drug and alcohol rehab industry, booming.
The psychobabble artist industry, booming.
The homeless advocacy industry, booming.
And of course, welfare bureaucracy, social workers, child support enforcement, divorce litigation, tax funded prosecutors, county jails, are all booming.
And the private companies that benefit from this, and not just Maximus (their first name ought to be Gluteus!). Smith and Wesson not only sells guns, they sell handcuffs. Who do you think their biggest customers are?
Clue, Mistress Nasty Bitch is only a minor account compared to the prisons, police departments, and county sheriffs who get bigger and bigger budgets to handle the consequences of father destroying family law policy.
I can be forgiven for suspecting that such consequences are intended.
April 30th, 2007
In this current social climate of total disregard for fathers where they are seen as completely irrelevant, what man in their freaking right mind would even consider fatherhood today? A guy would have to be tricked into fatherhood.
May 1st, 2007
Marc, watched the Cavuto piece, that one didnt go so well, no fault of yours though. Ive watched Neil make his tongue in cheek jokes that peg him as one of those wimpy men before. Unfortunate…he is a nice fellow, and I believe if he had the figures and could digest them he’d not have allowed her to do as she did, making silly allegations etc. The wimps watching with their “strong” wives were not convinced…but maybe they never will be.
Note she said nothing of how long she had worked with the overpaid guy. term of employment is a valid variable.
May 1st, 2007