Thursday, May 24, 2007

Awarding custody to abusers

I saw this article by Glenn Sacks: NOW says Family Courts Are Awarding Custody to Abusers.

Of course, for NOW, father = abuser. No difference. In their mind, the two terms are perfectly interchangeable. All fathers are abusers, and all abusers are fathers. This is the feminist dogma.

The fact is that Family Courts are in fact awarding custody to abusers. In droves. Women are much more likely to commit child abuse than men, they are much more likely to murder their own children than men, and they are more likely to use the child to get back at the man, hurting the child terribly in the process. But does that matter? No! The courts give a woman who has killed her child far less serious sentences than a man who has sex with child - a pedophile. If you are man, you just might get a more serious sentence for pissing in the bushes or for having sex with your underage girlfriend than a woman would get for abusing and killing her children.

If you are a criminal, it is far more profitable to be a woman. Not only are you more likely to have men do your dirty work, but even if you get caught, the judges will hardly sentence you to a fraction of the time they'd give a man. Also, men are never "too pretty for prison" a la Debra LaFave.

Glenn Sacks goes through the entire case history of the very cases the NOW presents as victims and pretty much blows apart their argument. Why has this never been done before? Why does everyone take the word of feminists, of NOW, of women as the truth? Where are the investigations and the fact-finding missions?

I've looked into the three most highly-publicized cases featured by the BMCC and NOW-NYS--the Genia Shockome case, the Sadia Loeliger case, and the Bridget Marks case. In each case, we were told that a fit, loving, protective mother was stripped of custody by an abusive father.

When I first started looking into these cases, I figured there probably were some where the mothers really were mistreated. I still think those cases are out there, but I haven't found them yet. Neither the Shockome case, the Loeliger case, nor the Marks case fit the NOW/BMCC "protective mother losing custody to abusive father" model. None even came close. 

In the Loeliger case, it was the mother who had been found culpable of child abuse by a California juvenile court. The father got custody not due to family court machinations, as the mother's supporters claimed, but because the juvenile court removed the little girl from the mother's care because of the physical abuse.

In the Marks case, all five judges who heard the case, male and female, concluded that she had coached her little girls into asserting that they had been molested by their father.

In the Shockome case, the mother's absolute refusal to co-parent with her ex-husband led the courts--eventually, after giving her many chances--to transfer custody of the kids from Genia to her ex-husband.

A simple cursory check of the facts in the NOW report shows that there is no basis for claims of victimization. But does that matter? Or will the media, the courts accept the report at face value? I think we know the answer. Women, and subsequently feminist organizations, are held to a lower standard. If they lie, its ok.

Also read the article by Sacks on the Shockome Syndrome.


  1. Our response posted regarding NOW as soon as they released their report.