[ekm]100x100[ekm].jpg)
« An Editorial On Deadbeat Dads | Main | Friday Random Ten - The Hard Core Trance Edition »
February 11, 2005
Getting Around the PAS As Syndrome Label
Fathers' rights activists are currently trying to get the bogus Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS) into the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) due to a case in which a 10 year old boy shot and killed his father during a visitation exchange. The boy's mother had claimed that her ex-husband had been abusing him. Men's and fathers' rights activists have attached themselves to this case as "proof" that PAS is a real syndrome, and they are lobbying heavily to get it included in the next issue of the DSM.
I've noticed for the past few years that when PAS is introduced in a court room, the court throws it out when it sees it for the junk science it really is. Dr. Richard Gardner, who coined PAS, stated that 90% of his PAS caseload was mothers. He doesn't have much credibility in the court room. In 1988, researcher and author Jon Conte wrote that Gardner's Sex Abuse Legitimacy Scale is "probably the most unscientific piece of garbage I've seen in the field in all my time. To base social policy on something as flimsy as this is exceedingly dangerous."
The American Psychological has already pointed out that psychologists pathologize mothers' behavior when they try to protect their children from abuse. One of the ways mother are pathologized is by citing the bogus PAS.
Family courts frequently minimize the harmful impact of children's witnessing violence between their parents and sometimes are reluctant to believe mothers. If the court ignores the history of violence as the context for the mother's behavior in a custody evaluation, she may appear hostile, uncooperative, or mentally unstable. For example, she may refuse to disclose her address, or may resist unsupervised visitation, especially if she thinks her child is in danger. Psychological evaluators who minimize the importance of violence against the mother, or pathologize her responses to it, may accuse her of alienating the children from the father and may recommend giving the father custody in spite of his history of violence.
Since introducing PAS as a syndrome has failed so often in court, men's and fathers' rights activists have tried to find ways of getting around it. I recall in the late '90s one activist recommending that a legal approach of "estrangement" be used to get around the PAS problem. Other psychologists such as Kelly and Johnston have rewritten PAS to a more generalized approach because Gardner's syndrome has such a bad reputation. "Friendly parent" provisions operate from the same point-of-view: when the mother does not "cooperate" and bend to dad's demands for visitation, even when visitation may be harmful for the children, she is accused of interfering with the father-child relationship. This is not about real harm to the child. It's a biased judgement of mother's behavior that fathers overall do not experience. The allegations she makes are automatically viewed as suspect, and they are not investigated properly. The guys cook up all kinds of unsavory methods to punish mothers in court.
I've been made aware of similar suggestions to get around the "PAS as syndrome" problem that came from a fathers' rights mailing list.
First of all, folks, until you've conducted a global read of PA(S), which includes the most recent Kelly & Johnston reformulation, I suggest you refer to PAS as PA (Parental Alienation), only. By and large, most attorneys, and especially pro-se'ers, get clobbered in court when naming this disorder a syndrome. So, my advice to you, whether you're trying to admit the Parental Alienation Theory in court at pre-trial at a Daubert or Frye Hearing, or at trial, even if the child victims are participating in the alienators campaign of denigration against the targeted parent, is to use the words, Parental Alienation (PA), only.
This poster admits that people get "clobbered in court" when citing PAS as a syndrome. As they should, since PAS is junk science. This use of the words "parental alienation only" is a subterfuge to introduce a bogus syndrome into the court room. Junk science that demonizes women has no place in court. PAS has no business being admitted as a valid syndrome in the DSM, and a case involving a 10 year old who shot his father should not be used to get it there.
Posted on February 11, 2005 at 08:42 AM | Permalink
Comments
I agree with the general objections to PAS and those from the FR Camp who attempt to use these theories to excuse abusers.
However, estrangement tactics do exist. In some cases, it may be no more than minor grousing which, over time, will tend to turn the kids off. However, also realize that constant putdowns and namecalling, etc. are also familiar behavior tactics of abusers. Abusers are very fond of telling the kids that everything is Mom's fault, that she is a whore, ad nauseum. They get a special control thrill fix in driving a wedge between various victims in the family.
This kind of stuff should not be confused with PAS. But it does need to be recognized. See the work of Lundy Bancroft for a more detailed analysis of how abuse is more than just beating up or hitting. On the contrary, it is a whole PATTERN of abuse and control that nearly always involves emotional manipulation as well as bruises.
Posted by: silverside at Feb 11, 2005 8:56:29 AM
I know that the estrangement tactics abusive dads use do exist. I have one of Lundy Bancroft's books from the library right now. It's due to go back today. The problem is that estrangement has been used against mothers in court as a weapon to punish them for trying to inform the court about abusive behavior by dad. According to the way estrangement is used in those situations, the focus is put back on mom, saying she is the one guilty of "poisoning the children's minds" against dad by claiming he is abusive.
Posted by: Trish Wilson at Feb 11, 2005 9:00:41 AM
Unfortunately, Trish is absolutely correct in how this estrangement stuff actually works itself out in court. Mothers are held responsible for when the kids are afraid to see Dad or are in anything but a "receptive" frame of mind. Any objective conditions that may lead to the kids' "negativity" is ignored.
A common strain for years on various list serves has been: Has even ONE mom been able to claim PAS against an alienating father and win? The answer seems to be no. Despite this, many deluded non-custodial moms try to utilize PAS. In discussion with them, you'll find that estrangement is only the tip of the iceburg. Just one piece of a whole bunch of stuff the ex uses against them. But they think that because the guys use PAS as a tactic and are successful, they should be able to as well. For better or for worse, it doesn't work that way.
Unfortunately, I have been at the receiving end of estrangement tactics. But this is part of my ex's obsession with always trying to humiliate me, isolate me, "punish" me. And he sees the child we had together as a convenient wedge. Interestingly enough, the court-appointed shrink in the custody fight freely acknowledged the ex's "alienating" behavior in his report, and issued a mild rebuke. But he gave the man custody anyway. I suspect that had I been the dad reacting against an equally "emotional" and "irrational" mother, I would have received custody. But there is truly a double standard now.
Posted by: silverside at Feb 11, 2005 9:48:27 AM
"I know that the estrangement tactics abusive dads use do exist..."
First of 'estrangement tactics' are exactly what PAS is. That is it in a nutshell! That's all it's ever been...
And now comes the patented Trish Wilson double standard...you're accusing men of DOING it (of which I would love to see some evidence, news, transcripts ANYTHING, i.e. the same thing I post about the things bad women are reported on the news as doing every single day en masse. And if men do engage in PAS (and some do) I'll be the first to indict them.
...And in the same breath you're claiming that it simply doesn't occur to men, calling it junk science when it applies to us...How childishly hypocritical and irresponsible you are? And how predictably insulting, which is usually all your essays on these issues are about...
And you equate every act that even smacks of PAS with a mom as her, in ALL cases, providing safety to her child from an abusive parent(dad.) We don't excuse men who abuse and I'd love to see some evidence of that as well. Your mere assertion here that this is what YOU believe is the case in PAS is meaningless because men prosecute men for domestic violence and abuse all the time.
That's a alot of preposterous allegations you ought to have the decency...the professionalism to back up.
No silverside, Trish is most certainly NOT correct.
And the beauty is, I don't have to prove a thing anymore...the news proves it again and again, all day, every day.
Posted by: Masculiste at Feb 12, 2005 12:32:57 AM
"A common strain for years on various list serves has been: Has even ONE mom been able to claim PAS against an alienating father and win? The answer seems to be no. Despite this, many deluded non-custodial moms try to utilize PAS. In discussion with them, you'll find that estrangement is only the tip of the iceburg. Just one piece of a whole bunch of stuff the ex uses against them. But they think that because the guys use PAS as a tactic and are successful, they should be able to as well. For better or for worse, it doesn't work that way."
BTW, I actually am just starting to hear about mothers who are getting custody back due to alienation now...
I was surprised too, but it's starting to happen...even schools are starting to become more aware of these things, it's not as easy to hide anymore as it once was...
I actually think, believe it or not, that custodial fathers are MORE likely to alienate children...I'm not exactly sure why; but it might have something to do with second wives being involved...second husbands don't appear to always have the need to replace bio fathers the way second wives do...They're satified with their limited role; but I think that just reflects men being less interested in children anyway...Plus many custodial fathers DO dump their children off on second wives and girlfriends who then literally raise these kids from infants as their own...
I mean really what we are looking at (even in your case with long-term girlfriend) is two MOTHERS fighting over the child really, not a father and mother...and you know, yourself, caring for a child day in and day out like that, of course you are going to feel like that child's mother...and you are going to be VERY territorial over that child when bio mother shows up...
So really for a woman to lose custody of a young child is almost the equivalent of a court enforced adoption; as there is NO way that you are going to have standard visitation or even weekend visitation with an infant or young child and remain a viable mother to it, no way...
So unless abuse or neglect is involved, a mother should NEVER lose custody of an infant under 5 (school age probably) as it's a virtual termination of the mother/child bond...Women need to be VERY strong on this issue, no compromise... that and no rights for unmarried fathers (none)...line in the sand issues...for every mother...
Anyway, Richard Gardner just before he killed himself noticed this trend of alienating fathers too...in the 80s he said MOST of his cases were alienating mothers; but in the 90s he noticed a shift and about 50% of his caseload became alienating custodial fathers... but 50% is a LOT when you consider how few fathers have custody....
But it's still much more difficult for mothers to do, that hasn't changed...the key to winning, as with everything else appears to be money as it is NOT cheap, since you have to pay for your share of the GALS, evaluations, attorney, as well as your own experts...
Another thing with women I think they are more likely to keep trying to work things out BEFORE going the legal route (you know the tendency we have to always avoid confrontation)...then, of course, the more times passes the harder it gets to do...
However not so impossible anymore.
"Unfortunately, I have been at the receiving end of estrangement tactics. But this is part of my ex's obsession with always trying to humiliate me, isolate me, "punish" me."
You should return to court BEFORE more time passes...as I think the issue will be addressed...
I wouldn't wait because as your daughter gets older it will get harder to get the court to do anything and once she's a teenager impossible, as the courts will rarely FORCE a teenager into contact, no matter the reason for alienation...
So you need to go back soon...
Posted by: NYMOM at Feb 12, 2005 1:24:08 AM
"And the beauty is, I don't have to prove a thing anymore...the news proves it again and again, all day, every day."
No it doesn't...
You actually have to go abroad to get your news everyday since you can't find enough negative news in the US about women...
You even had an article from Africa on there the other day...ONE woman got indicted for an atrocity that has been in the news for ten years day after day, every indictment against men; YET finally ONE woman gets indicted and you put it in as conclusive proof that women in Africa were as involved in that genocide as men...
You're the one who's unprofessional and irresponsible as well...
"And if men do engage in PAS (and some do) I'll be the first to indict them."
No you wouldn't...and btw, did I see an article on your site mentioning Jerica Rhodes...she was 7 years old and her father stabbed her 16 times...didn't that cross your RADAR at all since I didn't see it mentioned...
Just cherry picking every bad story you can find about women in the newspapers and then going abroad for more bad stories when you can't find enough in the US is useless Michael and saids nothing about women here or abroad...
Actually I hate to tell you this it said more about you then us and, guess what, none of it good...
Posted by: NYMOM at Feb 12, 2005 1:37:08 AM
"And now comes the patented Trish Wilson double standard...you're accusing men of DOING it (of which I would love to see some evidence, news, transcripts ANYTHING, i.e. the same thing I post about the things bad women are reported on the news as doing every single day en masse. And if men do engage in PAS (and some do) I'll be the first to indict them..."
She doesn't NEED to do what you do day after day since it's useless...that's why nobody else does it...cherry picking bad stories out of the news here about one group and then going abroad for more bad stories about them when you don't have enough to fill the quote mensnewsdaily sets for you, saids NOTHING about that group.
Really it saids more about you and your Stalinist 'handlers' at mensnewsdaily and how many hoops they can have you jumping through everyday...
Okay...
Sorry to have to be the one to tell you...
That's why most blogs pick ONE story or two a day that points out something essential to an issue they are concerned with and focus on it...
Which is what Trish does here...
AND most of us like it this way, as we wish to read about and discuss issues in depth; not just parroting the party line for fear of getting the boot, like poor Amber Pawlik or Wendy McElroy did...
Again, sorry to be the one to have to tell you...
Posted by: NYMOM at Feb 12, 2005 2:03:03 AM
Actually, NYMOM, I will be in court on Monday. For those who are willing, I'd appreciate any good thoughts, prayers you could send my way.
Having read a lot about PAS and other similar theories, I think it's important to recognize that symptoms of estrangement can't necessarily be confused with a whole theory that attempts to explain it. Observing symptoms is not the same thing as buying a theory that explains it. I can observe symptoms of Malaria without buying one of the initial theories as to its etiology, e.g. that malaria is a result of unclean air or swamp gases. Same thing with PAS. Sure, it brings into focus certain things (estrangement tactics). But it seldom if ever discusses domestic violence. Estrangement is typically discussed as an isolated phenomenon, as something that seemingly arises out of no where during a divorce. Personally, I don't think this is so. I think if you look a little more carefully, you'll see all kinds of other family pathology and estrangement is only part of it. I think PAS theory fetishizes the estrangement above all else, and tends to ignore the rest of the picture.
Posted by: at Feb 12, 2005 9:11:31 AM
Masculiste: ""I know that the estrangement tactics abusive dads use do exist..."
First of 'estrangement tactics' are exactly what PAS is. That is it in a nutshell! That's all it's ever been...
And now comes the patented Trish Wilson double standard...you're accusing men of DOING it (of which I would love to see some evidence, news, transcripts ANYTHING, i.e. the same thing I post about the things bad women are reported on the news as doing every single day en masse. And if men do engage in PAS (and some do) I'll be the first to indict them."
The "estrangement" used by fathers' rights activists is about judging moms behavior that they don't like. When she won't cooperate to their satisfaction because of control and abuse issues she and the children are experiencing, or when she won't cooperate because dad is running roughshod over her status as primary caregiver, they claim she is alienating the kids against dad. Dads controlling and abusive behavior is ignored. That very behavior needs more attention in court. As the APA even said, "Psychological evaluators who minimize the importance of violence against the mother, or pathologize her responses to it, may accuse her of alienating the children from the father and may recommend giving the father custody in spite of his history of violence." "Estrangement tactics" are the words Silverside used, and I repeated them. However, it's more accurate to call them abuse and control. There is no double standard here in on my part.
Posted by: Trish Wilson at Feb 12, 2005 9:19:33 AM
I have heard through the years of women who want to use PAS, "alienation," "estrangement," whatever against their ex's. I don't recommend that because all of that is designed to be used against women. The dad's lawyer could easily turn the tables on her and claim that she is the one doing the alienating by the mere fact that she brought up "alienation." Rather, call the behavior what it is - abuse, manipulation, and control.
For more on moms who think they see PAS in their ex's, see this link:
"But I've Seen PAS!" No You Haven't
Posted by: Trish Wilson at Feb 12, 2005 9:27:34 AM
'As the APA even said, "Psychological evaluators who minimize the importance of violence against the mother, or pathologize her responses to it, may accuse her of alienating the children from the father and may recommend giving the father custody in spite of his history of violence."'
Even I agree that what the APA is addressing is in fact a problem when it occurs, and needs to be addressed. Men should never get a free ride if they abuse. Not within that context or any other. And psych evaluators should never minimalize abuse that they know is occuring. But that's a problem your having with psych evaluators and abusers, not men's rights advocates. You keep equating father's rights with abuse...and that's an insult.
If you want help on that front, who better to rely on for that kind of support THAN father's rights. Our problem is non-abusive fathers and their kids having to deal with estrangement tactics. And you can continue minimalizing it or outright denying it all you want, but that's the same thing you said about paternity fraud. And we all see how many new laws were passed regarding that.
What you're alleging here, as always, is that when PAS or 'estrangement tactics' are being employed by a mom, she is ALWAYS and ONLY employing it in an effort to protect her child from an abusive dad. And that is just not so...
That wouldn't even qualify as a 'practical' way of protecting her child. And there are just too many ways to report (and don't EVEN sing me that "No One is Listening" song) ANY kind of domestic abuse on a wife OR a child for that to even come into play. And you wouldn't being doing women ANY service trying to say otherwise.
You would teach women how top find practical and lawful avenues of seeking help and safety, you wouldn't condone 'estrangement tactics/PAS which you KNOW doesn't work and is only going to enflame the truly abusive, or give ideas to not-so-nice moms on how to get revenge against their ex's...would you?
Another thing I find HIGHLY insulting is your constant refusal to acknowledge that women have every bit as much of a mean streak as you accuse men of, that sometimes, they seek revenge...and are just as adept at nastiness and abuse. In most ways, even more so...
As for you NYMOM...cherry picking is exactly what all bloggers do, to one extent or another. When you finally learn how to hyper-link, then you can tell me how a blog is supposed to run. No more helpful advise for you...
Posted by: Masculiste at Feb 12, 2005 11:31:10 AM
"You keep equating father's rights with abuse...and that's an insult.
But it's true...Father rights is, by definition, abuse of mothers...
That's probably the 1000 lb elephant in every discussion of gender neutral custody and why abuse dominates every facet of Fathers Rights issues BECAUSE IT IS ABUSE, by definition, to have a group of men whose sole purpose is to continue to work for more women to lose their children.
That's abuse...
Why should mothers be fearful that, at any time, they can be dragged into court and be forced to be evaluated and questioned in order to pass some 'test' to see if they are good enough to keep their children?
Fathers should ONLY be allowed to do this if abuse or neglect is involved.
Okay...
Sorry to be the one to break it to you...but this vision that you and other Fathers Rights advocates have of this sort of 'brave new world' where 50% of women are going to willingly go along with handing their kids over to you is not realistic...
What will happen is that women will pay lip service to it (like the sort of intellectual and moral support you get now from many women) but then turn around and very quietly decide not to have any children themselves...
This tells me that even the women most vocal in their support of your group, ultimately don't trust any of you...
Thus, fewer women will have children...that's what the result is and will continue to be if you all persist in this nonsense...our birth rates will plunge even lower.
"As for you NYMOM...cherry picking is exactly what all bloggers do, to one extent or another. When you finally learn how to hyper-link, then you can tell me how a blog is supposed to run. No more helpful advise for you..."
NOW that's just rotten...
BUT very predictable...
I guess your Stalinist handlers put you up to that...
Posted by: NYMOM at Feb 12, 2005 12:44:08 PM
"NOW that's just rotten...
BUT very predictable...
I guess your Stalinist handlers put you up to that..."
She STILL doesn't get it...Trish or somebody, could you please arrange to contact NYMOM off-line or somewhere private and explain it to her like I had to have it explained to me. If I could explain it to you...I would.
NYMOM, instead of denying it's a problem, shouldn't you make sure that if there is a problem, it's corrected? Don't you see how that carries over into other areas that we discuss?
Posted by: Masculiste at Feb 12, 2005 2:39:59 PM
Explain it to me then...
What's the big secret...
We're talking about blogging for Christ's sake; not divulging the plans for a nuclear bomb to the Russians...
Could you get over yourself already, PLEASE...
By the way, I just heard that men commit more crimes of a sexual nature by a factor of about 500 to 1 compared to women...so if you really wanted to be statistically correct on your blog you would have to post at least 500 negative stories about men committing crimes of a sexual nature before posting ONE about women...
Just thought I'd let you in on that little factoid...
AND you have my permission to divulge that information when you return back across enemy lines...
Feel free to share it with your fellow travelers.
Posted by: NYMOM at Feb 12, 2005 3:55:24 PM
"Actually, NYMOM, I will be in court on Monday. For those who are willing, I'd appreciate any good thoughts, prayers you could send my way."
Is this you Silverside...I hope so...I will be sending good thoughts your way for you as well as your daughter...
Let me know how it goes...
Peace...
Posted by: NYMOM at Feb 12, 2005 3:59:53 PM
"I guess your Stalinist handlers put you up to that..."
Um, I guess I'm the one who doesn't get it. What in the world does that mean???
"...cherry picking is exactly what all bloggers do, to one extent or another."
Is this really any question about this? Of course Michael cherry-picks, and so does NYMOM, and so does Trish, and so does anybody whose blog has a certain position. What's the big deal?
Posted by: Anne at Feb 12, 2005 4:00:20 PM
"NYMOM, instead of denying it's a problem, shouldn't you make sure that if there is a problem, it's corrected? Don't you see how that carries over into other areas that we discuss?"
Who's denying there is a problem? I accept there is a problem and it's being caused by the usual suspects: MEN...
You all are the ones causing it.
These constants attempts to get custody are causing women to turn inward with their children and NOT wish to share them. Previously no society ever had this problem before, women loved the break and frequently sent older children off to spend long blocks of time with other relatives, while they focused on younger ones...
This is very common...
Heck there was 8 of us in my family and I thought there was only 7 for a long time, as my brother spent so much time with my grandmother.
All this has changed today because of men trying to get custody and this is caused by society demanding high child support from non-custodial parents now; as well as men trying to regain the CONTROL they lost when women gained all the legal rights of men...
Even the grandparents rights issue is an outgrowth of mens' controlling behavior as many of the more noteworthy cases (such as Troxel) are paternal grandparents trying to impose their will upon single mothers...
In other words you are getting your parents to try to act as surrogate controllers for you when you can't do it yourselves because you are either in prison or such a mess that even a Father Rights Judge wouldn't see fit to grant you visitation or custody...so you just put up your own parents as your surrogate, acting like you're just concerned about children, like that Christopher Rhodes in upstate New York...
So I never said there were no problems...there are MANY problems from issues of money, to issues of control and other power issues as well...
I mean the goal of most of you appears to be financial; but also the secondary one is your neverending attempts to totally destroy the womens' movement...everything good women have accomplished over the last 40 years or so you and these MRAs are attempting to destroy or rollback or discredit in someway...even though we are the ONLY women in the world to have achieved all these things and you should be happy and pleased for us, instead you all sit around day after day trying to figure out way to undermine us, to rollback some right we're achieved, to ridicule something we want done...
It's all linked...
So yes we have problems I admit it and they are all caused by you and other MEN...
Sorry to have to be the one to tell you.
Posted by: NYMOM at Feb 12, 2005 4:24:20 PM
"Is this really any question about this? Of course Michael cherry-picks, and so does NYMOM, and so does Trish, and so does anybody whose blog has a certain position. What's the big deal?"
The big deal is that he does it more than other blogs...one negative story after another...
For instance, when men outnumber women in crimes of a sexual nature by 500 to 1 and he keeps posting stories on his blog about women committing these crimes constantly, even going overseas for stories when he runs out of them here, it's a little different from what most blogs do, isn't it...
Most blogs pick ONE or TWO stories and discuss them from a point of view...he just picks dozens of stories all negative about women and posts them one after another...it's almost like propaganda trying to act like he showing a real live news stream or even a TREND, when, in fact, he's not showing anything but his own bias...
So there is a difference...
Posted by: NYMOM at Feb 12, 2005 4:32:11 PM
"Um, I guess I'm the one who doesn't get it. What in the world does that mean???"
Ummmm...
It means that MRAs are expected to promote MRAs views on other blogs, radio shows or in articles, OTHERWISE get the boot or get harrassed or get mocked by them...
I use the Stalinist handler analogue because Stalin often had American sympathizers, who he would allow to tour the Soviet Union (with a handler of course) in order to get them to come back and support his lies about how well everything was going there...like many of them went over during the famine in the Ukraine and then came back here and acted like everything was fine...
We found out later that millions of people died during that famine which was instigated by Stalin in order to force the collectivization of private farms.
In other words MRAs run their sites and groups like top-down dictatorships where if you disagree with the party line you get banished. Other sites and groups are NOT like that, as you can disagree here or in other places and still not get mocked or harrassed or even banned...
Posted by: NYMOM at Feb 12, 2005 4:59:15 PM
"In other words MRAs run their sites and groups like top-down dictatorships where if you disagree with the party line you get banished. Other sites and groups are NOT like that, as you can disagree here or in other places and still not get mocked or harrassed or even banned..."
When did Gonzo or I EVER banish you? When? Who ever DID banish ANY of you? Where are these sites so I can chew them a new ass...And don't tell me you don't get mocked or harrassed here. I and every guy who comes here have been bumrushed and written off as (insultingly enough) "wingnuts" on MANY occassions.
OK NYMOM, you want the embarrasment of having my last post explained publicly to you? Fine, here it is...
When you made a comment about my site (as you have in the past) about how you think I cherry-pick, I pointed out to you that you have a problem with yours. And when you can correct it, you can then tell me something about how to run mine.
The stories that you run are cut-n-pasted, in part or in whole, with no clear reference or credit to the author, nor when or where the work was originally from. And it DOES make a difference.
Unless I've been misinformed, this is not only in 'bad form' for a blogger to continue to do, it also smacks of copywrite infringement. You simply can't keep doing this. And I'm surprised that you still don't know this, or you still don't take this seriously yet.
It also makes it hard for blogging on the whole. And I'm sure I speak for every blogger out there when I say THAT is a no-no. I went through the same thing when I started my blog until someone explained to me about hyper-linking, or "linking" a story. I felt that this was a really nice gesture from someone who I don't always agree with, sure as HELL didn't expect helpful advise from but as of now respect very much.
In truth, proper linking is in fact, about respect. Respect for the author or academic, respect for bloggers who have points on issues that are backed up BY proper research and linking, respect to the reader who may not easily be able to tell where the opinion stops and the supporting link begins.
It's one thing when you unknowinglingly make a mistake about how to do this kind of stuff...it's another thing completely when you've been respectfully informed of this fact, and yet you refuse to correct it. If the rest of us have to follow rules here, why do you think those rules don't apply to you?
And when you can't, or won't, except what EVERYONE knows to be a fact in an area as simple as proper posting and credit recognition, why should ANYONE think you'll except facts presented to you on any number of other much more important issues. If you can't take alittle time to understand the simple stuff...the complex stuff is lost on you.
So when you take this attitude (clearly and unabashedly) you do yourself, your readers and your point no favors.
And NYMOM, don't lie about where my stories come from. No matter where they DO come from is irrevelant anyway as women are women, the world over. But me, you, Trish and many others know I have posted so many stories of women here in the USA and Canada, that it's not even funny. Today I could have posted at least 4 more stories in the USA alone but decided to take the day off.
Posted by: Masculiste at Feb 12, 2005 7:26:51 PM
"By the way, I just heard that men commit more crimes of a sexual nature by a factor of about 500 to 1 compared to women...so if you really wanted to be statistically correct on your blog you would have to post at least 500 negative stories about men committing crimes of a sexual nature before posting ONE about women..."
If I had a dollar for everything you've HEARD...Stop 'hearing' it and start 'showing' it.
Posted by: Masculiste at Feb 12, 2005 9:30:14 PM
"When did Gonzo or I EVER banish you? When? Who ever DID banish ANY of you? Where are these sites so I can chew them a new ass...And don't tell me you don't get mocked or harrassed here. I and every guy who comes here have been bumrushed and written off as (insultingly enough) "wingnuts" on MANY occassions."
Sending any email to every other poster telling them to ignore me because I'm a troll or a nut IS an attempt to silence me while still pretending to NOT do so...
So your supposed open forum for discussion is all form with no substance behind it, like much of the rhetoric of MRAs...
Furthermore, I'm sorry that I don't hyperlink to your satisfaction...
I'll fix it...
But one correction, it doesn't show disrespect but a lack of technical knowledge as I've only had the blog since October and JUST didn't know.
So let's not paint this as a bigger offense then it really is for Christ's sake...the way you've been carrying on about it, you'd would think I had forged the Hitler diaries or something...
You mentioned to me to NOT post an entire article on my site which I haven't done since you told me that...you never mentioned a hyperlink...
I'll do a hyperlink alright...
Posted by: NYMOM at Feb 12, 2005 11:04:54 PM
I just want to stress this one point.
My posts ARE more complicaed then yours are, that you must admit, which is why I only update them once a week. I have to pull together different sources to make one point and then make that point with my own writing...
You just post one paragraph of a story that's already out there (then make a hyperlink). Then you write a few lines about that, at most a paragraph.
I on the other hand have many more complications. For instance, tonight do you realize my post took FIVE HOURS...it was four pages on my computer...four...I had to seek one book and finally an internet reference from Fordham University on Augustus Caesar. Because if you are going to use Augustus Caesar you have to reference that...then I had to go to mensnewsdaily for pieces from two articles and then write another page to link all this stuff up with a logical conclusion...from Augustus to Maggie Gallagher on marriage...and if you think that's easy or quick you're sadly mistaken.
So excuse me if I messed up the hyperlinks in the middle of all that...
Don't act like I just take other people's material and what I write is NOT my own...I do borrow stuff, but I bold it or put it in " " to bring out that's its someone else's work...I didn't do the hyperlink as I just didn't know...
Posted by: NYMOM at Feb 12, 2005 11:21:14 PM
"By the way, I just heard that men commit more crimes of a sexual nature by a factor of about 500 to 1 compared to women...so if you really wanted to be statistically correct on your blog you would have to post at least 500 negative stories about men committing crimes of a sexual nature before posting ONE about women..."
If I had a dollar for everything you've HEARD...Stop 'hearing' it and start 'showing' it."
First of all I heard it on the Fox News Network as I was working on my blog...an attorney discussing one of those five women teachers who had sex with teenage boys happened to mention that this was no epidemic; as men have been doing this for years and there are 500 men for every 1 women who has sex with a teenage student...
I didn't realize I was going to have to reference every freakin thing I ever heard or somebody commented on now since many MRAs constantly seem obsessed with statistics...Life is not made up of statistics...many statistics aren't even what they appear to be, so frequently we must rely on common sense and not numbers to tell us how to live.
AND common sense should tell you that women having sex with teenage boys is NOT all that common...and even if it were, it could at most be attributed to foolish behavior that people ignored in the past and probably would continue doing so in the present if our male-dominated media weren't so determined to paint women in a bad light in order to be politically correct...and make MEN look better then they really are...
As I have no doubt, that these stories probably were used to obscure a number of horrible crimes that men recently committed...
Posted by: NYMOM at Feb 12, 2005 11:32:31 PM
"Sending any email to every other poster telling them to ignore me because I'm a troll or a nut IS an attempt to silence me while still pretending to NOT do so..."
*That's a BALD FACED LIE...and very twisted of you to even attempt.
"it doesn't show disrespect but a lack of technical knowledge as I've only had the blog since October and JUST didn't know"
*I told you about linking before...and it does show disrespect that you didn't do something about then. If you can't figure out linking simply write down who the author is and where you copied the material from.
"I didn't realize I was going to have to reference every freakin thing I ever heard or somebody commented on now since many MRAs constantly seem obsessed with statistics...Life is not made up of statistics...many statistics aren't even what they appear to be, so frequently we must rely on common sense and not numbers to tell us how to live."
*Are you kidding? You can't purport something to be a fact based on what you heard or what some bozo commented. If it's on Fox News, google the damn thing or something. Do you realize you're the only one who does that?
"AND common sense should tell you that women having sex with teenage boys is NOT all that common...and even if it were, it could at most be attributed to foolish behavior that people ignored in the past and probably would continue doing so in the present if our male-dominated media weren't so determined to paint women in a bad light in order to be politically correct..."
*You're calling a woman having sex with a teenage (under 18) boy bad judgement? It's statutory rape when men do it...and it's statutory rape when women do it. No ones EVER ignored it when men did it, and no one will EVER ignore when women do it. You don't have sex with a 13 year-old boy or strip for a 4 year old child you are supposed to be teaching in school or babysitting. That is just plain sick. What's wrong with you?
Posted by: Masculiste at Feb 13, 2005 7:14:28 AM
I'm not going to get in the middle of this hyperlink fight. I don't read the blogs in question, and I don't even know who Gonzo is. I will say that I'm aware of bloggers who have been banned from blogs for expressing opinions the blogger who owns the site doesn't like. I don't condone that. I will also say that hyperlinking is common courtesy and it gives readers a reference, like Masculiste said. Some bloggers post a link and quote excerpts from a story when they are making a point. There are lots of ways to do it. I don't think there is anything right or wrong with not hyperlinking, but it does make things easier so that one has access to the story being talked about. I don't always hyperlink, especially when the story or information I have is not available online. I figure since NYMOM is new to blogging she just didn't know about it, as she said. Now, she does.
As far as cherrypicking goes, most people blog from a particular reference point. They link to what interests them. Whether or not that could be qualified as "cherrypicking" is up for debate. I blog about what I find interesting, no matter what the topic.
Can you two stop the hyperlink argument, please? It's not going anywhere.
Now, back to "Phone." This movie isn't as good as the other Asian horror films I've seen but it's still entertaining.
Posted by: Trish Wilson at Feb 13, 2005 9:15:29 AM
"Phone?" What movie is that? OK...what were we talking about again? Oh, and you MUST know...Peter Jackson's doing "King Kong" right now. It should be out by next Christmas. I'm on pins and needles...
Posted by: Masculiste at Feb 13, 2005 5:34:52 PM
I know about King Kong. Jackson's going to do a great version of it. I just know it. I'm looking forward to that.
I found "Phone" at Blockbuster. At first I thought it was Japanese but I didn't check the cast names. Looks Korean, maybe. It was okay. I need to watch it again so that it makes more sense. I think a lot of cultural references were lost on me.
Posted by: Trish Wilson at Feb 13, 2005 5:54:19 PM
