Spinoff from "Smart Women" thread: Men & the courts/abusive women/false DV claims/etc.


Reply
 
Topic Tools Search this Thread
Rainmaker54 is offline Rainmaker54 Post #241  March 20,2010, 10:06am
Rainmaker54's Avatar

Quick Study

Joined: Feb 2010

Posts: 57

See profile

------------------- Continued from above

“While Thoennes and Tjaden have shown that false allegations of sexual abuse are no more common in divorce than in non-divorce situations, they do exist. While cases of revenge are very rare, they do occur.”
a) “shown”? The studies by Thoennes and Tjaden were not conducted to scientific standards. Therefore, nothing definitive can be “shown” or postulated from these studies.
b) Unknown to McDonald, apparently, acrimony and revenge are integral components in most high-conflict contested custody cases. Mud slinging is rampant, especially on the part of women.

“Sexually abused children do not always act as we think they should. ....the father had been regularly raping the teen-age daughters.....daughters would laugh and joke with their offender at the dinner table as if nothing were wrong. Eventually, the man was convicted of child rape and served several years in prison. It is important to understand that this is not unusual behavior in a sexually abused child......While there are some children who come to hate and avoid their abusive parents, many do not. A child’s affection and seeming lack of fear of a parent does not prove that there has been no abuse of the child.”
a) When it comes to allegations of child sex abuse, virtually all behavior on the part of the child is viewed by advocates as being either indicative of abuse, or consistent with abuse.
b) Presently, it is the system’s intent to consider ALL children as potential abuse victims, and ALL parents as potential abusers. Coupled with the broadening of reporting obligations, this has spelled disaster for many innocent families, including the children the system was supposedly protecting.
c) Again, who are the beneficiaries of the witch hunt? Social workers, psychologists, CPS agents, forensic evaluators, foster parents, police officers, probation officers, correctional officers, stenographers, court clerks, judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys, guardian ad litems, and all support staff. False allegations of sex abuse and domestic violence is a multi-billion dollar industry.

“Why Don’t Kids Tell? Why Do Kids Recant? The Mother Who Reports Abuse.”
a) These sections of McDonald’s article amount to nothing more than pure conjecture.
b) There are many instances of McDonald throwing up smoke screens of endless possibilities, and then implying that since everything is possible, one should consider everything plausible as it relates to child sex abuse cases.

“We seem very uncomfortable with the idea that a woman can be angry, malicious and mentally ill, but that her allegations of sexual abuse still may be genuine. Yet, this is probably quite often the case.”
a) So not only should perfectly sane and well meaning mothers be believed, but insane, malicious, and angry mothers should be believed at face value, because McDonald has apparently done some research indicating that angry, malicious, and mentally ill women are “probably quite often” recounting stories of genuine abuse. Personally, I would be interested in seeing such a study.
b) Again, this goes back to the notion of making the fishing net as large as possible, so the maximum number of people, even people who are accused by those who are insane, can be filtered through, and subjected to, the system.

“There are those who make much of the fact that women report sexual abuse more frequently against their husbands than men report sexual abuse against their wives.”
a) That is not what all the fuss is about. The issue centers on the fact that woman make significantly more false allegations of child sex abuse, than men do, as was shown earlier in this same article, and that women are believed more often than men (by biased CPS workers).
b) I suspect that McDonald may be unaware that this article provides the numerical data to draw the conclusion that women are more than twice as likely to make false allegations of child sex abuse than men.

“Since 95 percent of sexual abuse against girls and 80 percent of abuse against boys is perpetrated by men....”
a) Figures based upon what? Nothing.
b) Due to the nature of the allegations, the fact that so many cases (the majority) have no physical evidence of abuse, and the fact that so few cases are litigated by competent attorneys due to lack of funds on the part of the accused, it is impossible to know for sure how many such cases are real and what the ratio is. So this statement by McDonald is irresponsible and reckless.

“If mother’s love is unconditional (and it often is), then it is safer to blame her and be angry at her than at the offender.”
a) So what’s the implication of this statement? A mother’s love is unconditional and a father’s love is conditional? And because a mother’s love is unconditional and can be counted on through thick and thin, the children are then free to be angry at her rather than at the offender (father) whose love is conditional? I would like to see the scientific study supporting this theory.
b) Furthermore, in essence, here McDonald is setting up for the contingency, that even if the children are displaying anger toward mom, it couldn’t be because they are angry at mom for filing false charges against dad and are upset that dad is now in jail, but rather that the real reason they are not showing anger toward the alleged offender is because of an issue involving conditional vs. unconditional love, because after all, according to McDonald, women very rarely lie about sex abuse. Slick!
_______________________________________

From “Domestic Violence Statistics” submitted by LBMM in post #205:
a) Not one of the statistics provided was derived from a scientific study that clearly defined the violence or abuse on a case-by-case basis, along with evidence supporting a claim of violence on a case-by-case basis.
b) No consideration was given to the fact that men are much less likely to report violent incidents within the home.
c) Much of the statistical data was derived from reports and reporting and not from trial work wherein someone was actually convicted of violence.
d) Anyone can work out the math. This submission amounts to nothing more than statistics for statistics sake to somehow “prove” that men are more violent than women.
_____________________________________
From “Child Abuse Statistics” submitted by LBMM in post #204:
a) Repeatedly claiming an increase in the number of reports of abuse, without mentioning the fact that court-mandated reporting has become more and more widespread encompassing a greater number of employment classifications, thus naturally causing an increase in reporting.
b) Much of the statistical data was derived from reports and reporting, and not from trial work wherein someone was actually convicted of violence.
c) The methodology for reporting was not verified on a caseworker-by-caseworker basis.
_______________________________________

From “Men’s Rights Groups Have Become Frighteningly Effective” submitted by LBMM in post #205:
a) Writer, Katherine Joyce, is blasting men’s rights groups for the very same activities women’s rights groups have used for years to get their point across. Joyce is belittling their efforts to attain equality, and other activities, with little in the way of hard facts. Instead, Joyce focuses on a few wackos to make her dubious points. It is painfully clear that Joyce is an outsider looking into a complex dynamic and drawing unsupported conclusions based upon only the most superficial reports.
b) Joyce bashes men’s rights groups for using “bad science” to prove their points, while nearly every study supporting the feminist point of view lacks merit due to “bad science”, or no science at all.
c) As is typical for feminists, Joyce twists the men’s rights rhetoric to imply that men’s rights advocates are pro-domestic violence and that their viewpoints are going to lead to an increase in lethal domestic violence, also known as fearmongering, a tactic used effectively by feminists to secure more funding for programs geared to advance their own initiatives.
______________________________________

So, while I am being bashed for having statistics not conforming to scientific standards (by Scarlet, Faira, LBMM, chawks, and NearDC), upon closer examination, not one study presented to this thread to counter my figures thus far conforms to scientific standards, and not one thread viewer has yet commented on that fact, not Scarlet, not Faira, not LBMM, not chawks, and not NearDC. Why aren’t the posters who were so quick to label my statistics “invalid”, not also labeling the statistics derived from these non-scientific studies “invalid”, as well?

Furthermore, when I originally posted my statistics, I made it very clear that my figures were derived from the complete case files of cases wherein the parties were able to “fight the fight”, meaning full trial cases. Settling and mediating do not constitute “fighting the fight”. Thus far, I have not seen one study submitted to this thread by another poster that presents statistics derived from a review of complete case files from trial cases (including all court transcripts and all evidence). And I suspect that if such a scientific analysis were conducted on trial cases that the statistics derived from such a study would closely correlate to what I am seeing week after week in five judicial districts.
Last edited by Rainmaker54; March 21,2010 at 7:07pm.
 
  Reply With Quote
Rainmaker54 is offline Rainmaker54 Post #242  March 20,2010, 10:08am
Rainmaker54's Avatar

Quick Study

Joined: Feb 2010

Posts: 57

See profile

chawks64 wrote :
What I believe most of the posters are trying to say is that your view is through a porthole, and all you can see is the ocean. Meanwhile, you’re surrounded on three sides by land that is out of your view. But all you see is endless water.
Thus far, on this thread, I have been accused of creating straw men, of being a hammer looking for nails, and as someone peering out at the world through a porthole. Despite what has been posted about me viewing the situation from a porthole, my experiences as an attorney have provided me a very broad understanding of the extremes of women’s behavior and men’s behavior. I have seen the best of women and men, the worst of women and men, and everything in between.

chawks64 wrote :
Because of your work, you see the end of bad marriages. You don’t see the good ones or the marginal ones or the civil divorces or anything but the very worst.
Before I established my own firm, I had worked in a large law firm handling a wide range of matrimonial work. During that time I handled over 300 mediation cases, in addition to high-conflict cases. I am fully aware that there is a whole industry out there catering to amicable divorces and mediation.

As an active member in my community, I do see a wide range of good marriages and marginal marriages. None of these marriages or mediated divorces is testing the system. The system is only tested when there are irreconcilable differences or criminal allegations. That’s when the fairness of the system is tested. And from my perspective, the system we have in place right now is a failure. An analogy would be a race car. At low speeds you may not discern any faults, but as the speeds approaches maximum engineered speed, the breaking point, you will see the flaws and faults. Courts operate in the same fashion. Most divorce attorneys will not test the system in their entire career as much as my firm’s cases test the system in a given month.

chawks64 wrote :
From statements made, I would imagine you specialize in husbands’/fathers’ rights, though I could be wrong. It just feels to me like your firm has that reputation.
I am not a father’s rights attorney; I am an equal rights attorney. If I had been practicing law 40 years ago, most of my focus would have been cases involving men’s abuse of women. If I had been practicing law 70 years ago, most of my focus would have been cases involving white’s abuse of blacks. Since I am practicing law right now, the cases I see that need “equalization” involve women manipulating the system that was actually created to help abused women be saved from tyrannical barbarians. These opportunistic women are cunning, devious, tenacious, have no remorse, are sometimes diagnosed as being psychopaths, are oftentimes diagnosed as being narcissists, and some are just evil to the core.

My firm is not just a matrimonial firm. We are the firm of last resort. Some of my clients must handle their divorce proceedings from a jail cell. We have our own forensics unit complete with a state-of-the-art crime lab, private investigators, psychologists to assist men being falsely accused, a Federal Court division (that pursues malicious prosecution, unethical CPS agents, violations of Civil Rights, etc), a Criminal Court division that specializes in the defense against allegations of domestic violence and sex abuse, a Tort unit (that pursues financial damages), and a Family Court division (that pursues custody). Every one of our cases is a full trial case, and often involves at least three courts - Criminal Court, Family Court, and Federal Court. We do not handle mediated cases or low-conflict cases.

My firm is comprised of 34 professionals, and 21 of them are highly talented women. The head of my crime lab is a woman. My lead private investigator is a woman. My criminal law lead is a woman. The lead in my tort unit is a woman. My family court lead is a woman. My federal law lead is a man. I supervise and direct all cases and investigations.

In addition, we also offer pro bono services to those men who cannot afford our services. These programs are funded through outside donations and the proceeds from paying cases. Most of the money donated to our firm for this purpose comes from women, women who were abused, or women who have a son or daughter who was abused, or women who have a son who was falsely accused and we gave him his life back. Why? Because women who really know what abuse is first hand, and who have genuinely suffered abuse, do not want unabused sociopaths and psychopaths to take their voice away, by “crying wolf” strictly as a means to leverage their position in divorce court. As you yourself pointed out, such women are the “bane” of other women’s existence.

So does Rainmaker view the world through a porthole? You be the judge.
Last edited by Rainmaker54; March 20,2010 at 10:28am.
 
  Reply With Quote
Rainmaker54 is offline Rainmaker54 Post #243  March 20,2010, 10:10am
Rainmaker54's Avatar

Quick Study

Joined: Feb 2010

Posts: 57

See profile

scarlet13 wrote :
why? white men have made the rules and continue to do so- they have nothing to complain about.
While I do agree that this country’s white forefathers, the founders of this nation, were discriminatory, immoral, illogical, short-sighted, self-serving, hypocritical, and complete jackasses in many respects, much has changed in the last 50 years:
a) Women and blacks have had the right to vote for many decades now.
b) 17 of the 100 U.S. Senators are women, and 75 of the 435 U.S. Representatives are women.
c) 1 of the 100 U.S. Senators is black, and 42 of the 435 U.S. Represenatives are black.
d) Many, if not most, of the program directors in Child Protective Services are women, and many social workers are black.
e) Many police officers are women and/or black.
f) Many of the prosecutors in the DA’s Offices are women, especially in the DV bureaus.
g) There are throngs of women attorneys, especially in Domestic Relations law.
h) Many of the Judges in State, County, and City Courts are women and/or black.
i) Two of the nine Justices on the US Supreme Court are women, and one of the nine Justices is a black man.
j) Women also hold the following high governmental positions: Speaker of the House, Secretary of State, Secretary of Labor, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Secretary of Homeland Security, Administrator of Environmental Protection Agency, US Ambassador to the United Nations, and Chair of Council of Economic Advisers.
k) The head of the Department of Justice and chief law enforcement officer of the Federal Government is a black man, Attorney General Eric Holder.
l) The President of the United States is black.
m) Twenty-five Fortune 1000 companies are headed by women. (Although it will take a number of years before the number of women in top spots approaches the number of men in top spots, the women who are in control of vast multi-national corporations are influencial, and their influence should not be marginalized.)

To suggest that only white men are currently involved with the running of this country is not only preposterous, but an insult to the many women and blacks who have overcome obstacles to acheive great success. And just because there were, and are, problems stemming from historical injustices caused by white men living hundreds of years ago, does not mean that the white men living today (along with everybody else) should not be trying to move this nation closer to true equality across the board.
 
  Reply With Quote
Rainmaker54 is offline Rainmaker54 Post #244  March 20,2010, 10:12am
Rainmaker54's Avatar

Quick Study

Joined: Feb 2010

Posts: 57

See profile

chawks64 wrote :
People are people, and life can be unfair to anyone, regardless of gender... I’m kind of done with the topic of life being unfair to men in general.
Again, I don’t know where you are getting the impression that this thread is about life in general not being fair. Everybody here would be in agreement that life is not fair, so what’s the point? .........that we should leave the injustices in place, and just accept the fact that life isn’t fair? If so, then why did women bother with the Equal Rights Movement in the first place?

chawks64 wrote :
...it takes 4 years for equally competent women to be promoted in my company, compared to 2 years for men,...
Are you telling us that you have access to the confidential performance review and personnel file of each person in your company and that you have been able to ascertain, and are able to demonstrate in a court of law, that your company practices gender-based discrimination? If so, then a) why are you staying, and b) why aren’t you suing your company in federal court and retiring on the vast proceeds?

chawks64 wrote :
I’d be more sympathetic if men weren’t complaining about being treated the same way women have been for years. After all, who created this system or the need for change in the first place?
Historically speaking, how far back do you want to look at the “system”? Just because men have formally screwed things up many years ago, does not mean for a minute that ever since women could vote that they did not also have a role in causing today's problems.


chawks64 wrote :
I’m tired of hearing how bad men have it when a small minority of women treat them badly.
A “small minority”? If one applies the same exact standards and criteria women’s advocates tout as being abusive behavior toward women and apply to men to women, you would find plenty of men are “abused” by women. How many women in this country have ever yelled or screamed at their spouse, or put them down with insults? According to women’s advocates such acts constitute “abuse”! I am fairly certain that millions and millions of men would vouch for being yelled at and insulted by women. They are not all running to the courts seeking an Order of Protection, but perhaps they should. In fact, if every man in this country reacted to women’s “abuse” of them in the same broad and subjective fashion women react, the courts would be completely in gridlock and you would see women’s prisons popping up around the country.


chawks64 wrote :
Honestly - then don’t marry them. Solves the problem right there.
So let me get this straight. If men are to be blamed for involving themselves with abusive women, then it stands to reason that women should likewise be blamed for involving themselves with abusive men. On that basis, then, there is no need for the VAWA, women’s shelters, legal aid for women, dv task forces, rape crisis centers, etc. since the solution is simple and straightfoward - don’t get involved with abusive people! I agree wholeheartly, chawks. If men and women would stay away from each other, most of these gender issues would go away. Unfortunately, lots of men and women have a difficult time restraining themselves and do get involved with the opposite sex. And oftentimes, it is not known until much later into the relationship that their partner is abusive or psycho or has substance abuse problems, etc. And this inability to “separate the wheat from the chaff” IN ADVANCE, is the crux of the problem. And this is why we need a fair and impartial court system to address the never ending stream of domestic relations cases.
Last edited by Rainmaker54; March 20,2010 at 2:18pm.
 
  Reply With Quote
chawks64 is offline chawks64 Post #245  March 20,2010, 2:26pm
chawks64's Avatar

is keeping warm with her Honey.

Power Poster

Joined: Jun 2008

Southern Nevada

Posts: 6,735

See profile

I'd respond to your posts, but I honestly don't have the time to read through multiple pages like that. You see, I have a wonderful man waiting to see me tonight. He appreciates the fact that, despite how my life has been in the past, I'm optimistic and not at all jaded. I see him as an individual and not at all responsible for the sins of the men in my past.

Don't take it as a personal slight. It's not. I just know what I have seen and what I have experienced and it doesn't even bear a passing resemblance to what you are presenting. And there's no point in trying to convince each other because it's never going to happen.

As far as the sexism at my job, yes, I have personally witnessed many instances where marginal male employees who had been disciplined multiple times were promoted over perfectly competent women who had no marks on their record at all. I've also heard with my own ears comments from men in jobs above me about how they don't want to work with women. It's the accepted culture in my company, in this town and in this industry.

Why don't I sue or report it? Let's see - I have a job when unemployment in my metropolitan area is 14%. I have no other household income to fall back on when they find a reason to fire me (I live in a right to work state, so they don't really need a reason if I can't prove it was discrimination). It might take 4 years to get promoted, but I wouldn't even stand a snowball's chance of that if I ever said something. No one would be willing to lose their job, especially in this economy, just to testify in a courtroom on my behalf, though most admit they know it happens. Odds are incredibly high that I would lose the lawsuit and incredibly low that I would be able to find employment after that.

You do the math.
 
  Reply With Quote
Rainmaker54 is offline Rainmaker54 Post #246  March 21,2010, 6:31pm
Rainmaker54's Avatar

Quick Study

Joined: Feb 2010

Posts: 57

See profile

chawks64 wrote :
And there's no point in trying to convince each other because it's never going to happen.
I really wish I knew to what you were referring. Could you please spell out what you think I am trying to convince you of?

chawks64 wrote :
I have a job when unemployment in my metropolitan area is 14%.
Yes, you have a job in a region with a 14% unemployment rate. But where is that "job" headed? If you are working for such an unprofessional and poorly run company, that the heads of the company would rather promote incompetent men over talented women, how secure is the company itself? Anyone trying to stay afloat in this economy needs to be selecting and keeping the best person for the position.

chawks64 wrote :
I have no other household income to fall back on when they find a reason to fire me (I live in a right to work state, so they don't really need a reason if I can't prove it was discrimination).
Why wouldn't you be able to prove it?

chawks64 wrote :
It might take 4 years to get promoted, but I wouldn't even stand a snowball's chance of that if I ever said something.
You want to stay at a discriminatory company for four years with the hope and prayer of a promotion? Just because the unemployment rate is high, that is not a reason for you to stay at a company run by jackasses. Find a company that will recognize your talents and ambitions, and you will find a company that will ride out this depression, and you yourself will be a lot happier at work.
 
  Reply With Quote
newbie40something is offline newbie40something Post #247  March 21,2010, 7:12pm
newbie40somet…'s Avatar

A time came when it was more painful to remain tight in a bud than the risk to break open & blossom

Veteran

Joined: Oct 2009

St. Louis

Posts: 1,740

See profile

Rainmaker......exactly what point are you trying to make?

Yes.......there are many women out there that are making a mess out of the very sensitive subject of abuse. They should be subjected to and responsible for that abuse of their own!

There are also abuses that are real. You don't deal with these cases, because you are very honorably dealing with cases that need your attention.

So.......I again ask that you put your resources in play and confront the very real issues that you deal with in a day to day basis.

But......don't obsess over the fact that you think there are sooooooo many women that are the profile that you are dealing with. There may be a lot, but there are also a lot that are suffering!!!!! Many men are suffering too, but that doesn't mean that you have to go on a spree of deflating women. Once again, you have your own statistics..

We are all good women on this board, and some of us may have our own stories, but may not care to share them......

Just remember, that regardless of the topic, none of us are perfect. I appreciate your passion, but be respectful of other's passions.
 
  Reply With Quote
chawks64 is offline chawks64 Post #248  March 23,2010, 6:22pm
chawks64's Avatar

is keeping warm with her Honey.

Power Poster

Joined: Jun 2008

Southern Nevada

Posts: 6,735

See profile

Rainmaker54 wrote :
I really wish I knew to what you were referring. Could you please spell out what you think I am trying to convince you of?
After almost 250 posts, if we still don't see eye-to-eye, I'm guessing it's just not going to happen. Your posts seem to be saying women have an unfair advantage and are manipulating the system to get a better shake than men. I'm saying it happens, but it's a whole lot more rare than you seem to be implying. Honestly, do you think we're going to meet somewhere in the midde if we haven't yet?

Rainmaker54 wrote :
Yes, you have a job in a region with a 14% unemployment rate. But where is that "job" headed? If you are working for such an unprofessional and poorly run company, that the heads of the company would rather promote incompetent men over talented women, how secure is the company itself? Anyone trying to stay afloat in this economy needs to be selecting and keeping the best person for the position.
I work for a monopoly. Nuff said.

Rainmaker54 wrote :
Why wouldn't you be able to prove it?
Prove discrimination against probably the largest business in the state when no one but me has anything to gain but a spot in the unemployment line? You can twist the facts to support the company's case, and I see it done quite often.

Rainmaker54 wrote :
You want to stay at a discriminatory company for four years with the hope and prayer of a promotion? Just because the unemployment rate is high, that is not a reason for you to stay at a company run by jackasses. Find a company that will recognize your talents and ambitions, and you will find a company that will ride out this depression, and you yourself will be a lot happier at work.
I would love to do that, but the payscale for jobs where women are traditionally welcomed is nowhere near the payscale for comparable men's jobs. If I return to the type of job where I have documentable skills, I would have to take at least a 40% pay cut. I'd rather be scorned and pay the rent.
 
  Reply With Quote
Reply


« The benefit of drinking coffee for women only | Chit Chat | The best country to be a woman! »
Topic Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new topics
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off

Looking for a Great Relationship?

Get started now. Fill out this form and take the questionnaire to receive your matches.

First Name:

I'm a:
seeking

Postal Code:

Country:

Email:

Confirm Email:

Password:


How did you hear about us?


Latest on our Dating Advice Discussion Boards

“It's important to understand the way a site works. Rigidly assuming / insisting that eH works likes all the others you're used to isn't utilizing the site functions to your best advantage. No.... ... ” –  Wiseman2

Join the “First contact on eHarmony, smile, questions, email?” discussion

“ If you have yet to meet, you don't know him or whether you two will form a connection. Connections formed over e-mail tend to be fantasies. You will see this echoed over and over by experienced ... ” –  shapeShifter79

Join the “How do i recoonect with him again?” discussion

“ Then it's a bit premature to worry about being friend-zoned. The first step is to go out on dates! What specific steps did you try? How many women did you ask out in person? Did you buy a ... ” –  shapeShifter79

Join the “For women to answer: How to avoid the friend zone” discussion

“ This is an old thread. She asked this in 2010. By now they are likely very exclusive or very over. ” –  shapeShifter79

Join the “is there a reason to ask if we're exclusive?” discussion

“ I'm sure he wouldn't get that. And I can't be sure that was the actual message. But it sems kind of likely to me.” –  boomer_gal

Join the “Why am I not successful?” discussion

“Hi eccemuliere and welcome to eHA.On an internet forum like eHA, you're going to get a wide variety of responses; some you'll like and some you won't. It's best to focus on the ones that speak to ... ” –  Sassafras54

Join the “Being blown off, or something else?” discussion

“ Although I have ignored my gut at times, in hindsight it's always been right, in terms of recognizing bad choices. QUOTE] But once we realize our past mistakes, we can use our reason to clue us ... ” –  eccemuliere

Join the “Is Your Gut Leading - or Misleading You?” discussion



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 7:20am.

Discussion Boards Archive

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2012, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0