A Parenting & kids forum. ParentingBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » ParentingBanter.com forum » alt.support » Child Support
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

I think we've met our Tokyo Rose (or in this case, Herb)



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old May 26th 07, 12:20 PM posted to alt.child-support
John Meyer[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 92
Default I think we've met our Tokyo Rose (or in this case, Herb)

http://www.everyman.org/Ten_Reasons_...dy_Battles.pdf


You know, fighting with grace is a good thing, especially in
separations. I don't think any of us would say that you should resort
to a bitter, name-calling feud with your ex, especially in front of your
children. Even when she is doing the name-calling and the harassment, I
would never advise anybody to stooping to her level.
And I think we can also agree that in several custody battles, the only
real winners are the people with "Esq." behind their names. You have
lawyers (not all, mind) who circle like vultures sensing a fresh carcass.
But being high minded and being noble is a far cry from simply giving
up, which I think is precisely what this article is suggesting. Never
have I read a more craven piece of typing in my life (I am not
dignifying that garbage by calling it writing). In essence the message
is this: "you'll never win so why even try. Just keep up those child
support payments and maybe you'll get to take them out bowling."
This article is also an example of the child idolatry that runs rampant
in our society and especially in our family courts. Every whim of the
child should be fostered and fed honey and milk. Old Herb seems to
think that children are so perfect that they will come up with the right
answer every time.
Let's look at this:
"While he could blame his wife for ‘poisoning’ the children’s minds and
promoting the alienation,
it became clear that it had little to do with her. His children just
didn’t like being around him.
While he had been the ‘perfect’ father in terms of his commitment,
caring and devotion, he
couldn’t connect with them. In their minds he was a know-it-all who
lectured them and always
knew the right way to do things. They disliked him and learned to tune
him out." Wow, children don't like lectures from their parents. What a
shocker. That is definitely one reason to stay away, the little cherubs
will come to the right answer on their own sooner or later. Apparently,
to good old Herb the concept that they might be exaggerating things
or that maybe the father DID know the right thing didn't occur.
And I love his rationale: "Particularly once, when the child is more
than three or four years old, the die has been cast. If the bond is
positive and present, little will disrupt it except temporarily. If the
bond is absent or negative, the custody fight will exacerbate it. The
more dad battles mom for custody, the more the children will recoil from
him, as they perceive their mother as being abused. If he ‘ wins’, he
will have won less than nothing as any potential for positive bonding
has been seriously damaged."
In other words: free will and change is a joke. But why stop there? If
everything is set at five, then what's the point of any more learning?
After all, if the child is preset to learn how to read, they will figure
it out on their own. If they aren't, then you're just wasting your
time. Let's just stop everything in our lives and simply repeat the
next five years over and over again.
Change occurs in relationships. Anybody who has been divorced knows
that. The person you thought you'd be with "till death do us part" now
makes you want to kill yourself. When you first made love each and
every night, now you're relegated to hall sex (look down the hall, shout
"f*** you" and slam a door). People change.
In fact, the concept that your relationship is bad or absent with your
child is all the more reason to be there with your child. You might
change it for better or worse, but staying away will definitely harden
it into whatever it might become.
For anybody who doesn't know (and given the quality of education in this
country, that's not a wide guess), Tokyo Rose was a nickname given to
the female, English-speaking broadcasters who tried to lure the Allied
soldiers into giving up and going home with seductive images of comfort
back in the USA, much like Herb seems set to seduce us with happy talk
of calm images and getting away from the evil lawyers. The irony is
that the woman who was best known as Tokyo Rose, Iva Toguri D'Aquino,
actually was a US Agent who smuggled food to many US POWs during the war
and was later railroaded. In the end, she was pardoned; but I doubt the
same can or will be said for Herb.
And if you want a reason why you should fight for custody and
participation in a child's life, I'll give you one: on a list and if
somebody could find the exact quote I'd appreciate it it was noted that
68 percent of teens that commit suicide came from fatherless homes.
Kids will get angry and bitter, but they get over that. How many kids,
on the other hand, can get over being dead?
  #2  
Old May 26th 07, 12:34 PM posted to alt.child-support
John Meyer[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 92
Default I think we've met our Tokyo Rose (or in this case, Herb)

John Meyer wrote:
Apparently,
to good old Herb the concept that they might be exaggerating things
or that maybe the father DID know the right thing didn't occur.



By the way, this sentence was written in error. I forgot: a father
hasn't been right on anything, at any time, in this country since 1950.
My bad.
  #3  
Old May 26th 07, 02:12 PM posted to alt.child-support
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7
Default I think we've met our Tokyo Rose (or in this case, Herb)

On May 26, 6:34?am, John Meyer wrote:
John Meyer wrote:

Apparently,

to good old Herb the concept that they might be exaggerating things
or that maybe the father DID know the right thing didn't occur.


By the way, this sentence was written in error. I forgot: a father
hasn't been right on anything, at any time, in this country since 1950.
My bad.


He brings up some good points (such as a womans vengeful purpose in
life) but the rest is crap. Herb is pseudo-intellectual who obviously
has never had to fight for his children.

  #4  
Old May 26th 07, 03:04 PM posted to alt.child-support
Werebat
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 114
Default I think we've met our Tokyo Rose (or in this case, Herb)

Tell this idiot what you think of his crap:



- Ron ^*^

  #5  
Old May 26th 07, 03:33 PM posted to alt.child-support
Werebat
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 114
Default I think we've met our Tokyo Rose (or in this case, Herb)

Here is my e-mail to the good Doctor:

Dr. Goldberg,

As a father who has joint physical custody of his son, I have to say
that your article was upsetting but true in many ways. Custody battles
are indeed traumatic for children and should be eliminated from our
society as much as possible. The best way to do this, of course, would
be to institute a presumption of joint physical placement so that
children could get their rightful substantial contact with both parents.

This is not currently the case, however, and unfortunately many men do
find themselves in the position of being denied equal access to their
children after divorce. No doubt their struggles to see their children
may ultimately prove destructive, harmful to their children, or a waste
of time better spent elsewhere. However it could also be said that the
struggles of the suffragettes fighting for the right to vote were
similarly harmful to the children of the women involved, unfulfilling,
and not conducive to the ultimate contentment of their participants.
But they needed to be fought.

Some of your 10 reasons are ill-thought out.

#1 is mostly correct, although you must realize that you are tacitly
admitting to the existence of gender bias in the family courts.

#2 may also be true but as such is yet another good reason for a
presumption of joint physical placement. Remove the battle from the
equation and no child sees their mother or father as "winning",
"losing", or attacking each other. Remember that feminists of old were
strong advocates of joint physical placement before courts began
awarding custody to mothers on a regular basis (at which point they grew
mysteriously silent on the issue).

#3 may not result in a reuniting of father and child so much as a child
growing up with a painful and angry childhood marked with behavior
problems and ending in high school dropout or worse. What cold comfort
it would be to the alienated father to learn that his son gave his
mother a really hard time about not being able to see him before
dropping out of school and dying in a gang-related shooting.

#4 is indeed true and Mom is often more than happy to dump her child on
a caring father after she has established that she is in ultimate
control and secured child support tribute from a father who is actually
caring for the child in question the majority of the time.

#5 depends on the child's opinion of their father being static in the
years without contact and under the influence of the mother; have you
any actual proof that this can reasonably be expected?

To #6, I ask, have you never seen a father who really IS good, loving,
and maligned, abused, and misunderstood by his child's mother and the
family court system? Do you seriously posit that such a man does not
exist, has never existed, and cannot exist? If not, what is such a
father to do with your reason #6?

#7 simply points out the gender bias in the family courts. I have no
doubt that you have seen very few if any fathers come to any sort of
satisfaction in dealing with the family courts. Your statement that
even in the rare cases when a father wins custody, he has "lost the
struggle to focus on and nurture his bonding potential" is vacuous. Is
a father who knows his child is being neglected or abused by a custodial
mother somehow "nurturing his bonding potential" with his offspring by
allowing them to suffer under their mother's abuse and neglect?

#8 completely ignores the fact that a child living with one parent for
an extended period of time will be likely to desire to stay where they
are once they reach an age where their voice will be heard, regardless
of who that parent is.

#10 is completely correct, and most effectively remedied by staying as
far from the courts as possible. It would also be remedied by the
adoption of a presumption of joint physical placement, again removing
the fight for custody from the equation to begin with in the best
interests of not only the child, but all parties involved.

- Ron ^*^

  #6  
Old May 26th 07, 09:53 PM posted to alt.child-support
John Meyer[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 92
Default I think we've met our Tokyo Rose (or in this case, Herb)

wrote:
On May 26, 6:34?am, John Meyer wrote:
John Meyer wrote:

Apparently,

to good old Herb the concept that they might be exaggerating things
or that maybe the father DID know the right thing didn't occur.

By the way, this sentence was written in error. I forgot: a father
hasn't been right on anything, at any time, in this country since 1950.
My bad.


He brings up some good points (such as a womans vengeful purpose in
life) but the rest is crap. Herb is pseudo-intellectual who obviously
has never had to fight for his children.



I think we can all agree that there are some custody battles that are
messier than others. And I would and will be the first to say that no
matter how much bad has been going on between you and your ex that you
should not bad mouth her to the kids (even when she does it to you in
front of them).
But what Herb seems to be doing is saying "well, it's going to be a mess
anyway so just give up and if you had a good relationship the kids will
come back around." I would have loved to have taped the conversation I
heard at work today about a woman talking to her friend about the fact
that her ex "wouldn't pick up his own son". Does the phrase "damned if
you do, damned if you don't" ring a bell?
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
We dye them, then we steadily expect Rose and Debbie's thin case. [email protected] General 0 June 27th 06 07:35 AM
Emily Rose is here kazh Pregnancy 27 May 25th 05 01:20 PM
Free Herb Chat Thursday April 1st Lightwoman Pregnancy 0 March 30th 04 03:34 AM
For the herb experts again - EPO, Red Raspberry, Vitex Sophie Pregnancy 12 October 12th 03 01:43 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:17 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 ParentingBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.