Author Topic: ABC News (Read 6420 times)

KarlHindle · « **on:** August 10, 2010, 11:28:04 AM »

I received a call from an ABC News staffer on the case from out of the blue - I forwarded a stack of papers, recordings and collateral to them today and I'm keeping my fingers crossed on this.

Whoever put this in front of them - THANKS!

UD_student · « **Reply #1 on:** August 11, 2010, 10:53:17 AM »

Wow! I'm happy to hear that. I hope they are willing to run a story about it. They definitely could claim to be the first to expose problems in the US as that doesn't tend to get much of any media (not that child abduction without fraud tends to get much press either).

SageDad · « **Reply #2 on:** August 11, 2010, 02:59:05 PM »

I always want to laugh (or cry) when I hear "mother's rights" groups or Japanese commentators say how "easy it is for left behind fathers to drum up media attention and support" in the US -- usually while complaining about how hard it is for mother's in those situations to find any support or how no one ever believes the "legitimate" claims of abuse by "victimized" women, when anyone with their eyes open knows what they are claiming makes as much sense as saying up is down and black is white.

Reversing the gender roles in Karl's story would make it international news overnight but, more importantly, had the gender roles been reversed it would never have happened in the first place. I guess this is the gender equality I've advocated for most of my life.

The US government needs to start treating international child abduction as the human rights issue it is and not as private family disputes. The State Dept. needs to get fully engaged or get out of the way so someone else can.

KarlHindle · « **Reply #3 on:** August 17, 2010, 09:05:16 PM »

:yeahthat

tenorplus · « **Reply #4 on:** August 18, 2010, 10:41:08 AM »

WELL STATED!

Quote from: SageDad on August 11, 2010, 02:59:05 PM

I always want to laugh (or cry) when I hear "mother's rights" groups or Japanese commentators say how "easy it is for left behind fathers to drum up media attention and support" in the US -- usually while complaining about how hard it is for mother's in those situations to find any support or how no one ever believes the "legitimate" claims of abuse by "victimized" women, when anyone with their eyes open knows what they are claiming makes as much sense as saying up is down and black is white.

Reversing the gender roles in Karl's story would make it international news overnight but, more importantly, had the gender roles been reversed it would never have happened in the first place. I guess this is the gender equality I've advocated for most of my life.

The US government needs to start treating international child abduction as the human rights issue it is and not as private family disputes. The State Dept. needs to get fully engaged or get out of the way so someone else can.

:yeahthat

forthelost · « **Reply #5 on:** August 18, 2010, 09:09:05 PM »

Quote from: SageDad on August 11, 2010, 02:59:05 PM

I always want to laugh (or cry) when I hear "mother's rights" groups or Japanese commentators say how "easy it is for left behind fathers to drum up media attention and support" in the US -- usually while complaining about how hard it is for mother's in those situations to find any support or how no one ever believes the "legitimate" claims of abuse by "victimized" women, when anyone with their eyes open knows what they are claiming makes as much sense as saying up is down and black is white.

You have to understand, though, that the "mother's rights" groups have a concealed ulterior motive - mothers should always get full custody of their children. If that doesn't happen, it has to be because the evil abusive father™ was involved, because no good father would take full custody away from a mother. (I remember seeing once on one of those blogs that since the father did not seem to be abusive in one custody battle, he should get some visitations if he lets mom get primary custody. This was seen as being generous.) Uusually this is put in more veiled terms, saying that mothers have a special bond to their children that fathers don't.

It's all about reading between the lines.

SageDad · « **Reply #6 on:** August 18, 2010, 11:51:17 PM »

Quote from: forthelost on August 18, 2010, 09:09:05 PM

You have to understand, though, that the "mother's rights" groups have a concealed ulterior motive - mothers should always get full custody of their children. If that doesn't happen, it has to be because the evil abusive father™ was involved, because no good father would take full custody away from a mother. (I remember seeing once on one of those blogs that since the father did not seem to be abusive in one custody battle, he should get some visitations if he lets mom get primary custody. This was seen as being generous.) Uusually this is put in more veiled terms, saying that mothers have a special bond to their children that fathers don't.

It's all about reading between the lines.

Believe me, I know

Every time some new theory about the unique bonds that mothers and children have (and fathers don't) gets debunked a new one arises. I think the current proposal is pheromones in the mother's sweat or breast milk or something.. I lose track.

I've spent a couple years now wading through blogs, articles, research papers and books related to every facet of international child abduction and gender issues plays a major role. There are many radical feminists who will go ape-shit to protect the rights of a lesbian partner of a biological mother who has bonded with the child, but believe a father's part in a child's life ends according to the whims of the mother (except child support, of course). Nothing should interfere with the mother-child "dyad." I try to explain it to these people in terms they can understand. I say that my son also has females in his paternal family. I have a twin sister and a younger sister and a mother (this helps but usually doesn't make up for my possession of a Y chromosome.) I have some friends and family who are feminists and we never used to disagree on anything related to it. I've been on the mailing lists for N.O.W, NARAL and Planned Parenthood for 6-7 years now (in fairness I rarely open their emails though.) Now I bring up discrimination against fathers and I have to listen to stories about women in Bangladesh getting acid thrown in their face (as if one has anything to do with the other.)

forthelost · « **Reply #7 on:** August 19, 2010, 08:17:08 PM »

I always wonder what those people who go on about the mother/child bond being special think of adoption. (Considering I've seen both giving birth and breastfeeding as ways that make that bond special.)