Separate femi-nasty spin from the real and reputable
I did not say that you have put a feminasty spin on anything, only that you, along with 95% of journalists and Family Court Judges, have been taken along by their advocacy...
Truth changes over time... because it is based on the best available knowledge of the time... Remember before Copernicus, everybody assumed that the heavens rotated around the earth...There was some biblical basis for this, and nobody had come up with any better explanation... so it was taken as truth...
The problem was that plotting the movements of the stars was very complicated, and it was almost impossible to predict what would happen in the future, because there was no understanding of these strange planetary movements.
Copernicus looked at the planets from a different perspective, and it was better... it was closer to fact.
The history of 'what is the best way to being up kids' has also changed over time...
From biblical times up to early 1900.... if there was a split, the father got the kids... (but since divorce was very rare). This was on the basis that a mother could not support children with the food and money needed. True enough at the time.
In the early twentieth century, this was reversed, and a doctrine of maternal preference became standard. This was discredited early in the second half of the century, and it was legally removed from the statute-books. But both of these decisions were based more on philosophy and politics, than science or fact. Because, since divorce was very rare, there was no science to see what happened to real children...
Then Freudians got on the bandwagon, and a couple of researchers named Bowlby and Ainsworth invented "Attachment Theory". They saw orphans traumatised from being squeezed 20 in each room, mal-nourished and never cuddled by anybody in Romania, and saw the damage this did to the kids.
Yep... that would f**k-up any kid for life, and it is hardly rocket-science to realise that kids need to be cuddled and fed occasionally.
They called this "Attachment". They then went to Africa and again looked at some deprived orphans and developed their theory a little further.
Finally in 1956 they were in wealthy Baltimore in the US and they did A SINGLE EXPERIMENT observing toddlers and their mothers interacting, and also how the kids reacted in a "Strange Situation". Basically as any parent knows, put a kid in an unfamiliar room without mum or dad and they will do one of three things... 1: go exploring, 2: sit in the corner and cry for
mummy, or 3: behave somewhere in-between. Pretty obvious really.
They called these three behaviours 1: Securely attached, 2: Avoidant
Now what THIS SINGLE experiment did was to compare how often mum cuddled and interacted with the kid, to how likely the kid reacted in the "strange situation".
Not surprisingly, considering the researcher's pre-formed theories, the kids who had warm, outgoing parents that were attentive and cuddled the kids lots had kids who behaved confidently (securely attached).
Simple case of a researchers pre-conceived views creating the outcome. Not that shouldn't matter, that's why hard science requires experiments to be repeated and verified... Guess what... there has been virtually no repetition! So little that one of the two creators, Mary Ainsworth defends her life's work by claiming a lack of funding for the lack of repetition!!!
What Attachment Theory does do (and this second part has been repeated many times) is to show that the behaviour in the strange situation is a good predictor of the kid's future life... success at school, lasting friendships, drug use, etc etc... What the Strange Situation does do is
accurately measure aspects of the kids personality... not the kids family.
Tall parents usually produce tall kids and blonde parents, usually blonde kids... What the experiment really says is that warm, intelligent, extroverted parents usually produce warm, intelligent, extroverted kids... To take the extra step and say that is as a result of the mother's parenting style and 'attachment' is pure ideological speculation... DNA and inheritance of personality traits is a better explanation.
So how does this fit in????
Family Court rulings are based on legal precedents... and these precedents were established after the first Family Law Act 1975. Then there was *no* science to say what was best for the kids... only "Attachment Theory". So Attachment Theory has (in effect) become law.
Not surprisingly the feminasties still swear by it... but it is discredited by the quantities, longitudinal studies OF THOUSANDS UPON THOUSANDS OF REAL CHILDREN, LIVING REAL LIVES, GROWING UP INTO REAL ADULTS AND WHAT REALLY HELPS AND WHAT SADLY DAMAGES THEM... That was the substance of pry previous email and the pages and pages of these recent studies.
===
+++
------
OK.
Change of pace here
Now Kieran, what you are doing is what most of us have done done... we live in a pretty just and well governed country. rule of law and all that. I have only been though t he justice system on a couple of occasions, both to do with renting... once as a tenant, and once as a landlord. Both times I felt the system treated me and my opposition fairly.
In most things in Australia you can trust the institutions. The military, the judiciary, the police, the executive... etc.
But as the thousands upon thousands of dads, and their kids who have gone through the Family Law system will attest... Family Law is the exception.
Except in exceptional cases (due to an unfit parent) children need both parents, even if they live in separate houses. Family law robs children of one parent in 98.5% of cases. it is simply wrong. Due to history, due to Attachment Theory, due to 1970's science enshrined in precedent.
Just as Copernicus had to fight the powerful institutions of his time, especially the other astrologers and the church... and eventually truth prevailed... we too have to fight the entrenched culture of the institutions of our time because in this thing they are wrong.
Finally, to answer your complaints specifically... one thing I have seen clearly, and I said in my previous email is that THERE IS NO OTHER SIDE TO THIS. There are no studies that say sole custody in best for kids (with fit parents). None. zero. zilch. There are plenty of waffly pieces talking about "attachment theory" and "secure environments" and "primary care-givers" as
if they are God-given truths... but that is all simply Attachment Theory, discredited, 1970's Freudian theory. Real studies about real children growing up in real homes into real adults... not Freudian Fantasies! Not Attachment Theory.
Kieran, of all people, you work for the military, you know that what works is what is more important that what sounds good.
Lord Kitchener went against powerful institutional forces by dressing his troops in Khaki instead of bright red uniforms, and that significantly helped him win the Boer war. The traditions were no longer right. What had changed? They were fighting a civil war of farmers in earthy coloured
clothes hiding behind trees... wearing red uniforms was suicide against that sort of enemy.
We recently had the 90th anniversary of the battle of the Somme.. where military tradition... massed artillery preceding a full frontal assault caused the most bloody battle of western history... In this case the machine gun changed everything.
We are now seeing a bloody (if you look as at the suicide and etc) battle in t he Family Court... Why? Because now we know, now there is science that shows that the theory of the 1970's was only half the story...
It is time to change.
Some families are of migrant cultures and the men won't learn how to enjoy their kids. Some men are truly work focussed with truly home-focussed wives and being disabled in this way makes 50-50 inappropriate in these families also. Some men are bastards and some women are bitches...
If about 40% of family Court rulings are for equal time shared parenting, then I will be happy... but while 98.5% of our children have a parent who loves them enough to fight for them in court... while 98.5% of these kids have one parent robbed from them by this court... then the institution is deeply, deeply out-of-synch with the best interest of the child (let alone
the father).
Kieran, if you still have more questions, doubts or other concerns, please ring me again... I don't want to waste more of this forum's airtime on this. We have spoken before.. please ring me.
James ADAMS (PartTimeParent)
Media - http://www.Fathers4equality-Australia.org
PartTimeParent@pobox.com
Ph 0417 258 364 Sydney, Australia
Please feel free to re-publish anything in this email.
Attributing it to Fathers4Equality or myself would be appreciated :-)
Truth changes over time... because it is based on the best available knowledge of the time... Remember before Copernicus, everybody assumed that the heavens rotated around the earth...There was some biblical basis for this, and nobody had come up with any better explanation... so it was taken as truth...
The problem was that plotting the movements of the stars was very complicated, and it was almost impossible to predict what would happen in the future, because there was no understanding of these strange planetary movements.
Copernicus looked at the planets from a different perspective, and it was better... it was closer to fact.
The history of 'what is the best way to being up kids' has also changed over time...
From biblical times up to early 1900.... if there was a split, the father got the kids... (but since divorce was very rare). This was on the basis that a mother could not support children with the food and money needed. True enough at the time.
In the early twentieth century, this was reversed, and a doctrine of maternal preference became standard. This was discredited early in the second half of the century, and it was legally removed from the statute-books. But both of these decisions were based more on philosophy and politics, than science or fact. Because, since divorce was very rare, there was no science to see what happened to real children...
Then Freudians got on the bandwagon, and a couple of researchers named Bowlby and Ainsworth invented "Attachment Theory". They saw orphans traumatised from being squeezed 20 in each room, mal-nourished and never cuddled by anybody in Romania, and saw the damage this did to the kids.
Yep... that would f**k-up any kid for life, and it is hardly rocket-science to realise that kids need to be cuddled and fed occasionally.
They called this "Attachment". They then went to Africa and again looked at some deprived orphans and developed their theory a little further.
Finally in 1956 they were in wealthy Baltimore in the US and they did A SINGLE EXPERIMENT observing toddlers and their mothers interacting, and also how the kids reacted in a "Strange Situation". Basically as any parent knows, put a kid in an unfamiliar room without mum or dad and they will do one of three things... 1: go exploring, 2: sit in the corner and cry for
mummy, or 3: behave somewhere in-between. Pretty obvious really.
They called these three behaviours 1: Securely attached, 2: Avoidant
Now what THIS SINGLE experiment did was to compare how often mum cuddled and interacted with the kid, to how likely the kid reacted in the "strange situation".
Not surprisingly, considering the researcher's pre-formed theories, the kids who had warm, outgoing parents that were attentive and cuddled the kids lots had kids who behaved confidently (securely attached).
Simple case of a researchers pre-conceived views creating the outcome. Not that shouldn't matter, that's why hard science requires experiments to be repeated and verified... Guess what... there has been virtually no repetition! So little that one of the two creators, Mary Ainsworth defends her life's work by claiming a lack of funding for the lack of repetition!!!
What Attachment Theory does do (and this second part has been repeated many times) is to show that the behaviour in the strange situation is a good predictor of the kid's future life... success at school, lasting friendships, drug use, etc etc... What the Strange Situation does do is
accurately measure aspects of the kids personality... not the kids family.
Tall parents usually produce tall kids and blonde parents, usually blonde kids... What the experiment really says is that warm, intelligent, extroverted parents usually produce warm, intelligent, extroverted kids... To take the extra step and say that is as a result of the mother's parenting style and 'attachment' is pure ideological speculation... DNA and inheritance of personality traits is a better explanation.
So how does this fit in????
Family Court rulings are based on legal precedents... and these precedents were established after the first Family Law Act 1975. Then there was *no* science to say what was best for the kids... only "Attachment Theory". So Attachment Theory has (in effect) become law.
Not surprisingly the feminasties still swear by it... but it is discredited by the quantities, longitudinal studies OF THOUSANDS UPON THOUSANDS OF REAL CHILDREN, LIVING REAL LIVES, GROWING UP INTO REAL ADULTS AND WHAT REALLY HELPS AND WHAT SADLY DAMAGES THEM... That was the substance of pry previous email and the pages and pages of these recent studies.
===
+++
------
OK.
Change of pace here
Now Kieran, what you are doing is what most of us have done done... we live in a pretty just and well governed country. rule of law and all that. I have only been though t he justice system on a couple of occasions, both to do with renting... once as a tenant, and once as a landlord. Both times I felt the system treated me and my opposition fairly.
In most things in Australia you can trust the institutions. The military, the judiciary, the police, the executive... etc.
But as the thousands upon thousands of dads, and their kids who have gone through the Family Law system will attest... Family Law is the exception.
Except in exceptional cases (due to an unfit parent) children need both parents, even if they live in separate houses. Family law robs children of one parent in 98.5% of cases. it is simply wrong. Due to history, due to Attachment Theory, due to 1970's science enshrined in precedent.
Just as Copernicus had to fight the powerful institutions of his time, especially the other astrologers and the church... and eventually truth prevailed... we too have to fight the entrenched culture of the institutions of our time because in this thing they are wrong.
Finally, to answer your complaints specifically... one thing I have seen clearly, and I said in my previous email is that THERE IS NO OTHER SIDE TO THIS. There are no studies that say sole custody in best for kids (with fit parents). None. zero. zilch. There are plenty of waffly pieces talking about "attachment theory" and "secure environments" and "primary care-givers" as
if they are God-given truths... but that is all simply Attachment Theory, discredited, 1970's Freudian theory. Real studies about real children growing up in real homes into real adults... not Freudian Fantasies! Not Attachment Theory.
Kieran, of all people, you work for the military, you know that what works is what is more important that what sounds good.
Lord Kitchener went against powerful institutional forces by dressing his troops in Khaki instead of bright red uniforms, and that significantly helped him win the Boer war. The traditions were no longer right. What had changed? They were fighting a civil war of farmers in earthy coloured
clothes hiding behind trees... wearing red uniforms was suicide against that sort of enemy.
We recently had the 90th anniversary of the battle of the Somme.. where military tradition... massed artillery preceding a full frontal assault caused the most bloody battle of western history... In this case the machine gun changed everything.
We are now seeing a bloody (if you look as at the suicide and etc) battle in t he Family Court... Why? Because now we know, now there is science that shows that the theory of the 1970's was only half the story...
It is time to change.
Some families are of migrant cultures and the men won't learn how to enjoy their kids. Some men are truly work focussed with truly home-focussed wives and being disabled in this way makes 50-50 inappropriate in these families also. Some men are bastards and some women are bitches...
If about 40% of family Court rulings are for equal time shared parenting, then I will be happy... but while 98.5% of our children have a parent who loves them enough to fight for them in court... while 98.5% of these kids have one parent robbed from them by this court... then the institution is deeply, deeply out-of-synch with the best interest of the child (let alone
the father).
Kieran, if you still have more questions, doubts or other concerns, please ring me again... I don't want to waste more of this forum's airtime on this. We have spoken before.. please ring me.
James ADAMS (PartTimeParent)
Media - http://www.Fathers4equality-Australia.org
PartTimeParent@pobox.com
Ph 0417 258 364 Sydney, Australia
"The greatest love of all,
is a parent's love for their child!
Family Law betrays that love"
is a parent's love for their child!
Family Law betrays that love"
Please feel free to re-publish anything in this email.
Attributing it to Fathers4Equality or myself would be appreciated :-)
posted by Unknown at
8:03 AM
Social bookmark this
2 Comments:
PS... I should add that the "strange situation" procedure was designed to assess patterns of attachment in infants younger than 18 months of age. After that attachment must theory must take into account a swap-over to a three-body attachment scenario.
Jason
By
Anonymous, at 8:10 AM
I get questioned on everything I do. I suppose that's a good thing. At least it makes me know what I'm doing.
A friend asked me why I put this stuff up here. It's obviously not well written, and the sloppy grammar makes the considerable bias hard to defend.
Well this stuff is part of the constant, energetic discussion between those who are intimately and emotionally involved in these issues, as they try to make some sense of them.
I think its time the politicians, professionals and other "leaders" paid more attention to the heartfelt words of those whose hearts are on the line than those who make good grammar.
Paul Donley
By
Unknown, at 8:20 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home