Talk:Richard A. Gardner

Focus on the man

PAS is divisive, but it has its own page. This page to describe what Garder did that is of historical interest.

I think it's of historical interest that his theories were never subjected to empirical study, research, or testing, never recognised by the AMA and the APA, and never published in peer reviewed medical or scientific journals.

I think it's of historical interest that he considered pedophilia to be a "a widespread and accepted practice", that sex with children could be "tender, loving, and non-painful" and that children "may initiate sexual encounters by 'seducing' the adult".

I think it's of historical interest that Gardner advised therapists treating a father who raped his child that he "had a certain amount of bad luck with regard to the place and time he was born with regard to social attitudes toward pedophilia".

I think it's of historical interest that Gardner was an unpaid volunteer at Columbia who had not had hospital admitting privileges for 25 years prior to his death, although he consistently misrepresented himself as a practicing psychiatrist and full professor.

I think it's of significance that this article fails to report objectively on Gardner's life and his pro-paedophile stance, although, in camouflaging the most disturbing aspects of Gardner's work, this article is certainly congruent with the general trend in Wikipedia regarding child abuse and paedophilia. --Biaothanatoi 03:50, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

There is considerable vitriolic attacks on Gardner for raising the issue of false accusation about child abuse, and that encouraging a child to make a false accusation is a form of child abuse. There appears to be a small industry trying to malign his ideas by maligning him. Not only did he publish a rebuttal before he died , but noteworthy scholars such as Bruce Sales have cast serious doubt upon the workings of the family courts in the United States and elsewhere. Furthermore, scandals in New York City and San Diego have blown open a small window into the world of custody evaluation and revealed what may be a massive corruption scam.

He was never "pro-paedophile" but dared to raise the question that "pedophilia" may be mis-applied when convenient, and that more strigent use of diagnostic criteria were essential.

This is a link to his own rebuttal from 1999:

http://www.fact.on.ca/Info/pas/misperce.htm

Shrinkie89 19:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Gardner was well-connected with the pro-incest movements of the 1980s, and he stated several times that the sexual assault of children and women could be pleasureable and beneficial to the victim. His work has become the cause celebre of numerous "father's rights" groups in their campaign to maintain control over children in custody disputes, particularly where the father has been accused of sexual abuse.

The association between Gardner, the pro-incest lobby of the 80s, and fringe activist groups should give editors here cause for concern, particularly since this article has clearly been written by someone sympathetic to Gardner's theories. It is very difficult tto get balanced commentary on child abuse into Wikipedia since some active editors appear to have a conflict of interest. --Biaothanatoi (talk) 03:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Missing a bit

"Gardner's contributions to the field of general psychotherapy with children, psychotherapy with children of divorce, and custody evaluations are widely, although cited."

Something's missing from this sentence fragment. Someone who knows what's what, please fix it.Parakkum 21:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

The article only mentions twice that Gardner killed himself

Someone felt this was really important ot mention many times, so perhaps more editors should take the lead and add that in whenever possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.39.78.68 (talk) 17:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

The link to the judith .m simon anti-gardner at liznotes is not much more than a blog posting

an anti-gardner site link, links to liznotes which is obviously biased towards sole custody of kids to the the mother, but more than that, the essay by Judith M. Simon, is a reprint of an essay from "Swans". Visit Swans, it is not much more than a blog online since 1996. They publish only on the web, there is no peer review. Simon is herself not notable to the casual googler (that is, she can't be found or identified as the bottom of her article claims, as a health and science writer), and she has no wiki page to back her up. Her "article" is entirely unsourced.

I am going to remove the link from the main wiki page and place it here "for storage" 71.39.78.68 17:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)