In questa intervista alla trasmissione Matrix una madre spiega come ha perso i suoi figli che le sono stati messi contro dal padre e adesso rifiutano ogni contatto.

L’alienazione genitoriale non ha una connotazione di genere, perché non è solo la madre che può manipolare i figli contro l’altro genitore. Anche i padri lo fanno.

Richard Gardner nel 2001 si sentì in obbligo di precisare che alla sua prima definizione di sindrome di alienazione genitoriale andava fatta una correzione. Non era più vero che nella maggior parte dei casi il genitore alienante è la madre, questo suo convincimento degli anni 90 andava ormai considerato superato dall’evoluzione della società. Gardner concludeva quindi che negli USA la proporzione tra padri e madri vittime della PAS si stava rapidamente avvicinando al 50%.

L’articolo in cui Gardner ha espresso la sua previsione sull’evoluzione della proporzione madri-padri vittime della PAS è  American Journal of Family Therapy 30(3):191-202 (2002), Denial of the Parental Alienation Syndrome Also Harms Women (Online),  in cui scriveva:

In the last few years, starting in the late 1990s, there has been a gender shift. Fathers, with increasing frequency, are also indoctrinating PAS into their children (Gardner, 2001b). At this point, my own extensive experiences with PAS families have led me to the conclusion that the ratio is now 50/50, with fathers being as likely as mothers to indoctrinate children into a PAS. And colleagues of mine in various parts of the country are reporting a similar phenomenon.

Why this shift? One probable explanation relates to the fact that fathers are increasingly enjoying expanded visitation time with their children in association with the increasing popularity of shared parenting programs. The more time a programming father has with his children, the more time he has to program them if he is inclined to do so. Another factor operative here probably relates to the fact that with increasing recognition of the PAS, fathers (some of whom have read my books) have learned about the disorder and have decided to use the same PAS indoctrinational maneuvers utilized by women. It is probable that other factors are operative as well in the gender shift, but these are the two best explanations that I have at this point.

With the gender shift of PAS indoctrinators, there has consequently been a gender shift in PAS target parents. Mothers are increasingly finding themselves victims (I use the word without hesitation) of their husbands’ PAS indoctrinations of their children. Such mothers know well that PAS exists. They read my books and say, as have the father victims before them, “It’s almost as if you’ve lived in my house. You’re describing exactly what has been going on.” These mothers find themselves helpless. They cannot get help from therapists who are still mouthing the old mantras, “PAS is just Gardner’s theory,” “PAS doesn’t exist because it’s not in DSM-IV,” “PAS is not a syndrome.” Their lawyers, too, will tell them, “PAS might exist, but the court will not recognize it. I can’t use the word syndrome in the courtroom. It’s the ‘big S’ word.” Worse yet, many leaders in the Women’s Rights movement are reflexively chanting the same incantations, thereby abandoning the women whose cause they profess to espouse. These mantras have become deeply embedded in the brain circuitry of most of the people the alienated women are looking to for help—therapists, lawyers, guardians ad litems, and judges. And these groups cannot even turn to the Women’s Rights groups because they have long ago stridently taken the position that PAS does not exist, that PAS is not a syndrome, etc., etc. We see here how those who deny the existence of PAS are adding formidably to the grief of women. Women’s past denial and discrediting of PAS has now come back to haunt them. Women are now being injured by their own weapons, or, as the old saying goes, they are being “hoist by their own pitards.”