Why “CAMS” Confuses the Conversation — and Why Child Psychological Abuse Isn’t About Gender

I recently read an article shared on the Women’s Coalition Substack about Virginia Roberts Giuffre, the most prominent victim of Jeffrey Epstein’s sex-trafficking ring. Victoria describes feeling alienated from her children . The piece raises strong feelings about how parental alienation and abuse are discussed — and, unfortunately, reflects a broader misunderstanding that is gaining traction in some gendered violence circles.

Some radical feminist/”gendered” violence groups are claiming that Parental Alienation is dividing women. In reality, child abuse is not gendered. This is a manipulative attempt to lump together child-abusing women with female victims of parental alienations. In reality, female targeted parents have more in common with male targeted parents. Abuse should not be along gender lines, but victim vs. abuser lines.

One phrase in particular — “CAMS” (Child and Mother Sabotage) — is being advanced by some advocates as a replacement for the well-established concept of parental alienation. But this shift in terminology isn’t neutral. In practice, it tends to frame the issue in a way that reinforces a gendered narrative: that only fathers or men can be alienating or abusive, and that mothers are immune from this form of psychological harm. That framing is misleading, and the research does not support it.

Parental Alienation Is Not a Gendered Issue

The peer-reviewed literature on parental alienation — spanning psychology, family therapy, and legal studies — consistently shows that:

Both women and men can engage in alienating behaviors toward a child.

Both women and men can engage in alienating behaviors toward a child.

Both mothers and fathers can be targeted parents whose relationship with their child is harmed.

Both mothers and fathers can be targeted parents whose relationship with their child is harmed.

The behaviors involved are about manipulation and loyalty conflict, not the gender of the parent.

The behaviors involved are about manipulation and loyalty conflict, not the gender of the parent.

Empirical research does not support the idea that one gender is the perpetrator and the other is the victim by default. This is important because language shapes policy, clinical practice, and access to support. If we define the problem in a way that excludes half of the population — or frames half as inherently non-abusive — we risk leaving many children and parents without the help they need.

“CAMS” Risks Reinforcing Gender Politics — Not Helping Children

The “CAMS” label may sound specific or new, but in reality it muddies the waters:

It shifts attention from behaviors and harm to gendered assumptions.

It shifts attention from behaviors and harm to gendered assumptions.

It frames what is fundamentally a psychological and relational problem as a gender conflict.

It frames what is fundamentally a psychological and relational problem as a gender conflict.

It can be used rhetorically to argue that women cannot be abusive — a claim that the evidence does not support.

It can be used rhetorically to argue that women cannot be abusive — a claim that the evidence does not support.

No serious child protection framework should start with a presumption based on gender. Doing so distracts from the real question: Is this child being harmed by manipulation, interference, or coercive pressure from a parent? That’s the question clinicians, researchers, and courts should be focusing on — not whether a parent is a man or a woman.

Parental Alienation Research Is About Children, Not Politics

Parental alienation was first described in family psychology decades ago to capture a pattern of behaviors that harm children’s relationships with a parent. Since then, researchers around the world have studied it in diverse populations. The consistent finding is this:

Alienating behaviors and the harm they cause are about conduct, not gender.

Alienating behaviors and the harm they cause are about conduct, not gender.

To respond compassionately and effectively, our language and our policies need to reflect what the science shows, not what a particular ideology assumes.

Calling out harmful behavior isn’t “dividing women” — it’s acknowledging that child psychological abuse can happen in any family, with any parent. Protecting children means being honest about that reality.

What children need is clarity, not confusion. They need frameworks that are evidence-based, child-centered, and free from gendered assumptions. That’s the conversation we should be having.

Original article from Substack: https://womenscoalition.substack.com/p/epstein-victim-says-being-alienated

© The Times of Israel (Blogs)