"Stand by your man" was Tammy Wynette, not Pasty Cline.
As the law stands in the UK at present it is legal to name a man accused of rape - a woman is granted anonymity. The folly of this is seen in the recent Ched Evans debacle and the false allegations that put David Carrington-Jones in jail.
Hope I am not subconsciously phallocentrically oppressing you.

well said.

it isn't feminism that's harming men. it's patriarchy. feminists don't promote national service for men, control the prison system or decide that women must always be primary caregivers. It's patriarchy doing those things.

I'm so bored of MRA types not understanding this and blaming all this crap at women's door.

Dear Rhiannon, Holly (and Helen)

Would it help you, and all the other correspondents, to have an example of clear anti-male bias to work from? One that isn't open to argument, fudged statistics, or alternative opinions? One which, I hope, might help put the debate back on track?

In the UK, around 1,200 cases of 'international child relocation' are brought before the High Court in London each year.

In almost all these cases, it is the mother who wishes to relocate abroad with a child against the wishes of a father who is remaining in the UK.

The main UK case law in this area is Payne vs Payne (1) 2001.

Payne vs Payne is used today as the leading authority for child relocation decisions in the UK. Here are some highlights (and I attach below a link to the full decision, so you can read it for yourselves).

"S [the child] was born and raised in the UK....she is now almost nine..."

"She is greatly loved by the father..."

"If my calculations are correct, what all this means is that, in every cycle of 56 days, S (the child) spends 23 nights with the father."

"There can be only one resident parent... S spends marginally more time with the mother, [and so] we recognise that is she [the mother])."

"The way in which the parent who properly has custody of a child may choose in a reasonable manner to order his or her way of life is one of those things which the parent who has not been given custody may well have to bear, even though one has every sympathy with the latter on some of the results."

"The father, who has had a close and loving relationship with his daughter, earns around £40,000 per year, and would be able to afford to visit her or have her visit him two or three times a year which mitigates the loss to the child and to him. I can see no fault in the approach of the judge to this case and no grounds to set aside the order which he made."

"The mother and child may, in this case, relocate to New Zealand."

I'll just let that sit there for a moment.

Take your time.

Now, here's what feminists are going to say: they're going to argue this is NOT discrimination because; "actually the law is gender neutral, it just so happens that almost all non-resident parents are men, but this is the result of gender stereotyping and societal expectations which feminists are working to address".

To which I reply: bulls**t.

We know that is a lie, because feminists consistently oppose, and have opposed, any move towards shared parenting in legislation, in every country in which it has been introduced. In the U.S., Canada, Australia, UK and New Zealand, they have fought it tooth and nail, at all levels of government. Some of the largest feminist organisations in the world have campaigned, lobbyed and demonstrated to enforce the unequal status quo in family law.

Oh yes, feminists are quite satisfied with gender stereotyping thank you very much, when it suits them.

Feminists are hypocrites, pure and simple.

Feminism is pro-women to the point where they are quite happy to sacrifice men and childrens' interests.

It is a supremacist ideology, based on hatred and selfish self-interest.

1 - http://www.familylawweek.co.uk/site.aspx?i=ed24