Enter your email address here to receive updates from the team.
Don't buy into this pretend battle of the sexes.
Special Offer: Get 12 issues of New Statesman magazine for just £12
Tags: feminism Let's talk about men
"So to me, blaming the feminist movement for all the hardships men face in the social and legal sphere".
Why do feminists monolithically refuse to construct an honest argument, and instead use strawmen? The mens movement in general is critical of the whole system, including traditionalism.
Perhaps you get your information on the mens movement from feminist media outlets - the fox news of of the gender debate.
And mra's are concerned with some laws that have been created and are defended in some shape and form by feminism, eg. feminist Caroline Nortons tender years doctrine, today NOW and similar groups are still opposing a presumption of some custody by the father.
You will also find that many of the laws that privilege women feminists blame patriarchy and sexism on, were like the tender years doctrine in fact the result of early feminist activism and lobbying
What is with the out and out hatred of MR in this piece? Taking the worst of MR and using that as a frame to belittle everything else about it is disgusting, and no doubt something feminists are sick of themslves. There is nothing to fear from mainstream MR.
Oh god…just noticed Helen use the word “masculinity”. Whenever feminists write about masculinity its “the problem with…”, “crisis in…”, “threatened by…”. In fact the only people I ever see using the word ‘masculinity’ is feminists with an axe to grind.
Men don’t want women attempting to redefine them via middle class feminist discourse from Oxbridge grads with little life experience. What they want is the safety nets, that are provided as a matter of course for women, to be available for them, so that homelessness, unemployment, illness and early of a man is given the same value as those events happening to a women. Some parental rights would be nice as well.
Damn that's a good summary. Thank you.
I'm going to print out that second paragraph.
should have read 'early death of a man...'
Whenever feminism is criticized in any way, you will invariably get the response "feminism is not a monolith. There are various viewpoints within the feminist movement" in order to deflect the criticism away from the feminist currently in the discussion. This is done despite the fact all such non-monolithic factions are umbrellaed under the label feminism. So it is rather telling that when the left decides to take aim at the men's movement, despite the various factions actually going by different names, such as PUA's, Men's rights, fathers rights, men going their own way, traditional masculinists, etc, all these different factions are lumped together like a single monolithic group (the very thing feminists get so bent out of shape about despite the lack of differentiating labels), and aspects of each are then cherry picked and combined together to make a single, crazy entity that represent nothing even remotely resembling what actually exists.
I find the comments to be more genuine and informed than the article, does this foreshadow what is to be expected as intelligent follow-up, more female rhetoric. There is no doubt a small faction of conservative men that long for sandwich makers in the kitchen, the majority however have been bred out of that fantasy by family courts. I must say its a tough choice between sandwiches and sanity. I'll keep my sanity, sandwiches can always be ordered at a better price. Give me equal access to my children without the neurotic drama and victim romance and I'm good.
Just curious; can anyone here name one issue forwarded by feminism for the benefit of men, in the past fifty years. Just one that could be identified in the public consciousness. Because I can't and I thought you might. If not I think you may have confused a gender exodus with a gender war.
Lobby for birth control and sex education means fewer unwanted pregnancies and STDs, the benefits of which are extraordinarily numerous.
Accessibility to education being further gender blind makes for a more widely educated population, which makes us more intellectually and civically involved, and allows for a larger percentage of the population able to do advanced and specialized jobs.
And then if you want to talk about feminist motherhood, I'm pretty sure that having empowered mothers that are educated, financially responsible, and mothers out of choice rather than against their will make for healthy young boys that grow up to be healthy young men.
Most "MRA"s would agree with most of these. Where does "mothers out of choice" come from? Are you saying that the mens rights movement is about forcing women to have babies? You are making a typical mistake: "it's all about the wimmenz".
The men's rights movement is about *mens* *rights*. Right to a fair trial. Right to equal medical care. Right to see your kids more than one afternoon a fortnight. The only reason "feminism" comes into it at all is that so many feminists (and not necessarily you personally) are staunchly opposed to these things.
Maybe if we all lived in a yellow submarine........but I don't. 45 million abortions is not indicative of proper use of birth control or sex education for that matter. STD's are higher now than they have ever been. Education is far from gender blind and in fact is extremely oppressive to young boys who are commonly drugged with ritalin for simply being male.
Which leads to mid life brain stem atrophy that will begin to appear in the population in vast numbers in about 10 to 15 years.
Our education system has been turned into a gender hate movement against males and responsible for turning out vast numbers of illiterate and semi-illiterate males. Mothers are simply empowered by state funding and proxy extortion of fathers with no correlation to a higher education or financial responsibility. Mothers are simply choosing to marry a government. The healthy young men they are creating will be part of a feminist welfare state. But obviously everything is fine on your street.
Do you play the guitar while you chant this stuff or is it always acappello.
Again we need a mens movement that focuses in the problems that men face, mens centers are a path to that, and no we don't need to consult with the feminist, is like giving the task of defining the black experience to a white guy, the problems men face need to be dealt by men. Feminist are interested in womens problems first , if something they do affect ¨the mens¨ is like bonus.Just let us do our thing, believe me we dont want you making sandwiches.
Think misandry goes no deeper than a few multitasking jokes? Have a look at these:
(Skip to 2:15)
(Skip to 2:32)
" Fighting sexism means fighting it in all its forms in the hope that we will one day achieve an equal, happy society."
Show me just ONE feminist organisation that supports and calls for more battered husband shelters. You know since the CDC has found that intimate partner violence is initiated by women 70% of the time when it is only one partner being physically abusive and 50% of the time when both are physically abusive.
AVoiceforMen does not call for razing battered womens shelters to the ground, instead they suggest that in addressing less than half of the problem we are doomed to fail. But, we also know the abuse industry does not want success otherwise they'd have to go find a job, the reality is they want to perpetuate violence and inflate the actual problem so people live in unfounded fear.
If you believe feminism is meant to help men or women(it does neither) please download the AgentOrange Files for a look at exactly what feminists think of men and women. Then track back who these posters are, not just man-hating crackpots that support child murder but, influential crackpots that have been affecting public policy while hiding their desire to kill and chemically castrate everyone that does not agree with them.
Pretty sure that if a battered man walked into a woman's shelter and asked for help, they'd give him help.
Or, why don't you open a battered men's shelter? I mean, you do get that it's feminism, right? Not "man hating." We're trying to battle centuries and centuries of violence, abuse, and subjugation here. It's a little hard for us to drop what we're doing to help men whom were just this year revealed to experience domestic violence more than we thought.
So, if you wanted to help, that would be pretty tight. Let's stop domestic violence together! Let's end patriarchy so we can all be free.
The issue is that people who speak out against feminism usually do so out of some misogyny-tinged emotions. So, I guess the question is, can you sit down, look at your arguments and evidence and answer the question, "Am I a misogynist?"
Before you jump down my throat, note how I have *not* accused you of hating women. Try re-reading your post, though, and think about why I might suggest you do a little emotional assessment. I mean, throwing phrases around like "man hating" and "child murder" is pretty charged with anger, no?
"Pretty sure that if a battered man walked into a woman's shelter and asked for help, they'd give him help."
Boys as young as 12 are denied shelter at many state-run DV shelters, because hearing their voices might make the women and girls there uncomfortable. In California, the shelter system and government had to be sued to provide help to battered men. The lawyer who brought the suit said he would drop it if the shelter operators offered hotel vouchers to the men, but they refused.
Why? Because the Patriarchal Terrorist (Duluth) paradigm of domestic violence--a theory written entirely by feminist researchers--casts men as batterers and women as victims, and DV as patriarchal oppression of women enacted on a microscale. Most battered men calling DV hotlines are still directed toward batterer treatment programs, and they almost never get beds in shelters.
"We're trying to battle centuries and centuries of violence, abuse, and subjugation here."
You realize that men and boys have always been and still are the demographic most at risk for nearly all forms of violence--75-80% of murder victims, half of spousal homicides, half of DV victims, half of forced sex victims (according to the CDC as well), and that boys receive more and more severe corporal punishment than girls even though it is less effective on boys?
You might also not realize there have been laws against wife battering since before Blackstone, but none against husband battering. Wife-batterers were fined, jailed and flogged at public whipping posts, there is evidence or vigilante beatings of wife-beaters, and even murders. Battered husbands, however, were forced to sit backwards on a donkey and paraded around town while the crowd ridiculed them. This is all documented history--guess feminist researchers and theorists missed all that, huh?
In fact, in the UK, France and America, there were provisions in the Slave Code limiting physical punishment and sexual exploitation for slave women, and while enforcement probably left a lot to be desired, no such legal protections existed for men. Only 2/3 as many slave women as slave men were brought over to the colonies, but women soon outnumbered men because they lived longer. Wonder why...
"It's a little hard for us to drop what we're doing to help men whom were just this year revealed to experience domestic violence more than we thought."
Actually, the empirical research showing gender symmetry in DV is more than 30 years old. Erin Pizzey, who opened the world's first battered women's refuge in the early 1970s found that of her first 100 clients, 63 were as violent as, or more violent than, the men they'd left. When she attempted to direct resources toward battered men, second wave feminists picketed her, harassed her, shouted her down at speaking engagements, called in bomb threats, and threatened her life, and the lives of her children and grandchildren. She left the country when her family dog was killed. Seems a strange way to prove women are not capable of violence and abuse, but it did shut her up for a while, didn't it?
"I mean, throwing phrases around like "man hating" and "child murder" is pretty charged with anger, no?"
Actually, I've read the conversations at the feminist site RadicalHub and its discussion forum, and "man hating" is putting it mildly. Child murder is openly discussed there, as is the murder of all men and even most women (since those women would do their best to keep the "oppressive system"), in order that little girls and radfems can create a utopia free of violence and subjugation. If throwing that kind of talk around is charged with anger, whose anger are we talking about?
In California, yes. The government had to get sued to make sure that happened though. In Canada, there is only two dedicated men's shelters in the whole contry, one is going under due to lack of funding and the government has outright refused (MASH 4077 in alberta). The other is in manatoba, and was started as a student council funded (AKA, not government, but tuition) resource center for men (as Simon Fraser University is trying to do, with rather hateful feminist opposition (they define masculinity as homophobic, oppressive, emotionally stunted, etc on the women's centre website FAQ.)). Do to the overwhelming need for such a center, this Maniban center began serving 6 universities in the area, and has since evolved into a non profit men's resource center and shelter.
Show me a battered mens shelter in every city. Other than jails.
Womens shelters routinely kick out juvenile males 12-16 depending on locale, so them helping a man is beyond a stupid suggestion.
Anti-family violence sites in most cities ONLY offer help to men to "not be batterers" jack squat when they are a victim.
Feminism is not just anti-male, it is also anti-self-determining-female. It is an evil moronic dogma that insists upon using manufactured results to further marginalize anyone that disagrees with their BS(like that we live in a rape-culture, puh-lease if we lived in a rape culture no woman would go outside without a gun or 20 friends)
Feminism is the radical notion that a vagina makes a person morally superior and more of a person. As such, it is a hate group based on gender rather than ethnicity or religion.
I work with victims. It's a common experience for male victims and victims of female perpetrators to be laughed at or accused of dishonesty when they DO try to get help. You are wrong.
More dishonesty. You know very well that no DV shelter would help a male victim of domestic violence. Most won't even allow boys over the age of 10. Ask Erin Pizzey, the woman who set up the very first DV refuge in Britain, 'Chiswick Women's Aid'.
Why not read Ms Pizzey's seminal work, "The Emotional Terrorist"? You would learn that she has been the subject of death threats because of her conclusion that most domestic violence is reciprocal, and that women are equally as capable of violence as men. Radical feminists are hell bent on containing this little spanner in their subsidized gravy train.
So, why are there no DV shelters for men? Radical feminists, working tirelessly to ensure that men are denied fundamental human rights, have enshrined in law (read Australia's soon-to-be-implemented "The Plan") that victims of domestic violence can only be female. Therefore, having a penis will ensure that male DV victims will not fall within the parameters of the legal definition. Whoever dreamt up this evil could only have been driven by pure hatred. In other words, radical feminists, the vanguard of Feminism, had their grubby fingers all over it. - as well you know.
There is overwhelming proof that male victims of DV receive no assistance whatsoever. Yet you continue to claim, on the strength that you are really, really sure, that they do. Pathetic and transparent. Defeating feminism will be so easy if the only defense you have to offer is a tissue of flimsy and obvious lies. Man-hating feminists have over-played their hand, and more and more men have had enough.
The MRM is the fastest-growing movement in the western world. Neither you, nor the smug pair of Vagenda bigots can stop it.
RHIANNON AND HOLLY , have you actually read Prof. Benatars Book , or are you just perpetrating others misrepresentation of it? Your trite article that trivialises some of the legitimate concerns of men clearly illustrates why a mens rights movement is necessary, thanks for continueing to draw attention to MRM and slowly but surely awakening men to the reality of the second sexism, there are interesting times ahead.
You claim that you don't want tension or a "war of the sexes" yet you pretty much just spent a good deal of time writing an inflammatory article belittling all men. Just seems a little contradictory to me. While I may feel insulted I certainly believe in your right to say it though.
I don't see anything in the article about "all men." This article is very clearly poking fun at the particular subclass of men who are terrified by the loss of the unearned perks of masculinity that they got used to enjoying. I can understand that; it sucks to have your toys taken away.
But the thing is, while it is human to be bummed that you now have to compete with twice as many people (since women are allowed to have jobs and stuff), and to be frustrated that women have much higher standards (now that they are legally and economically independent), and to be afraid that even more of your privileges will be shared out to everyone instead of kept exclusive to you...while all those feelings are human, it's pretty immature to indulge them.
For instance, if you choose to whine about how unfair it is that women's groups aren't building shelters for battered men--instead of, say, getting off your own arse and doing it, the way all those women had to do for themselves--then you come off looking like a petulant little child who still wants Mummy to pick up after him. Don't do that, lads. You can do better.
It's that load of "privilege" bullcarp that so many of us allowed ourselves to be sold that has us angry. Once we are young and naive no more, many of us find out the hard way that we had no more privilege overall than you did...in many cases less, we are individuals after all..except you were not continually commanded to give yours up to be "shared out". Talk about petulant children!
If women are so "legally and economically independent" now, then remove all the marriage laws that favor them, cut all female entitlement government programs, eliminate quotas & take away their ability to use the state as a violent enforcer...let's see how truly independent women are when they're no longer subsidized by men. Independence is a myth, there is only interdependence. I like this illusion of yours that women's groups have not received billions in tax dollars for shelters and the like. When the ARRA recovery plan in the US was being designed, womens' groups lobbied the gov and redirected half of it to create jobs for women, despite 80% of the jobs lost being males'. When women's groups stop blocking efforts by men to help men, then you might have a point. Until then, why don't you drink a Big Gulp of STF up, Ink.
Children are not toys. Women have no right to deny a father and his child to have a relationship with each other. Yet women constantly use children as leverage to extort money with the full backing of the Family Courts. Your sneering contempt for male pain, along with your tired old shaming language (is it immature for a man to be devastated when his children are effectively kidnapped?) are typical responses drom feminists.
So is the quite hilarious suggestion that men build their own DV refuges (just like we built all of yours, dear?). It is just this type of "stop whining" shaming language that prevents men demanding equal attention. Women like you would point and sneer "whiny" babies asking for help. Women have that little game down pat. The problem is, more and more men are ceasing to care what women think and neither seek nor need female approval.
Discussions like these reveal the extent of feminist-indoctrinated hatred for men. Thank you for celebrating male pain so nakedly. You describe male victims of domestic violence as a "sub-class". Men are watching and taking note - making our job so much easier.
Pretty sure this wasn't direct at "all men." Pretty sure this was directed at people who benefit most from patriarchy that think themselves the biggest victims of the fight against patriarchy -- abused by evil man-haters.
I mean, it's pretty ridiculous. Extremism keeps us from solving the problem, here.
Fighting patriarchy is akin to fighting gravity. You can't *fight* patriarchy, you can only understand its laws & how to work around them. There's a reason all societies have been patriarchal over the eons. Women can afford to indulge themselves in this fanciful notion of fighting it because they stand to lose little in doing so, in fact reaping benefits from it while claiming to fight it...but for a cisgendered hetero male, NOT recognizing those universal laws can be disastrous.
The problem isn't "evil man-haters" as much as it's theoreticians who think they're doing good in the world...but we all know what the road to hell is paved with.
I enjoy the subtle bashing of male rights movements then the statement that you don't want to make it a war on the sexes. the article specifically calls out and generalizes men. Thats like smacking somebody in the face then saying right after " I don't want to fight"
Again, doesn't bash men. It calls out how ridiculous it is to suppose that men have it worse than people who couldn't vote in the United States until 1920 -- 50 years after black men (people who were once 3/5ths a person) were rightly awarded their voting rights.
So yeah, crying over the lack of "mens rights" is kind of like crying over the lack of starch in a potato.
You do realize that the ONLY reason the majority of men in this country (as in, everybody who didn't own land) were given the right to vote was because they had to go to war and defend the country, therefore it was decided that if they risked dying for a government they should at least have the power to decide what that government would be right?
Women, by contrast NEVER HAD TO DO ANYTHING CLOSE TO THAT! By comparison women were handed the vote. And actually, that continues. *YOU* had to just turn 18 in order to vote. I and every other man was coerced into giving the state permission to seize our very bodies to be used as cannon fodder should the government ever choose. To not do so was to be subjected to several thousands of dollars in fine, jail time, a felony charge and the loss of every available government assitsance that YOU get for doing absolutely nothing.
Read a history book for once.
It is not the fault of feminists that men get sent to war, that women weren't allowed to go to war, that history has restricted voting rights and other rights on a class basis. That shit all happened before feminism.
Funny, how you twist your interpretation of what's important to fit your needs, when it comes to the things that happened in the past.
First you think it is okay that the men of today pay for the inability of women to vote in the past, and then you don't find it important that men actually had/have to risk dying for that right, while women don't, didn't and never will.
That's the kind of logic that will give you a free ride at any feminist forum, because the lack thereof is stunning. Congratulations, you've effectively been brainwashed by feminism beyond repair.
"It calls out how ridiculous it is to suppose that men have it worse than people who couldn't vote in the United States until 1920 -- 50 years after black men (people who were once 3/5ths a person) were rightly awarded their voting rights."
This is a very irrational argument.
It assumes that black men aren't men and that the timing of getting the vote dictates who has "it worse" in each and every out come.
"So yeah, crying over the lack of "mens rights" is kind of like crying over the lack of starch in a potato."
Its unfortunate for this debate that most feminists opt for teenage behaviour instead of rational debate, feminist's preference for relational aggression over common sense is what makes it so dysfunctional and angry.
This is a very irrational argument."
It's also either deeply ignorant of history or just straight up dishonest.
White women like that commenter insisted on a racial apartheid system, often with false rape acusations used as an enforcment mechanism, in which black who tried to vote, or organize others to vote, were often tortured to death in public, with white women bringing picnic linches to watch.
Makin' the sandwiches eh? ;)
At least they didn't pluck the white feathers for use as a shaming tool, safe from WWI war zone whilst neither had the right to vote, now that is power.
Well the issue is settled then - the poor men are the real victims and it is those nasty feminists who continue to make poor men's lives a misery. Oh and by the way guess who are the ones overwhelmingly committing violence against women and other men? Yes you guessed it - men - men are the ones being imprisoned for physical/sexual and psychological violence and it is overwhelmingly women and girls who are the victims of men's violence.
Now where are the innumerable portrayals of men as 'dehumanised sexual service stations?' I keep looking and I can't find any - just as the moon is not made of green cheese so men are not the ones being victimised by that supposedly unknowable and never to be known 'system/thing/ whatever. Male Supremacy is a system created and maintained by men for the benefit of men.
The Second Sexism is not new; it is not radical; it is not transgressive - it is another boring book repeating the same old misogynsitic lies men constantly claim because guess what men always blame women and this neatly ensures focus is always on men and their needs/demands/pseudo rights. Guess why women for centuries have been oppressed by men? Because men believe they alone are default humans and therefore world revolves around men and their demands. Second Sexism is more male supremacist propaganda and as we know Male Supremacy has to constantly keep promoting its lies and myths otherwise women will rise up and see through men's lies and men's ever increasing blatant hatred and/or contempt for women.
We women have yet to be accorded fact we are human beings not men's disposable sexual service stations. But as always focus has to be on men and their demands. Long live male supremacy is men's cry and malestream media is propaganda tool of male supremacy.
Thank you for your typical response and showing the other readers how over reliant you feminists are on false accusations, libel and misandric fearmongering - you favor that over rational arguments and debate every time.
[Deleted double post]
so you have actually bothered to read that book? just that your review describes a really really shit book, but i have not read it myself. but you did?
"Yes you guessed it - men - men are the ones being imprisoned for physical/sexual and psychological violence and it is overwhelmingly women and girls who are the victims of men's violence."
This is an outright lie. Says Jessica Valenti,prominent feminist, "80% of the victims of all violent crime are male."
"Male Supremacy is a system created and maintained by men for the benefit of men."
Who created it,specifically? How is it maintained? Who is maintaining it? How do men benefit? How do you explain this scientific study in the context of your argument?
There is no system of male supremacy,because men in general could care less about other men. Part of the reason for this is because women mock them in articles like this one every time they attempt to show compassion for each other,denigrate their masculinity, and occasionally accuse them of homosexuality.
You don't have to be a rocket scientist to see the connection there,it is plainly apparent. I can support all of my arguments without reference to a shadowy global cabal reminiscent of a tinfoil hat-wearer's Illuminati conspiracies, showing plainly each link in the chain between cause and effect,but can you?
I'm confused by this post. Are you saying that the thousands of men who die due to poor access to health care, or are on the streets, deserve to be there as some sort of payback for the crimes of their gender? Is this 'original sin' for the 21st century?
As the first ever member of f4j a firmer leftist and fighter for women (my daughter is a woman) I get intensly irritated and saddened by the 'men bashing' of course f4j put there lives in jeapordy ; but men have always five this. We always think if others before ourselves. I joined f4j as I was a victim of domestic violence as well as not being able to see my child (would never happen the other way around ). All my former friends I. Journalism couldn't see anything wrong with it. It would be nice if you could give us all these 'historical facts' to help us understand the hatred of men. Why, for instance could the police man attesting Emily Pankhurst (the suffragette and subsequent conservative candidate). Why have women had equal pay for EQUAL work since 1970 equal pay act. Why do more men committ suicide, die in the workplace and front line of war (0%women) retire later... Etc list goes on. Why do upper middle class women want to be victims? It's bonkers.
Dear Rhiannon, Holly,
Your'e taking a lot of flak here for something that's only partly your fault. You've taken a mocking, aggressive, wit-free approach in part because that's the tone Helen Lewis set with her brief in the first place, so I can see you're delivering what you feel is expected.
Here's the thing though: it's fairly predictable that a pair of young metropolitan women would come out and laugh at MRAs and fathers rights campaigners. It's so easy to mock isn't it? Some of them are ridiculous - dressing up as Superman, getting all angry, slagging off feminists.
So we agree: the men speaking up for equal rights may be angry, ugly and barmy, but, to paraphrase Bernard Levin about Lord Longford, the question isn't whether they're barmy - clearly they are - the question is: Are they right?
For example, I think F4J can take much of the credit for creating a climate where fathers' rights are taken seriously, and where the government is now planning to enshrine a child's right to a relationship with both parents in law.
Also, I have never seen any MRA or father's rights campaigner, argue to take away rights from women, all they're asking for is greater equality, especially in the area of family law, but also in terms of better public policies and services to address issues such as homelessness, suicide, health and female-on-male domestic abuse.
Articles such as this attempt to marginalise and ridicule a nascent global mens movement which aims to question why it is that (overwhelmingly) it is men who are sent to fight and die on our behalf, men who live shorter lives, men who suffer 92% of all workplace injuries and deaths, men who are cast aside when marriages break-up; losing not just a partner, but the love and affection of their children.
Men face serious issues, and we are faced with entrenched opposition from feminists who are passionately committed to defeating any attempt at equality and social justice.
It's past time we men worked together, supported each other, and worked to defend ourselves and our children.
Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong!
F4J presents itself as a crusading organizaton, helping fathers - it's nothing of the short. As I have learned, a parent cannot prevent another parent from seeing a child on accusation alone. That is a fact. The courts strive to include both parents at all costs. The overwhelming majority of parents resolve their child custody arrangement without a contentious court case. Those cases that go to court very, very rarely result in one parent being prevented from seeing their child.
Fact two: a parent will ONLY be prevented from seeing a child when there is clear, documented and evidenced risk to that child from that parent. It is not enough for, for example, the father to have repeatedly attacked the mother - it has to be demonstrated that the father would harm the child. This is fact, it is uncontroversial.
Fact three: look into the backgrounds of F4J and see the stories that emerged about the "hero" dads who got involved. See what they're really like. And then ask yourself if you;'d like to leave your children with them, a,one and unsupervised.
Fact four: the leadership of F4J seem addicted to any publicity whatsoever. They latch onto anyone and anything to try and get some attention - have a look at their idiotic Mumsnet campaign as an example. Their leader, Matt O'Connor, embarked on a widely ignored hunger strike last year. He claimed that he would go without food "for as long as it took". It petered out, embarrassingly, after seven days.
The list goes on and on. They aren't heroes: they' nobodies trying to be somebodies for an invented cause.
@FORMER F4J SUPPORTER
They aren't a collection of facts, it's really just relational aggression - fearmongering and rumour spreading.
"As I have learned, a parent cannot prevent another parent from seeing a child on accusation alone. That is a fact. The courts strive to include both parents at all costs. The overwhelming majority of parents resolve their child custody arrangement without a contentious court case. Those cases that go to court very, very rarely result in one parent being prevented from seeing their child."
I suspect that you are lying, because you never mentioned that court orders not being upheld are the main problem for f4j, you're calling vague accusations and claims "facts" and because in my experience with feminists, they tend to be very dishonest.
But carry on publishing obvious lies here, for all the readers to see exactly what feminists have been contributing to this debate all these years.
Back your claims up with statistics. The law, as it stands, has no provision supporting mother over father. The courts do not accept unsubstantiated accusations. Drug addicts and convicted criminals, for example, regularly get custody of their children, as long as they don't represent a threat to them. Courts very rarely, and only in grave exceptional circumstances, prevent a parent access to a child.
To believe anything else is to believe the nonsense of a gaggle of attention seeking embittered divorcees.
Disprove me, I challenge you.
@ FORMER F4J SUPPORTER
I challenge you to demonstrate a modicum of intellectual honesty and back up your claims with statistics.
Also, prove a past association with F4J.
An F4J member admits assaulting his partner and having "anger problems". The mother of the child confirms that his domestic abuse, which was documented, DID NOT have an impact on his ability to see his child. The father, however, stopped seeing his son of his own accord, following yet another instance of violence.
And the scale of the "problem"? "Figures last year (2003) showed the courts dealt with around 37,000 cases and men were refused contact in 650 cases, that's about 2%. So I think they have exaggerated this out of all proportion."
"A study by the Oxford Centre for Family Law and Policy was set up by the Ministry of Justice to look into non-resident parents being awarded little or no contact with their children for the flimsiest of reasons. Last week, the study concluded that the vast majority of separated fathers enjoy access to their children. Only one in 10 cases ends up in court, the rest having been agreed between the parents. When the cases do go to court, more than three-quarters of the applicants, mainly fathers, are able to resolve contact issues, with only a small percentage denied contact altogether, in the interests of the children involved. "
And about F4J craving any attention, regardless of how negative:
Q -People think you're just sad dads that put on Spiderman suits to see their kids.
A - As long as they know about us, I don't care.
This was pulled from a single search engine in a few minutes.
Of course, because you're an MRA, you will claim that it is "Guardian Feminazis" who wrote all of the above and that it's all part of a "misandric" conspiracy. And, of course, you'll be seen for the deluded MRA imbecile that you are.
As for my association with F4J? Where did I clain one? I supported them until I found myself in a family court and I realised what a bunch of easily proven liars they are.
Ok, your source is an agenda driven hit piece by feminists at the guardian that points out what everyone knows anyway - that the majority of adults can settle their custody arrangements easily and most of the family courts time is used up by people that are using them as a weapon to harm their ex via obstructing custody to the child and people that refuse to honour their court ordered custody agreements with impunity.
How inanely predictable. You accept that the overwhelming majority of cases are settled amicably yet still refuse to comdemn F4J's idiotic reason for being? You can't have it both ways.
They are an organisation that lobby on behalf of a tiny number of fathers, most of whom are a danger to children. What a great group of people!!
Rhiannon Lucy Cosslett and Holly Baxter are co-founders and editors of online magazine, The Vagenda.