AIBU to think that if MN are willing to boycott certain groups on ethical grounds

OK, how about someone who actually works in the field of family separation/family courts and worked with the government agencies?

This is her response to the article you rejected:

'This is a clearly analysed exposition of the what I have come to understand about the sector that I work in. This, more than anything is why the UK suffers fatherlessness on the most appalling scale. Working as I do with generational family separation, I know that unless we begin to dismantle this, we will never begin to restore the relationships between children and their fathers which have been discarded in the name of feminism. Thank you Ex Injuria for your careful and diligent work, only by writing our own narratives and providing our own analyses will we change the future for our children. Just as second wave feminists became active in all spheres of policy and practice, it is time for an equalities movement which provides its own research, Studies and written and verbal response to the troubles of our time.'

More:

karenwoodall.wordpress.com/2013/08/18/no-blacks-no-irish-no-dads/

Really am going now.

I got as far as "the feminism challenge is to destroy the family..." Sorry, but I don't buy that. Feminists don't want to destroy the family - I myslef have a fully functioning family - and pretty traditional set up too.

But, but, what if feminism is allowing women not to put up with abusive relationships? Not to just stay together, in an awful relationship, just because that's the 'done' thing? Because women are equals and deserve not to be abused. Well, then, maybe women being able to leave a bad relationship is a good thing. Being able to support herself, and being able to call on the father of her children to pay something towards them - that's a good thing, yes?

Just look at the world around you. Who is earning less, who is more likely to be in positions of power, who tends to be poorer? It is clear that women get a worse deal than men.

Treen, that's where you and I will have to disagree. The structural inequalities experienced by women are, in my opinion, far more significant than those experienced by men. I could provide you with some data to support this view, but I'm on my phone right now :)

They still name on their site AVFC as a hate group.

www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2012/spring/misogyny-the-sites

Sigmund, that link is to an anti feminist blog. I linked to parliamentary papers. You need to provide a more credible source for your claims.

Was it, oh a 'sammich' then!!

Oh and the SPLC withdrew their statement that AVFM was a hate site. Stay current eh?

A patriarchy joke

I was making a sandwich actually.

Actually, I'm going to leave sabrina with this. It's an enlightening, completely non-MRA read about family courts..

exinjuria.wordpress.com/2013/10/17/an-exercise-in-absolute-futility-chapter-seven/

Sigmond has to do the washing up, there's your answer Sabrina

Yes, there is obviously much more information that that linked article about the father, is leaving out. Courts do not reduce access on the say so of the mother. Their remit is to put children first.

MRA groups are hate groups.

"In its latest quarterly publication “The Year in Hate and Extremism” (Issue 45, Spring 2012) the Southern Poverty Law Center, or SPLC, names Men’s Rights Activists as a hate group, citing the MRAs’ — alternately known as “Father’s Rights Activists” — virulent misogyny, spreading of false anti-woman propaganda and applauding and even encouraging acts of domestic terrorism and extreme violence against women and children, up to and including murder. "

radfemworldnews.wordpress.com/2012/03/09/southern-poverty-law-center-names-mens-rights-activists-mras-as-hate-group/

I have to depart the discussion now, Kim, thanks for your thoughts which I'll try to respond to tomorrow, plus sabrina's patriarchy stuff.

Laters.

Prompting a DM article.....

There was a very infamous story from F4J about a father "jailed for sending a text' to his child. What F4J neglected to inform us was that the text contained a death threat to the mother. It's all smoke and mirrors in the mens rights organisations.

Earth, one problem doesn't have to trump another. That's what it means.
I'm on my phone, I'll get you some MRA/men's issues websites when I can. I'm sure there are some threads on here that will show elements of moderate issues

This article dispels the myth of gender bias in the US family justice system.

www.huffingtonpost.com/cathy-meyer/dispelling-the-myth-of-ge_b_1617115.html

Well, what are you saying about Elam then, sigmunde? He's not meant to be taken seriously? Fine. I don't take him seriously. But more than once, he has passed off his misogynistic rhetoric as a joke, that we're not meant to take literally (as you said).

A parliamentary report about custody arrangements:

"Accusations of institutionalised gender bias were not uncommon. What was notable, however was this
position was held by both mothers and fathers, each alleging that the system was biased against them. Thus:

Fathers:

Rejected the dominant operating concept of a resident and contact parent;
Argued for a principle of shared care, giving equality of status to both parents, shared decision-making and
a roughly equal division of time;
Disputed the assumption made by courts and FCWO’s that shared parenting can only work if there is a low
level of parental conflict;
Believed that the small number of residence orders made in favour of fathers and the ineffective
enforcement of contact orders demonstrated a systematic prejudice against fathers;
Saw the family court welfare officer, as agent of the court and anti-father;
Believed that FCWO’s took the expressed wishes of the child at face value, ignoring the possibility that
they had been heavily influenced by the mother.

Mothers:

Felt that the family justice system was male-dominated and promoted the interests of fathers against those
of mothers and children;
Saw the family court welfare officer as pro-father;
Believed that the individual needs of their own child were sacrificed to the general principle that contact is
in the interests of most children, a principle most did not dispute in itself, only in application to their own
circumstances;
Believed that no account was taken of fathers’ past failures to support and nurture the child;
Believed that fathers used the courts to continue an oppressive relationship;
Argued that their own needs as carer were ignored. "

www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/FamilyJusticeMemoPart1.pdf

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-464132/Jailed-waving-daughter.html

Oh, I see. Feminists just not getting the joke again?'

It isn't meant to be funny ha ha. It's meant to make a point.

Treen, what do you mean by "some problems will be linked, some will be two sides of a coin, some will stand alone. People will choose their own issues to address and look in to"?

And please can you provide some links to reasonable MRA sites as requested?

Or perhaps you can assist, SigmundFraude?

No, it really isn't sigmunde. Children of divorced parents have the right to see both parents, and this is enshrined in family law - and as I've found our recently, even a very good reason for them not to see their father (convicted of paedephilia offences) is often not even seen as a good enough reason for the father not to have access.

Provide us of evidence of that from somewhere that isn't an MRA site?