To ask your views on MRAs?

[HoldYourBunFire]

Ok (I have actually name changed for this!) please before I get my biscuits I would like to start by saying this thread is not intended to start any sort of bun fight. I am actually serious. There have been a few threads recently that have sparked my interest in this movement and the deeper I delve into it it's actually starting to look a lot less like a bunch of women bashing misogynists screaming "I hate feminism". There are actually quite a few genuine men out there trying to protest their rights particularly in regards to the family court system.

As the mother of a 3yo DS I am increasingly worried about what the attitude towards men is becoming? Quite a big generalization I know but you have to admit that there is quite alot of man hating going on out there (and in here). We all have Fathers, Brothers, Sons, Husbands etc..

I guess what I am trying to say is that in the face of Womens rights movments and feminism (which I truly thank God every day for as I know how hard my day to day life would be without them) have we forgotten Mens rights?

[MarySueFTW]

If those 100 women/21 men killed figures are correct, and I've no reason to think they are not, it does annoy me that articles like this get written endlessly about the subject (just found it by accident)

www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2005/dec/10/ukcrime.prisonsandprobation

It doesn't give the figures it just says the 'overwhelming majority of victims are women' then gives details of 68 women to 10 men, implying a 7/1 proportional split. Worse, it explains that (almost) every single time a woman kills a man it's because he was abusive and had it coming. That doesn't excuse murder (although it's almost widely accepted that it does these days).
Yet for men, there are no mitigating circumstances that the female killers are given. There is no mention of women abusing men, or violence from women. Simply doesn't exist unless justified by male behaviour. This the one-sided 'journalism' that stopped me buying The Guardian btw. The whole thing turns into the usual shame-fest of how men get away with it all the time, the courts are too lenient... that ancient quote from Sean Connery is dredged up again, alongside one from noted thinker Gazza and Mike Tyson (two people whose violence against women contributed greatly to their fall from hero status. Nowadays Rihanna seems quicker to forgive Chris Brown than society does). Just call the piece 'How men beat and murder women and practically get away with it all the time!' It's good to discuss domestic violence. It's really unfair - and shitty journalism - to pretend it's all men, or all because of men, or that there is a huge culture of men who support and endorse domestic violence.

(from the article)"When we lionise abusers, feel sorry for those who kill women who nag, and sentence men who've killed their lovers to paltry terms in jail, you have to ask: are so many women killed by their partners because society lets men get away with it?"

We don't lionise abusers, we don't feel sorry for those who kill 'women who nag' and courts don't treat violent crime and murder seriously enough I agree. Now go hand in your NUJ card, you can't be trusted with the news.

[BoneyBackJefferson]

"Women who kill their
batterers receive longer
prison sentences than men
who kill their partners."

"The average prison sentence for men who have killed
their wives was 17.5 years; the average sentence for
women convicted of killing their husbands was 6.2
years."

www.mediaradar.org/docs/RADARreport-50-DV-Myths.pdf

from
www.saveservices.org/

[HerBeX]

Almost.... nearly... Iceland.

But not quite, it's prob one of the most egalitarian places on the planet, but it's still nowehre near completely equal.

Mary, it wasn't Matt O'Connor who served time it was another one of the inner group, I can't remember his anme, Eddie something I think? And a few other big noises in f4j had records for DV. Matt O'connor fwir was denied contact because he simply didn't turn up for visits to begin with - I expect he was denied contact on his terms, which doubtless were unreasonable. But funnily enough, though F4J had a lot to say about the subject of children having a right to see their fathers when their fathers wanted to see them, they had nothing to say on the subject of the children's rights to see their fathers when the fathers didn't bother to turn up.

[sunshineandbooks]

Boney both those sites are clearly sites that attempt to suggest that female violence is on a par with male violence. The data that they call on is significantly flawed.

Both sites used the "there are 250 studies that show DV is equal between men and women". Quite aside from the fact that using meta-analysis of statistics can lead to some seriously skewed results, there are two main criticisms about the surveys they are using to substantiate this claim:

Firstly, some the studies use so-called Conflict Tactic Scales (scales that measure isolated ?hits.? Each stab, bite, and punch etc). These do not taking into account the context of the episode, such as whether the strikes made by women were in self defence, nor is there any balance about the severity of each "hit" (e.g. a slap is recorded with the same severity as a broken jaw).

Secondly, several of the studies are (IMO deliberately) skewing the statistics because they examining the incidence of violence in relationships where there are other issues going on (for example, the study carried out by the National Alcohol and Family Violence Survey, whose sample only includes families in which problem drinking is an issue).

One of the of the arguments used by people who claim male-on-female abuse is seriously over-estimated is that it's a small number of men who repeat the same offences. How then can the aim be "to preserve families and partner relationships whenever it is possible and safe to do so" (from your SaveServices site) - since we've established that abusers tend to be repeat offenders. Bancroft's research suggests that 95% of men who abuse continue to abuse and that anger management/perpetrator programmes are woefully ineffective. Most DV experts agree that the only real solution that works is for the victim to remove themselves from the relationship.

I have a problem with sites that place so much emphasis on false allegations and the rights of the perpetrator before it starts to remember that it had better include the usual statements about gender/race inclusivity and constitutional law. These are the sorts of MRA sites that give groups like Families Need Fathers an undeserved bad name IMO.

[BoneyBackJefferson]

To take your first point, I have seen no survey that breaks down whether the context of the male violence, self defence or otherwise, or the severity of the hit.

to take the second point, surveys of female on male violence are difficult to find, unfortunately this will skew the results.

from women's aid "89% of victims were women."

yet the BCS says that the percentage of female on male violence between 95 ans 2007 has not dropped below 15%.

IMHO all sections with a vested interest skew the results to show what they want.

Bancroft's research may well be the case, and most DV experts will give that advice to both male and female victims.

"I have a problem with sites that place so much emphasis on false allegations and the rights of the perpetrator"

that doesn't stop valid points being made.

[wicketkeeper]

I know a lot of men. I live with one. I used to live with a different one. I gave birth to one. My father is one. I work with a few. I bump in to others around and about. I'm not going to say all men are perfect, because no human beings are perfect - but the only way we will get equality is if we start treating them as equals (I've already said this under a different thread for the eagle-eyed among you), not as enemies.

[sunshineandbooks]

Women are not dealing with men as though they are equals because women do not have equal status yet. It is a mistake to thnk that this means anyone campaigning for women's rights or against some of the misogynistic men's rights groups see men as the enemy.

I repeat from earlier: I don't view men as a different species who are somehow out to get me and hold me back. My boss is a man and a wonderful one at that. I have male friends, male relatives and a male child as well as a female one. I love them all and several of them have been actively involved in supporting feminism. You get good men and bad men the same way you get good women and bad women. In our daily lives we can only treat as we find.

I am talking about the system, rather than men. I do not believe there is anything biological in men that make them more likely than women to murder their partners or to rise to the top of the corporate world, yet the fact that more of them do so requires explanation. I believe that our system is responsible for gender inequality because although it has evolved and is becoming more equal every year, it was originally set up by men and incorporated those advantages. The legacy of this still hangs on in places and still disadvantages women.

[HellAtWork]

MarySueFTW I am suspicious of FathersNeedFamilies - mainly because they quote a known supporter of paedophilia on their website, a Dr Gardner, as the leading proponent (in fact, creator of the theory of Parental Alienation Syndrome PAS) who before his suicide in 1983 said a LOT of very dodgy things about fathers who had sexually abused their children and the father's rights to continue seeing their children, branding mothers who wanted to protect their children as hysterical.

Why rely on quoting such a man? If there is such widespread PAS (if it exists) why not look to other sources? Why taint their argument for PAS to be recognised by referencing a man who said things like:


Gardner on pedophilia

The vast majority ("probably over 95%") of all sex abuse allegations are valid.

Gardner, R.A. (1991). Sex Abuse Hysteria: Salem Witch Trials Revisited . Cresskill, NJ: Creative Therapeutics (pp. 7, 140).

"There is a bit of pedophilia in every one of us."

Gardner, R.A. (1991). Sex Abuse Hysteria: Salem Witch Trials Revisited . Cresskill, NJ: Creative Therapeutics. (p. 118)

"Pedophilia has been considered the norm by the vast majority of individuals in the history of the world."

Gardner, R.A. (1992). True and False Accusations of Child Sex Abuse . Cresskill, NJ: Creative Therapeutics. (p. 592-3)

Similarly, "intrafamilial pedophilia (that is, incest) is widespread and ? is probably an ancient tradition"

Gardner, R.A. (1991). Sex Abuse Hysteria: Salem Witch Trials Revisited . Cresskill, NJ: Creative Therapeutics. (p. 119)

"It is because our society overreacts to it [pedophilia] that children suffer."

Gardner, R.A. (1992). True and False Accusations of Child Sex Abuse . Cresskill, NJ: Creative Therapeutics. (pp. 594-5)

Pedophilia may enhance the survival of the human species by serving "procreative purposes."

Gardner, R.A. (1992). True and False Accusations of Child Sex Abuse . Cresskill, NJ: Creative Therapeutics. (pp. 24-5)

Pedophilia "is a widespread and accepted practice among literally billions of people."

Gardner, R.A. (1986). Child Custody Litigation: A Guide for Parents and Mental Health Professionals . Cresskill, NJ: Creative Therapeutics, (p. 93)

In addition, Gardner proposes that many different types of human sexual behavior, including pedophilia, sexual sadism, necrophilia (sex with corpses), zoophilia (sex with animals), coprophilia (sex involving defecation), can be seen as having species survival value and thus do "not warrant being excluded from the list of the `so-called natural forms of human sexual behavior.?"

See, Gardner, R.A. (1992). True and False Accusations of Child Sex Abuse . Cresskill, NJ: Creative Therapeutics. (pp. 18-32)

Gardner on the sexual aggressiveness of children

Gardner suggests that children want to have sex with adults and may seduce them.

Some children experience " high sexual urges in early infancy. " "There is good reason to believe that most, if not all, children have the capacity to reach orgasm at the time they are born."

Gardner, R.A. (1992). True and False Accusations of Child Sex Abuse . Cresskill, NJ: Creative Therapeutics. (p. 15)

Children are naturally sexual and may initiate sexual encounters by "seducing" the adult.

Gardner, R.A. (1986). Child Custody Litigation: A Guide for Parents and Mental Health Professionals. Cresskill, NJ: Creative Therapeutics (p. 93).

If the sexual relationship is discovered, " the child is likely to fabricate so that the adult will be blamed for the initiation ."

Gardner, R.A. (1986). Child Custody Litigation: A Guide for Parents and Mental Health Professionals. Cresskill, NJ: Creative Therapeutics (p. 93).

"The normal child exhibits a wide variety of sexual fantasies and behaviors, many of which would be labeled as ?sick? or ?perverted? if exhibited by adults"

Gardner, R.A. (1991). Sex Abuse Hysteria: Salem Witch Trials Revisited . Cresskill, NJ: Creative Therapeutics. (p. 12)

Sex abuse is not necessarily traumatic; the determinant as to whether sexual molestation will be traumatic to the child, is the social attitude toward these encounters.

Gardner, R.A. (1992). True and False Accusations of Child Sex Abuse . Cresskill, NJ: Creative Therapeutics. (pp. 670-71)

Gardner on therapy with children who are sexually abused by their father

? Keep the child connected to the abuser

Special care should be taken not alienate the child from the molesting parent. The removal of a pedophilic parent from the home "should only be seriously considered after all attempts at treatment of the pedophilia and rapprochement with the family have proven futile."

Gardner, R.A. (1992). True and False Accusations of Child Sex Abuse . Cresskill, NJ: Creative Therapeutics.(p. 537)

The child should be told that there is no such thing as a perfect parent. "The sexual exploitation has to be put on the negative list, but positives as well must be appreciated"

Gardner, R.A. (1992). True and False Accusations of Child Sex Abuse . Cresskill, NJ: Creative Therapeutics.(p. 572)

? Tell the child that sexual abuse by a father is normal

Older children may be helped to appreciate that sexual encounters between an adult and a child are not universally considered to be reprehensible acts. The child might be told about other societies in which such behavior was and is considered normal. The child might be helped to appreciate the wisdom of Shakespeare?s Hamlet, who said, "Nothing?s either good or bad, but thinking makes it so."

Gardner, R.A. (1992). True and False Accusations of Child Sex Abuse . Cresskill, NJ: Creative Therapeutics.(p. 549)

"In such discussions the child has to be helped to appreciate that we have in our society an exaggeratedly punitive and moralistic attitude about adult-child sexual encounters"

Gardner, R.A. (1992). True and False Accusations of Child Sex Abuse . Cresskill, NJ: Creative Therapeutics.(p. 572).

Gardner on mothers who discover that their husband is sexually abusing their child

Gardner blames the father?s abuse on the mother, who he faults for not fulfilling her husband sexually. He suggests that therapists should help mother?s of incest victims achieve sexual gratification.

? Discourage litigation.

? Encourage her to stay with her husband (the abuser)

? Blame her and the daughter for the sexual abuse by the father

"It may be that one of the reasons the daughter turned toward the father is the impairment of the child?s relationship with the mother" (pp. 579-80)

Gardner, R.A. (1992). True and False Accusations of Child Sex Abuse . Cresskill, NJ: Creative Therapeutics. (p. 585)

? Help her get over her anger at her husband for sexually abusing their child.

"If the mother has reacted to the abuse in a hysterical fashion, or used it as an excuse for a campaign of denigration of the father, then the therapist does well to try and "sober her up"?. Her hysterics ? will contribute to the child?s feeling that a heinous crime has been committed and will thereby lessen the likelihood of any kind of rapproachment with the father. One has to do everything possible to help her put the "crime" in proper perspective. She has to be helped to appreciate that in most societies in the history of the world, such behavior was ubiquitous [i.e., everywhere], and this is still the case."

Gardner, R.A. (1992). True and False Accusations of Child Sex Abuse . Cresskill, NJ: Creative Therapeutics. (pp. 576-7)

"Perhaps she can be helped to appreciate that in the history of the world his behavior has probably been more common than the restrained behavior of those who do not sexually abuse their children."

Gardner, R.A. (1992). True and False Accusations of Child Sex Abuse . Cresskill, NJ: Creative Therapeutics. (pp. 585)

? Encourage her to become more sexually responsive to her husband.

"Her increased sexuality may lessen the need for her husband to return to their daughter for sexual gratification."

"Verbal statements about the pleasures of orgastic response are not likely to prove very useful. One has to encourage experiences, under proper situations of relaxation, which will enable her to achieve the goal of orgastic response."

"One must try to overcome any inhibition she may have with regard to [the use of vibrators]."

"Her own diminished guilt over masturbation will make it easier for her to encourage the practice in her daughter, if this is warranted. And her increased sexuality may lessen the need for her husband to return to their daughter for sexual gratification."

Gardner, R.A. (1992). True and False Accusations of Child Sex Abuse . Cresskill, NJ: Creative Therapeutics. (p. 585)

Gardner on fathers who sexually abuse their children

? Tell him what he did his normal

"He has to be helped to appreciate that, even today, it [pedophilia] is a widespread and accepted practice among literally billions of people. He has to appreciate that in our Western society especially, we take a very punitive and moralistic attitude toward such inclinations. He has had a certain amount of back (sic) luck with regard to the place and time he was born with regard to social attitudes toward pedophilia."

Gardner, R.A. (1992). True and False Accusations of Child Sex Abuse . Cresskill, NJ: Creative Therapeutics. (p. 593)

He has had bad luck with regard to the place and time he was born with regard to social attitudes toward pedophilia. However, these are not reasons to condemn himself.

Gardner, R.A. (1991). Sex Abuse Hysteria: Salem Witch Trials Revisited . Cresskill, NJ: Creative Therapeutics. (p. 119)

? Keep him in the home

The removal of a pedophilic parent from the home "should only be seriously considered after all attempts at treatment of the pedophilia and rapprochement with the family have proven futile"

Gardner, R.A. (1991). Sex Abuse Hysteria: Salem Witch Trials Revisited . Cresskill, NJ: Creative Therapeutics. (p. 119)

? Help him protect himself

"He must learn to control himself if he is to protect himself from the Draconian punishments meted out to those in our society who act out their pedophilic impulses."

Gardner, R.A. (1992). True and False Accusations of Child Sex Abuse . Cresskill , NJ: Creative Therapeutics. (pp. 585-592)

? Help him forget about it

Therapy with the father should not be spent focusing on the primary problem (I.e., sexual molestation). Instead, therapy should be spent "talking about other things" as the goal of therapy is "to help people forget about their problems"

Gardner, R.A. (1992). True and False Accusations of Child Sex Abuse . Cresskill, NJ: Creative Therapeutics. (pp. 585-592)

Gardner on how society should respond to the widespread victimization of children

Take a more sympathetic view toward pedophilia

"One of the steps that society must take to deal with the present hysteria is to ?come off it? and take a more realistic attitude toward pedophile.?

[aliceliddell]

Gardner sounds lovely. Do you have his phone number?
I get the feeling that the massive campaign of Justice for Women to change the law on provocation so that years of dv did count as provocation, that waiting until he was eg asleep then stabbing him was reasonable when a woman has a well founded fear of death by dv., has now been forgotten. Bit of a stretch for some - but women kill men in self defence.

[MarySueFTW]

Whoever this Gardner is, do you think quoting him on their website is any reason to think they are going to be promoting paedophilia? That seems very unlikely to me, and an excuse not to listen.

[HellAtWork]

MarySueFTW

You said: "Whoever this Gardner is, do you think quoting him on their website is any reason to think they are going to be promoting paedophilia? That seems very unlikely to me, and an excuse not to listen."

I did not say FnF were promoting paedophilia. You appear to have misread what I said.

Just to remind you. I said:

"Why rely on quoting such a man? If there is such widespread PAS (if it exists) why not look to other sources? Why taint their argument for PAS to be recognised by referencing a man who said things like...."

So I was agreeing with you, in the sense that yes, quoting someone with those views does nothing to strengthen their argument for the existence of PAS and everything to tarnish it. So why quote him? What good does it do? Why do you think they choose to quote him? Do you not think it risks tarnishing their reputation by associating themselves with such disreputable (and quite frankly, morally repulsive) views?

If there are other more reputable sources for their proposal that PAS exists then why not quote someone else who does not taint their argument? Why quote someone (Dr Gardner) who clearly thinks mothers who wish to stop fathers sexually abusing their children are hysterical and preventing something natural and acceptable because paedophiles and incest has always existed (Dr Gardner obviously hasn't considered Hume's naturalistic fallacy rejecting the derivation of an ought from an is but doesn't let that bother him - paedophiles exist and therefore paedophiles ought to exist)

[KilledBill]

That post about Gardner is beyond disturbing, and yes it is more than enough reason to be suspicious of anyone quoting him - either they support his views, or they are so moronic they quote someone without researching who they are and what they say first.

Interesting that his words are all about men, to daughters, and it being the mothers fault. So what would he say if it was one of the (rare) cases where the mother was the sexual abuser? Or if it was a male being abused? He sounds like a man who hates women and sees them all as sex objects, regardless of age or relation. To say the mother basically didnt give the man enough sex is beyond disgusting, I cant believe anyone would publish such monsterous words.

[MarySueFTW]

You are both still implying that a quote on a website is reason to be suspicious of the whole group. Having checked their website I can see they agree with Gardner's ideas on Parental Alienation Syndrome. Although I see from the wiki page on PAS that it is not widely recognised, I don't know why. Do some mothers turn their children against their fathers by lying about them? I know of at least three examples of just that, personally.

As for what he says about paedos, I can't agree with what he says but I think Familys Need Fathers can back the idea of PAS without endorsing everything else Gardner has written.

I just see men who want to see their children, forming support groups or becoming activist about it, and plenty of women saying 'I don't recognise your issues because you quoted this person on your website, etc'

[HellAtWork]

You are both still implying that a quote on a website is reason to be suspicious of the whole group.

I am suspicious. In the same way I would be suspicious if someone said to me, "oh I don't support paedophilia but I can't see why everyone got so angry about Gary Glitter etc (too depressing to list)". And that is even where someone saying that has categorically stated they don't support paedophilia. If you are going to quote sources to back up your argument (in this case FnF for PAS) then they need to address this and be clear that they only support his creation of PAS. They are very clear on the same web page to urge fathers against trying to use PAS in child custody cases because of its tarnished reputation. So why mention it at all? In not being clear they run the risk of people assuming their agenda is the same as Dr Gardner's.

Having checked their website I can see they agree with Gardner's ideas on Parental Alienation Syndrome. Although I see from the wiki page on PAS that it is not widely recognised, I don't know why.

The Wikipedia page tells you exactly why PAS is not widely recognised. Did you not read that far?

Do some mothers turn their children against their fathers by lying about them? I know of at least three examples of just that, personally

Yes I am sure some mothers do that. I tell you what, why don't you self-publish a lot of articles about how you believe this is an entire syndrome worthy of medical attention and is preventing fathers who have sexually abused their children from contact with them (and for the whole effect why not go so far as to say that husbands wouldn't need to sexually abuse their daughters if mothers would just give the fathers the sex that is their right). Dr Gardner may have already got there first, but it seems you and he share the view that anecdotes = scientific data, so you won't even need any professional training. Bonus.

As for what he says about paedos, I can't agree with what he says but I think Familys Need Fathers can back the idea of PAS without endorsing everything else Gardner has written.

Unfortunately, there is little academic or scientific support for the existence of PAS apart from Dr Gardner, because he created it. Hence I suppose why they can only really quote him. So let's get this clear, PAS is not medically, legally or scientifically accepted. FnF even go so far as to warn fathers from attempting to introduce PAS into custody cases. And yet they still quote it as if it exists. They are doing their membership a massive disservice. All I can see is one man who hated women and lay the blame for child sexual abuse by fathers at the foot of mothers, and translated this into PAS to prevent those mothers who wanted to protect their children from further abuse. And FnF endorse this. Damn right I'm suspicious. I am very surprised you wouldn't be too?

I just see men who want to see their children, forming support groups or becoming activist about it, and plenty of women saying 'I don't recognise your issues because you quoted this person on your website, etc'

You're not from Texas by an chance are you Mary-Sue?

[MarySueFTW]

Oh that James/Jamez. No I'm not him. I still see a rights group for fathers being entirely dismissed on their support for a theory that from my experience sounds feasible. They want to change laws - just as I read that a pressure group for women tried to make stabbing someone while they sleep an admissible reason for murder. That would include getting a theory recognised by the courts I suppose. But even if that theory is baloney, men who want to see their children haven't got much choice of pressure group and they are being tarred as paedo-apologists by proxy. It looks like an excuse to dismiss genuine issues.

[HellAtWork]

MarySueFTW So what could they do about that? How about raising finance for an independent scientific study into PAS that doesn't originate and depend on the theory's author's support for paedophilia.

That would be a good start.

But no, far simpler to tell their members this exists but not to mention it because will damage their chances in a custody hearing and not explain why.

[HellAtWork]

"But even if that theory is baloney, men who want to see their children haven't got much choice of pressure group and they are being tarred as paedo-apologists by proxy. It looks like an excuse to dismiss genuine issues."

If I was a dad who was being denied contact with my children because, for non-abuse related reasons, and the parental relationship had completely broken down and I felt my children were being turned against me...and I went looking for advice and was fed this load of BS for FnF and trotted it out to people as scientific fact and thus ended up looking like a paedo-apologist I would be fucking furious. At FnF firstly. Not great support at all. And secondly at myself for not digging around before pledging my allegiance.

So why do you think men don't have much choice of pressure group? Is that because men are not setting up pressure groups to provide that choice? Who should be responsible for providing men with a choice of pressure groups apart from themselves? Your sounding a bit poor menz, got no pressure groupz because the womens have them all. They can set up any number of pressure groups. It's up to them to provide that choice for themselves isn't it?

[MarySueFTW]

When you ridicule me for sympathizing with men - men who are parents who cannot see their children - you don't do yourself any favours I'm afraid.

Well I have three boys and if and when they ever get married I hope its to the right women. But if its not, and if things turn sour they are denied access to their kids, if I can't play with my grand-children - then I hope there are many choices of support for them, and I hope all women aren't going to dismiss their parental rights.

And as for PAS maybe you do not have a little nephew that has repeated lies about his father, told to him by his mother. I welcome more research, or more resources for men denied visitation, but that doesn't invalidate Families Need Fathers. I'm not going to just say 'oh its a menz thing, you set it up and I'll knock it down' like some people.

[mayorquimby]

Not an MRA as far as I'm aware, and while I would consider myself a feminist there's been a fair few things posted in the past couple of days which I would vehimently disagree with.
However the tactic of belittling the issue of mens rights or pressure groups with the addition of a "Z" to read as menz/groupz is just pathetic and really looks like people are seeking to dismiss any issues without engaging them.
I'd say it's a large reason why many on the other threads discussed why they wouldn't class themself as feminist because they feel that a certain strand of feminism is only concerned with womens issues rather than examining instances of discrimination if and when they appear regardless of gender and they don't want to get tagged in with that.
I'd be equaly as critical of any group which sought to dismiss off-hand a feminist issue by making statemens about little wimmin moaning or some such.
I'm not saying that I necessarily disagree with you about the pressure groups issue or issues relating to F4J, but the way people go about it just gives them ammo to continue even if they are in the wrong.

[HellAtWork]

MarySueFTW I am not ridiculing you for sympathising with men? Where have you got that from? You seem to have a very set idea about what I believe in. I sympathise with men, especially men who go to FnF for help in the kind of situation your brother is in and are fed pseudo-theories created by a paedo-apologist. It makes me wonder why men don't set up support groups that are focused on their children's rights to see them (as opposed to father's right to see their children). My 'z' comments were in response to the fact that you appeared to think that the lack of choice of support groups for men were nothing to do with men not starting these support groups? Who else do you think should be providing them/setting up support groups for men?

[HellAtWork]

Mayorquimby As pathetic as I may be, I have tried to engage in the debate and have asked questions. Who do you think should be providing men with a choice of support groups?

I think FnF's support for Dr Gardner's pseudo-theories is an aberration and as a man I would be fighting for them to get that removed from their website and instead put good practical advice or better sourced science (or fight to fund a better researched theory not created by Dr Gardner) instead of aligning me with such rubbish. I would be deeply offended that they were undermining any support I wished to seek in the fight to continue my relationship with my children by providing credence in direct conflict with their advice of ooh don't mention PAS though because it doesn't go down well.

So what is the purpose of mentioning PAS on their website?

[MarySueFTW]

"I am not ridiculing you for sympathising with men? Where have you got that from? "

this "Your sounding a bit poor menz, got no pressure groupz because the womens have them all."

Why do you assume anyone is suggesting, as you keep asking, that anyone other than men should be forming support groups for men? Has anyone suggested the government or women should be forming them? I'll respect their existence though. The point is, when men do set up these groups they are dismissed on spurious grounds. Families Need Fathers, from looking at their website, is hardly based all around this PAS theory is it? They mention it alongside other research that suggests some divorced women make up lies about the father to restrict access. Personally I don't need much convincing on that one. Even then, it is not the main focus of the of the group, you are taking a small part of their website and using it to dismiss them and anyone fool enough to go to them.

[HellAtWork]

So looking at this from a marketing point of view Mary-Sue. I agree that it leads people to dismiss them - which is surely bad for their cause? So why wouldn't they delete it? Why would they want to be associated with Dr Gardner because as you say it totally detracts from their overall effort.

[MarySueFTW]

You say it totally detracts, because you are pre-disposed to rubbish it. If it wasn't that I'm sure you'd find something else.