to think that if men feel they are disadvantaged in, for example, the Family Court and other areas, they should all...

[BertrandRussell]

.....join with radical feminists, who want an equitable society with no discrimination against anyone?

Your question assumes, firstly, that all radical feminists want the same thing; and secondly, that the aim(s) of radical absolute equality.

I'd contend that - rightly or wrongly - many rad fems don't want equality. Equal access, and the associated rights and responsibilities with regard to children are rarely mentioned in current rad fem discourse. I frequently hear demands for parity in pay and/or power, but rarely for paternity leave, rights and protections.

I think it was Germaine Greer in the Female Eunuch, who said, 'feminists don't demand equality, we demand liberation'.

That said, all things being equal, I agree with you entirely!

most radical feminists I know dont in fact want a equal society they want one with women in charge and often the same ones saying there shouldnt be women prisons becasue female criminals are just sick and should be in treatment centres etc.

If you think radical feminists are anything close to being egalitarians, you're mistaken.

the same ones saying there shouldnt be women prisons becasue female criminals are just sick and should be in treatment centres etc.

Oh yeah, having a vagina should be an excuse not to face justice. Idiots.

most radical feminists I know dont in fact want a equal society they want one with women in charge"

Those aren't radical feminists. Those are female supremacists. Well, I think that's what they must be- I've never actually met one

There's an interesting film on this subject called The Red Pill.

Don't confuse it with the Reddit forum of the same name which is a haven for misogyny though.

Don't normal feminists want an equitable society, though? Aren't radical feminists the ones who say things like "all heterosexual sex is rape"?

No. Radical feminists think that change can only really happen by restructuring the way we organise our society. As, for example, rethinking the assumption that the care of small children is primarily the role of women.

Women who say things like "all heterosexual sex is rape" are almost invariably saying it as a deliberately provocative "hook" for a discussion about the power balance of sex and an analysis of sex as a transaction.

the same ones saying there shouldnt be women prisons becasue female criminals are just sick and should be in treatment centres etc.

Do you have a link to this? I'm a member of a few rad fem groups and haven't heard anyone say this at all.

Equal access, and the associated rights and responsibilities with regard to children are rarely mentioned in current rad fem discourse.

Yes the are - the way (in the UK) to ensure equal rights, responsibilities and access to your children in the event of relationship breakdown is to take an equal part in raising them whilst you're in that relationship. Rad fems want men to step up and take that equal part, and in return have the opportunity to go out and have an equal shot in the work sphere that this shared parenting will enable.

YABU. I'm a radical feminist, and I do not want men to own half of any child they donated some sperm for. Why should they? Let's be realistic here, they don't invest anything much, unlike the mother, who risks her life.

Children should be free, and have the right to live with the person who has been their primary carer since day one, or if that person is for some reason found unfit to raise a child, the person who has been their secondary carer.

If a man never was the primary carer for the child he now wants to have rights over, well, tough shit. I'm not on his side. I'm on the child's side, and the child will want to stay with the person they know best.

And I am pretty sure the men who moan and complain about being "disadvantaged in the family court" actually are not stay at home dads. Or did anything over 50% of childcare. Most probably did nothing at all.

Because judging from the way our society worships men who do about 30% of childcare as heroes, it would be very very weird for family courts to not rule in the favour of such heroes.
(And I actually read that men get to be the resident parent in some 90% of cases they actually ask for it. They just don't want it very often. But I don't know where I read it, so .... disregard it if you want, but the way men are worshipped for doing actually less than their fair share cannot be explained away)

So, no, radical feminists aren't allies for silly MRAs who complain about not having enough male privilege yet.

Though I assume you are being ironic (sarcastic? Whatever, I can't tell that apart) and know very well why those men do not join with radical feminists.

Some serious misunderstanding of what a radical feminist is here

Totally not marking my place

what VV said.
Men will never campaign seriously around family court decisions, because those (in theory) put the childs interest first- in any case where a father is denied access to their children this will be because he is a danger to them. Men who moan about this sort of thing don't want those decisions looked at in detail.

"YABU. I'm a radical feminist, and I do not want men to own half of any child they donated some sperm for."

I'm not saying that. I'm saying that men get really angry that the family court discriminates against them, when what the court is doing generally is looking at which parent has been the primary carer. We have a society where women usually end up as the primary carer. If men want to be the primary, or 50% carer then society has to change to make that possible. So me should be supporting anything which makes society more equitable. QED.

I have a relative who would claim the Family Courts are inherently anti-men, he has pushed and pushed for more access to his children time and time again. Of course the reason he hasn't got more access is that he is a terrible human being, an awful and uninterested father who plays favourites between his kids when he isn't screaming at them scaring the shit out of them or just ignoring their existence entirely. The constant trips to court are just one more way to torture his ex-wife, but my word you should hear him rail about the (utterly imaginary) injustice of it all. Ironically if he had been a decent father (instead of scaring the children, spending all the family money, vanishing for days at a time shagging ) his ex wife would never have divorced him in the first place.

Men who moan about this sort of thing don't want those decisions looked at in detail.

This. Funny how you always hear about "evil ex wanting to punish me stopping me seeing my kids", as if the courts just say "sorry sir, the mother has informed us that she wants to get back at you, so you're no longer permitted contact". These blokes never seem to say "well I can't see them because I was emotionally and physically abusive with a drinking problem and an independent judge decided I'm too dangerous to see the children".

The court system doesn't need an overhaul in favour of men. They look at what is best for the child. Sadly in too many cases what's best for the child is to be as far away from the father as possible

Yes, I agree that most men don't want it and the family court doesn't need reform. But if men really did want it, they'd do something about it.

I'm not so sure, Bertrand, I suspect that rather than do something about it they'd tell feminists is their job to get it for them, with the oh so classic "isn't equality what you fight for?".

Look at Fathers 4 Justice (where some members have incredibly dodgy backgrounds). They were welcomed by the government to be an official stakeholder so they could feed into legislation which looked to give family laws a better gender balance. They did piss all about it. Too busy dicking about in superhero costumes and blaming women for all their problems.

But it is much more enjoyable to dress up as spider man for the afternoon than spend years doing 50% of the childcare, organising doctors appointments, supervising homework blah blah blah.

Plus you have the added bonus of still doing bugger all with the kids and your family and friends feeling sorry for you when you blame the family courts and not your overall parenting incompetence.

It's a win win for dead beat dads.

but that's like the men who complain that women's refuges/DV services discriminate against men! they don't really care about male victims! they just want to make out how hard done by men are, poor things.

I agree Bertrand. Almost every other facet of society favours men over women, why are family court rulings supposedly so different? Especially when they are presided by male judges, who will have had a male-centric legal education in a male-centric world. The only logical answer is that there is no great desire for change in the status quo.

"I'm not so sure, Bertrand, I suspect that rather than do something about it they'd tell feminists is their job to get it for them, with the oh so classic "isn't equality what you fight for?" Absolutely. You make my point for me!

YANBU OP, both groups who seek to limit women's choices should join together under one umbrella. Then I can more easily ignore them both

I know someone whose ex has a non molestation order on her and their children because after they split he attacked her, smashed her windows, slashed her tyres, turned up drunk to collect the children from school, drink drove with them, among other things.

This bloke will tell all and sundry that his ex is a conniving bitch and that the family courts are sexist, and out to get him. He'll tell them the letters his sons wrote to the family court were in "her words" and he's a great dad and women like her give other women a bad name.

And people eat it up!!