If Fathers for Justice invade again

[Nyac]

will they still be welcome?

I'm referring to the thread in the Feminism/Women's Rights section -

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/a1419965-Agenda-much

where Justine said:

"an invasion - ie let's go on and tell those mumsnetters why they've got it all wrong - isn't necessarily the same as trolling tbh (ie deliberately misleading/antagonising). I think we ought to be able to be robust enough to be able to debate the issue, with the caveat, of course, that if visitors turn out merely to be here to wind up or hear to spread hatred then they are not welcome"

It appears that as long as they promote their agenda in PARD then no harm done. Is that a fair assessment?

The threats are extraordinary - they say they're going to run an ad in the local paper naming and shaming the firm and giving case details. As if the newspaper would just let them print what they want and wouldn't themselves be checking the legality of any risky-looking ads they ran!

The language on their site (the official bits, not the individuals posting in response) just looks so tabloid SHOCKER. It makes my teeth itch.

It is almost as if one could think that they are trying to appeal to the lowest common denominator.

the fact that they do no screening of their members and that amongst the men who a court decides is unfit to have any contact with their children there is sure to be a higher than usual proportion of pedophiles, rapists, very violent men means that there will be plenty of child abusers, violent criminals, rapists etc amongst them. this is not casting aspersions so far as i can see but a logical and straightforward deduction.

why would a decent man want to associate himself with such men?

for those people, men and women, who are decent and members of F4J i do hope they will bear in mind that they are rubbing shoulders with a higher than usual proportion of people who are dangerous to be around children and women and take the precautions that need to be taken. re: for the women jumping all over themselves to support these men i do hope they aren't exposing their children to fellow members and putting them at risk.

this isn't high drama or slander but fact - amongst a group that includes those who the courts and mothers have tried to prevent them having contact with their children there clearly will be a high proportion of those who are actually unfit to be around children (unless you're really delluded enough to think that every single one of them was a victim of a feminist conspiracy to deprive men of their children). ergo - don't let them near YOUR children.

Just coming to post that AM. Also, they have now not only called Gingerbread child abusers but an entire firm of solicitors?!

Basilrathbone

'And thank you for saying that you will ban people spouting misogynistic crap.

I think that's probably where a lot of the anger last night came from, the track record of mumsnet seeming to tolerate the most shockingly obvious misogynist trolls. You would never say something like "We don't only welcome people who like black people here" (would you??). But you said something similar about women (sorry, I can't remember the exact quote). It's that kind of thing that makes some of the posters suspect your commitment to women's rights - it would simply be beyond the pale for you to treat a raging loon who was going on about the Jewish world conspiracy, as if it's just the right of free speech - or would it? I'm not sure, at what stage does something get classified as hate speech and no longer worth defending as free speech?

I think that's where there is space for so much bad temper and ill -feeling - perhaps this stuff can be defined a lot better -either we put up with all hate speak, as long as it doesn't actually break any laws, or we take hate speech against women as seriously as we would against any other systematically disadvantaged group. Was it Tunip who talked about how one of the reasons this site can be so lightly moderated, is because it has an ethos of robust but reasonable debate and precisely because it is mostly women, that assumption of sheer vileness being acceptable, which you find in most of internet-land, is missing here. It's one of the things that makes the site valuable IMO and I think it's worth you defending. I really do understand that you want to err on the side of free speech and you don't want this site to be boring and asinine like some other parenting sites, but we're so far from that, I don't think there's any chance of this place becoming stupidised because of erring on the side of not tolerating the sort of vile, insulting crap that is standard discourse on most of the internet. It's more likely to be stupidised by tolerating that IMO.'

Replace the subject matter with Special Needs issues and that is one of the main complains and concerns that many regulars from the SN boards have with many postings on the main boards. The advice from MN has been the same.

I do love the bit where they call us foul-mouthed. After all it's not like any of their members go round calling people cunts, is it?

I still don't get why people who are threatening Mumsnet with legal action should be made welcome here.

It's bullying.

The Southern Poverty Law Centre, who know a thing or two about civil rights, have called the Men's Rights including the Father's Rights Movement, hate groups.

The Father's Rights movement here models themselves on their US counterparts and share close ideological connections.

Can't believe they'd be stupid enough to start on a solicitors firm.

Really?

They are back...

There seem to be a few misconceptions and misunderstandings here and elsewhere in these threads. Not everybody that might 'invade' if that's the right term, is anything to do with F4J.

I can assure all that any inappropriate behaviour by a supporter leads to exclusion very quickly. Lets not mix up legitimate campaigns with individuals who jump on the bandwagon.

As for reasonable discussion, there are those of that would be happy to engage, indeed wanting to. However, with respect, earlier attempts resulted in ganging up and a wide range of insults.

We too are human you'll find and it's a little difficult engaging in reasoned discussion when the majority of what you are facing is malicious accusations and false claims. Just saying. If you'd like a decent discussion there are those of us who'd be very willing to engage, to share some experiences that might help others see another persons viewpoint.

Have to say that despite the many guwaffs and disparaging responses, F4J is a completely gender neutral organisation and supports mums (not handmaidens what the hell one of those is) and grandparents as well as dads - the good ones. The name may have come about in times past but the world has moved on. To this point, much of what I see here on these MN threads seems to be based on reports of other (similar) groups, myths and misrepresentations. If you wish to know what it's all about, please ask.

Last but not least, Justine of MNHQ. You mention 1,000 supporters - think you'll find it's 11,000. I do note MN have advertisers and visits from prominent individuals. I'm sure they'd like to see reasoned debates here, not gender based hatred and ganged attacks.

"it's a little difficult engaging in reasoned discussion when the majority of what you are facing is malicious accusations and false claims"

It's equally difficult to engage when by asking questions or having an opinion that happens to differ from the F4J standpoint you are told you are a man hater, a child abuser, told that you have no understanding because your children live with you and maybe they shouldn't so that you understand the other side etc etc. I have repeatedly asked questions and not had a response to them, instead I have been either shouted down or ignored. People have come onto your FB page to ask questions and have been deleted and banned, despite complaints from F4J of the same behaviour from other pages. There are misogynistic posts all over your FB page, yet you (general you, not personal) complain that all opinion that are not the same as F4J's are man-hating? Do you not see how that puts people's backs up? I cannot see any inclination from F4J members to debate, only to shout people down and impose their views on them. That is a great shame, because I am sure that both sides could learn from it.

Let them go back to their own site. They are c+p posts from here onto their Facebook page. They are looking for a reaction.

_

NarkedPuffin

Oh of course...

Spydii you are from F4J and as such I don't believe I can have a reasoned debate with you - F4J are not a credible organisation, they are people who try to intimidate other organisations and get a bit heavy with handcuffs and purple powder.

I would welcome reasoned debate. If F4J took a really good look at this board you would see that if, in fact, any "man-hating" crops up on a thread it's pretty quickly squashed. The most vocal posters on this board actually tend to defend good, decent men.

What this board does have is, in general, zero tolerance for abuse. If F4J is what you say it is, that would be a shared value. Sadly, this does not appear to be the case. I would be delighted if you can show/prove otherwise.

F4J are confusing criticism of themselves with criticism of men. They aren't the same. Not by a long chalk.

Criticising F4J isn't gender hatred, it's recognising a political campaign grounded in misogyny and bullying. (That's not defamation Mumsnet, it's fair comment about public political action).

agreed - it's not about hating or disliking 'men' but about disliking the politics of men who say victims of dv are liars, that single mums are just after benefits and maintenance, that make things up and distort stats etc etc etc. and as you are so keen to keep pointing out there are women in F4J too so logically hating F4J couldn't be gender based could it?