Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Agenda, much?

999 replies

Malificence · 03/03/2012 17:47

I don't usually wander onto the MN facebook page but I was pretty horrified to find what looks very much like an MRA agenda posted on there.
I'm trying very hard to see what relevance the photo used for their site has regarding the voices of unheard children. Hmm Looks more like how they would like to see their women to me.

www.facebook.com/#!/mumsnet?sk=wall

OP posts:
SmellsLikeTeenStrop · 07/03/2012 21:58

I'm kind of pissed the second most recent MN fb page has gone missing. I spent ages trying to track down a government report on findings related to the results of finding of fact hearings, it doesn't actually appear that research has been conducted at this point, though there was a recommendation that this be done. I was going to ask Pete Nicholls about this, but now it appears I can't.

If you're wondering what the hell I'm going on about, this guy Pete justified the typical F4J claim that women routinely lie about dv by making the statement that most finding of fact hearings end up 'clearing' fathers.

Anyway, just thought I'd mention that. Is everyone having a good evening?

ThisIsExtremelyVeryNotGood · 07/03/2012 22:01

Aww, I missed the rant. Shame that, he sounds like great fun.

Great post Catita.

swallowedAfly · 07/03/2012 22:04

i've just watched that video (as much as i could stomach).

love the emotive use of '1 in 3 children in the uk are growing up without a father' Hmm

funny how they don't break down what percentage of those children are doing so because their fathers have abandoned them and refuse to see them. or mention that 2 out of 3 children with non resident father's receive no maintenance from their fathers.

yet they flash the stat like it's some terrible proof of the prevalence of evil mothers depriving fathers of their children out of spite or a desire to get benefits (which contact with your father wouldn't stop anyway ffs).

i imagine it has already been thoroughly covered how disturbing the imagery in that video was and how horribly manipulative it was to use children in that way Sad

hardly encourages you to think that these are men who are responsible parents.

ThisIsExtremelyVeryNotGood · 07/03/2012 22:08

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by Mumsnet.

TunipTheVegemal · 07/03/2012 22:08

Exactly SaF.

NormaStanleyFletcher · 07/03/2012 22:10

OKaaay

This FB post from Nadine is either about GB or us, but from context is us

"That does not excuse the fact that their Forum is supporting derogatory, slanderous and libellous comments about Fathers 4 Justice and I shall be sending them a warning letter in the morning. Nadine"

4 hours ago

So after all those deletions!

FrothyDragon · 07/03/2012 22:10

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by Mumsnet.

ThisIsExtremelyVeryNotGood · 07/03/2012 22:12

waves at Frothy Wink

Here's the post from C4J: "It is a real shame that this campaign is being run using lies! Unfortunately Thomas' interview contained a number of significant statements which were simply not true and very easy to prove as such. Whether Thomas was coerced into what he said or whether he simply wants to 'please' those he is living amongst now I cannot say. When a friend raised this issue with F4J they were accused of having a 'grudge against children'. Can't F4J and it's members see how damaging it is to have prominent members of a campaign publically lie? It hugely devalues the message told by the children who are telling the truth and also means that no-one who backs what was said has any right to complain when they feel that they are lied about!"

I'm amazed they let the comment stand, but I think C4J has much less traffic and so they probably pay less attention.

FrothyDragon · 07/03/2012 22:14

Quite pleased with the email MNHQ sent Scott Young/smileysmile1966...

Although, suspect MNHQ may be deleting him quite quickly.

Nyac · 07/03/2012 22:16

Legal threats? About people saying stuff about them on the internet?

Laughable.

TunipTheVegemal · 07/03/2012 22:16

that's REALLY sad ThisIs. Poor kid.

ThisIsExtremelyVeryNotGood · 07/03/2012 22:16

She's sending MNHQ "a warning letter" tomorrow Hmm

CatitaInaHatita · 07/03/2012 22:17

Thanks Beach and ThisisExtremelyNotGood. It was supposed to be the retort to his post. But by the time I posted it he'd been deleted and about twenty people had already commented. Still it made me feel better.

He threatened btw to write about us in his blog. I thought that was bullying behaviour just to add to all the insults of his companions have left here and on the FB page. I am pretty sure he will not be nice, fair nor reasonable based on the evidence of this thread. He is trying to bully us into silence for fear about what he might write in his blog. However, after reading the stuff published on the F4J site and their behaviour here, I think that no one with more than half a brain could take seriously anything a member of site like that would post.

Nyac · 07/03/2012 22:19

So they troll Mumsnet's FB Wall, they stage a little invasion here, including a coordinate effort to get regular's posts deleted, and then they're upset because we have opinions about them?

TunipTheVegemal · 07/03/2012 22:27

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by Mumsnet.

Nyac · 07/03/2012 22:28

Yes, he comes across as a hateful misogynist.

All the non-misogynistic F4J people who apparently do exist, should be distancing themselves from him right now.

swallowedAfly · 07/03/2012 22:31

it's hard to believe they can take themselves seriously let alone anyone else.

given only 1 in 100 of the cases that go through court result a man being prevented from seeing his children and 1 in 3 children are growing up without a father it seems the overwhelmingly vast majority of those children are doing so because their 'father' has chosen not to see them. and of the 1 in 100 the vast majority will be because of proven violence towards vulnerable people, sexual abuse towards the children etc.

it's just nonsense isn't it?

AnyFucker · 07/03/2012 22:31

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by Mumsnet.

ThisIsExtremelyVeryNotGood · 07/03/2012 22:36

And don't only 10% of cases go to court in the first place? So 1% of 10% of fathers are denied contact by the court, and probably with good reason. Suppose there's an argument that some of those who do get order struggle to get them enforced, but certainly not to the extent of 1 in 3 children across the board.

If the deleted poster is who I think he is, I've seen his blog. It's full of bile and hatred and it's no wonder he struggles to be heard tbh. Based on his blog alone I can kind of see why he's been denied contact.

YuleingFanjo · 07/03/2012 22:36

interesting news piece about matt whatsis name.

solidgoldbrass · 07/03/2012 22:37

I still don't get how any decent man who is prevented from seeing his DC because their mother has a new partner/is a Bad Person could think that joining F4J is the right way to resolve his situation. This is an organisation with several prominent members having proven allegations of domestic violence against them, whose 'campaign' methods include threats and intimidation and whose members repeatedly reveal themselves to be stupid and profoundly anti-women. How could anyone who isn't either stupid or a woman-hater consider them useful or suitable allies?

Nyac · 07/03/2012 22:44

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by Mumsnet.

LeBOF · 07/03/2012 22:44

That article is good reading; I've only got as far as "How much of this is actually about power and ego and retribution? This is my worry but, being something of a creep, I just keep on smiling as un-cuntily as I can. Naturally." Grin

Which I suppose is a humorous way of the female journalist saying that he is an alarming bully. Quelle surprise.

FrothyDragon · 07/03/2012 22:45

Oh Christ. You're not even allowed to challenge them now.

SmellsLikeTeenStrop · 07/03/2012 22:46

''Smellsliketeenstrop, Pete (aka our very own Spydii...) refuses to believe that a woman might make a true allegation of abuse, yet insisted on telling Alison (sorry to talk about you in the third person if you're here Alison) that she didn't know he hadn't been abused...

Wait, so men tell the truth when they're reporting abuse, but women don't ''

I think women are believed to, but only if never challenge anything said by the menz, and totally agree that all other women are evil vindictive witches who use men as sperm donors first, and cash machines later.

I really just posted that stuff what I wrote earlier because I spent ages trying to find any old damn report which would indicate where he got his figures from, and from what I can see, one hasn't been carried out afaict. I felt it was important to point that out. The closest I came to one was a scottish study, but that didn't mention at all any cases where the nrp was 'cleared' of abuse, it focussed instead on whether contact was allowed or denied, and the type of contact.

Being granted contact is not in any way shape or form, evidence that the resident parent was lying, the court can still grant contact to nrps when a court has decided that he was abusive to the mother. It all depends on whether the children are deemed at risk.

Swipe left for the next trending thread