Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

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:
BasilRathbone · 06/03/2012 19:23

So what do F4J have to say about the fact that the vast majority of men who are refused contact with their children by courts, are refused it because of violence?

F4J seem to take umbrage at that.

FrothyDragon · 06/03/2012 19:23

A couple of quotes found on MRA websites =/= reading a feminist book.

Christ, that's like me watching 10 things I hate about you, and claiming to be an expert on The Taming Of The Shrew....

ThisIsExtremelyVeryNotGood · 06/03/2012 19:24

You mean it's not Frothy?! Sheesh, next you'll be telling me that Romeo and Juliet didn't originally feature flowered shirts and shotguns Shock

NarkedPuffin · 06/03/2012 19:25

Ah, but according to F4J domestic violence is something women make 'allegations of'. When it comes to domestic violence, F4J are at best agnostic.

FrothyDragon · 06/03/2012 19:26

Apparently not... :( I actually feel like everything I know about Shakespeare has been pulled into question over recent years...

ThisIsExtremelyVeryNotGood · 06/03/2012 19:28

I feel like society has lied to me :(

BeerTricksPott3r · 06/03/2012 19:29

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

ThisIsExtremelyVeryNotGood · 06/03/2012 19:31
Grin
SardineQueen · 06/03/2012 19:34

So the fact that when couples split up, they don't always remain on good terms, is because of a government conspiracy.

I see.

BeerTricksPott3r · 06/03/2012 19:37

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

SmellsLikeTeenStrop · 06/03/2012 19:39

Interesting way to try and get yourself taken seriously as an organisation. Having your members go around spouting loop-di-loop conspiracy theories, and trolling organisations which help vulnerable families. Carry on at it chaps Grin

FrothyDragon · 06/03/2012 19:41

See, I thought the fact I didn't remain on good terms with the ex was down to the fact he offered to kill me if I ever left him, but... Spydii knows best...

SmellsLikeTeenStrop · 06/03/2012 19:44

Somebody earlier asked what F4J would do to a guy who refused to see his own kids, well that was the gist.

The person posting for F4J said something that in that situation they would write a gentle letter to the guy and find out his reasons, and when they're told that it's because his evil ex wife won't let him see the kids, they'll believe him.

Did anyone hear of that guy over in America who was forced to apologise to his ex-wife on facebook, by a judge. He'd spouted a load of crap aimed at her, calling her all sorts of things and claiming she was preventing him from seeing his child. She had a non-molestation order on him and this violated it apparently, so he was made to retract the statement and part of his retraction was to admit that the reason he hadn't seen his child in months was through his own choice, and that his ex had never tried to prevent him. Doh!

AyeRobot · 06/03/2012 19:44

Frothy, I always knew you were bitter and there you go posting proof. Wear the cap that fits you, you shrieking harridan.

spydiii · 06/03/2012 19:48

Re violence towards former partner and seeing kids. Generally, no. Do I stop my ex seeing my kid because I was assaulted... no. It doesn't affect her relationship with the kid. Each case is different but think we can all agree anyone posing a threat to a child, male or female, should not be exposed to a child. Neither has anyone in F4J or any other group I'm aware ever suggested they should. That is a typical scare tactic and slur used against F4J but there's no truth in it.

spydiii · 06/03/2012 19:51

Here we go, misrepresenting the truth to try and wind people up. Totally got the story wrong.

"Did anyone hear of that guy over in America who was forced to apologise to his ex-wife on facebook, by a judge. He'd spouted a load of crap aimed at her, calling her all sorts of things and claiming she was preventing him from seeing his child. She had a non-molestation order on him and this violated it apparently, so he was made to retract the statement and part of his retraction was to admit that the reason he hadn't seen his child in months was through his own choice, and that his ex had never tried to prevent him. Doh!"

He was punished for exposing what the courts do to men when a false allegation is made. He said NOTHING about his ex partner or his case, but you'd hate to write that as it does nothing to support the warped lies eh?

FrothyDragon · 06/03/2012 19:53

From F4J's website... (if you guys take to copying and pasting what I say, y'know...)

" DV is out dated for the family courts the right term is interpersonal violance which means there is no just reason to stop fathers from seeing their children"
Never mind the fact that 2 out of 3 children who live with domestic violence will experience abuse themselves from the abuser? Never mind the fact allowing a child to witness DV is actually classed as emotional child abuse?

Nadine has continued to post about false allegations... seriously, false allegations of abuse are no higher than for any other crime. Can we stop perpetuating the women lie myth? Please? It makes it so much harder for victims to speak out. :(

Nyac · 06/03/2012 19:54

Mattie's changed his tune. He washed his hands of them a few years ago. Maybe he was missing the attention:

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1508185/Fathers-give-up-campaign.html

"Fathers give up campaign

By Sarah Womack and George Jones
Published: 12:01AM GMT 19 Jan 2006

Fathers 4 Justice, the radical campaign group for men involved in child custody battles, was disbanded last night after allegations that extremist elements were plotting to kidnap Tony Blair's five-year-old son Leo.
Matt O'Connor, the founder, said that after endless feuding in the group and dangerous activities by those on its fringes he had concluded that mothers were simply more mature than fathers.

"There may be a repeat of these sorts of antics and it would do serious damage to the debate and what we have achieved," he said.

"My view is that fathers are not ready for the changes we want to see in this country. They are part of the problem, not the solution, and they are perverting the cause.

"The truth is that our organisation has been run largely by women for two years.

A nine-month pregnant woman will turn up and walk for miles at one of our demonstrations while an able- bodied father can't be bothered. We will speak to other groups such as Families Need Fathers and will not leave people in the lurch.

"But this organisation has come to its natural conclusion. I am almost past caring and want a good night's sleep; I have a newborn baby."

Last night Terence Bates, a spokesman for Real Fathers 4 Justice, a splinter group, said that his group's campaign would go on.

Downing Street refused to comment on the specific allegations about the "plot", which was apparently uncovered by Special Branch officers, but officials did not deny the report in The Sun.

Mr Blair's official spokesman confirmed that the Government, police and security services were concerned about the militant tactics adopted by extreme fringe groups. But No 10 angrily denied a report on Sky News suggesting that it had leaked the story to distract attention from the row engulfing Ruth Kelly, the Education Secretary, over sex offenders in schools.
Mr O'Connor, 38, who is divorced with two sons by his former wife and a three-week-old son by a new partner, said he had expelled about 30 members last year for talking about carrying out extreme stunts. Police had told him that anti-terrorism officers had visited former members of the group over Christmas.

"Anyone who considers kidnapping a five-year-old boy needs their head testing," he said.

Channel Four News said that members of the group claimed that they had been infiltrated by a police informer and that he had proposed the idea of the kidnapping.
In the three years since Fathers 4 Justice was formed, the issue of a father's right has been forced up the Government's lists of priorities.

The group has staged lighthearted stunts such as crane-top protests in comic strip outfits and scaled Big Ben. In 2004 it penetrated the Commons and flour-bombed the Prime Minister.

Campaigners have become increasingly confrontational - solicitors have been bombarded with abusive e-mails, court offices stormed and judges visited at their homes.
This led to accusations from lawyers and ex-wives that the organisation had created an atmosphere of intimidation and fear. Some former wives and girlfriends of the group's members described break-ups of their relationships involving violence, being forced to live in refuges and incidents in which their children witnessed frightening aggression by their fathers.

Two years ago anti-terrorist police were called in to investigate the sending of 60 hoax bombs to family court offices around the country by extremists - denounced by Fathers 4 Justice - demanding better rights for fathers.
Mr Bates told Channel 4 News: "Mr O'Connor should have done this more than a year ago. There were members within Fathers 4 Justice a year ago who were very unhappy with the way things were going.

"Nothing has really changed in family law - there are still huge problems." He said that many people had left the organisation because "Mr O'Connor has failed to move it forward". Mr O'Connor has also been accused of becoming autocratic.

Mr Bates said that the allegation of a kidnap plot was "absolute nonsense". He added: "There is no dark underbelly of extremist fathers within the organisation which Matt speaks about. There is no organised, extreme terrorist-type group planning to kidnap the Prime Minister's children."

spydiii · 06/03/2012 19:55

As for father refusing to see their kids... what would you have F4J do about it? It's a campaign group to pursue the right of all good parents to see their kids if there's no reason to prevent it. The group is there to fix a problem in law for 'good parents', not relationship counselling where a bad parent cannot be bothered.

slug · 06/03/2012 19:57

No, he was punished for libel. Libel is illegal.

BeerTricksPott3r · 06/03/2012 19:58

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

spydiii · 06/03/2012 19:58

Nyac, what's your point posting all the above?

SmellsLikeTeenStrop · 06/03/2012 19:59

''Here we go, misrepresenting the truth to try and wind people up. Totally got the story wrong. ''

Oh really?

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2105319/Court-orders-husband-apologise-estranged-wife-Facebook-30-days-posted-hate-filled-rant-her.html

'I would like to apologize to my wife, Elizabeth Byron, for the comments regarding her and our son ... which were posted on my Facebook wall on or about November 23, 2011.
'I hereby acknowledge that two judicial officials in the Hamilton County Domestic Relations Court have heard evidence and determined that I committed an act of domestic violence against Elizabeth on January 17, 2011.
'While that determination is currently being appealed, it has not been overturned by the appellate court.
'As a result of that determination, I was granted supervised parenting time with (my son) on a twice weekly basis.
'The reason I saw (my son) only one time during the four-month period which ended about the time of my Facebook posting was because I chose to see him on only that single occasion during that period.
'I hereby apologize to Elizabeth for casting her in an unfavorable light by suggesting that she withheld (my son) from me or that she in any manner prevented me from seeing (my son) during that period. That decision was mine and mine alone.
'I further apologize to all my Facebook Friends for attempting to mislead them into thinking that Elizabeth was in any manner preventing me from spending time with (my son), which caused several of my Facebook Friends to respond with angry, venomous, and inflammatory comments of their own

ISTM he had said SOMETHING about his ex ......

spydiii · 06/03/2012 19:59

Off to get some food and a little R&R, will check in tomorrow to see if anything else needs clarifying. Have a nice evening all. :)

SDTGisAnEvilWolefGenius · 06/03/2012 20:00

Spydiii - what about fathers who don't pay maintenance? Is that right? What would F4J do if one of their members was refusing to pay maintenance, and his children were living in poverty as a result?