Really? we think that "that organisation" are representative of fathers in general? really?

[NormaStanleyFletcher]

"They are already telling us that F4J (and by association every dad in the land) are bullying and intimidating them in this latest campaign, a stance that completely ignores the decades of intimidation that has been suffered by fathers at the hands of women?s organistions and which attempts to control the space around the campaign..."

Do they think we are as mad and misguided as them?

Intimidation by women's organisations?

From http://karenwoodall.wordpress.com/2012/03/18/on-the-tyranny-of-the-weak-a-mothers-day-musing/

Who is this handmaden person?

karenwoodall.wordpress.com/2012/03/18/on-the-tyranny-of-the-weak-a-mothers-day-musing/

Karen Woodall.

It's interesting that she mentions the "tyranny of the weak." I seem to hear F4J and Mens Rights Activists in general go on and on about how mothers and women in general now have the power, that men a are forced into a weak and powerless position because feminist beliefs dominate everything form family courts to the workplace (as if.)

That is, in my view, a more accurate example of "tyranny of the weak." It's those who retain relative social, economic and political privilege, but claim to be weak, to be victims, to gain sympathy for their cause and as a means of continuing to assert their privilege - just through a different means.

Weird 180 flip. They took Mumsnet on because they consider it to be large and influential, and now that their campaign didn't achieve the expected results, mumsnet is now 'the weak', and will start terrorising 'the strong' (F4J I'm guessing), through gender stereotyped behaviour. Yes, because standing up to bullying gits who want to take your freedom of speech away is atypical feminine behaviour.

Aside from that, it's pretty much a tacit admission that F4J have engaged in bullying and intimidation in it's interactions with other organisations. However, it's pre-empting any future defence those organisations may make against further attempts by F4J to bully and intimidate by claiming it will be the 'tyranny of the weak',. Aka claiming victim status in order to make the other party look bad in comparison.

"It's those who retain relative social, economic and political privilege, but claim to be weak"

You have to admit though, it's a clever strategy. We live in a country where 78% of MPs are men yet we believe that it is women who have the power.

The more I thought about the article, the more it reminded me of articles, blogs, etc. that seek to justify the "fears" of white people about immigration, about Black, Asian and or Minority Ethnic people living in "their" neighbourhoods and sending their children to local schools, etc.

You find it behind all the unsubstantiated but popular rubbish about councils not being able to send Christmas cards or put up Christmas decorations because non-Christians find them offensive, or that nurseries can't sing Bah Bah Black Sheep anymore because Black people will complain.

To do this, you have to do two things. First, you have to some how portray a group that is disadvantaged (the one you call "the weak") as being powerful. It takes lots of smoke and mirrors to show that women, or people of colour have the upper hand in society, but they make a damn good stab at it because otherwise, the argument doesn't work. Then, you have to minimise the actual power and influence your own group has. Basically, ignore it and if someone brings it up, try and change the subject, then refer back to all the ways you've thought up that the "weak group" is really calling all the shots.

Oh, and another way to "validate" your argument is to have someone who ostensibly represents the "weak group" fronting your argument. Lends a sort of superficial credibility and makes it look like when someone from the "weak group" challenges the argument that the group is actually divided and oh look at the bullying tactics they are using against one of "their own," see what we mean?

Thank you KRITIQ. BRILLIANT post.

Thinking there's no such thing as the "tyranny of the weak"

It's those that have power that tend to tyrannise those that don't.

Often the weaker group will come together, speak up about their injustice, and support one another.

But that isn't tyranny.

Another one applauding KRITIQ.

There's nothing else to say really.

Tyranny of the weak - oxymoron

Great post Kritiq

KRITIQ by name, textual critic by nature

Trying to cut Karen Woodall some slack I think she is probably representative of quite a lot of women who are so keen to prove their 'maturity' and 'sense of fair play' that they embrace all male rights issues lest they be accused of being man-hating feminists.

I think these are the sort of women who feel that being referred to in male circles as an 'honorary male' is something to feel proud of, while at the same time ensuring that they never quite lose their femininity since they want to be an honorary man yet treated as a woman at the same time.

I think they should ask themselves why that is. Why is being an honorary male something to be proud of? That only works if, at some level, you believe women to be inferior, more nasty, more devious, etc. I don't.

Why is that women who truly break out of gender roles, behave like men and renounce all the trappings of femininity are so frequently ridiculed and ostracised hated or even pitied? Quite often, the 'honorary man' woman still has to embrace her femininity to get by, and in doing so is kept in her place and 'othered'.

I'm all for equality. But I believe it needs to be proportionate. Discrimination against women is a far bigger problem than discrimination against men. Unless we treat the problem proportionately, we simply end up in a situation where we promote male rights over women. If we remove 10 problems for each gender but men have 20 problems and women have 100, we have removed 50% of the problem for men, but only 10% for women. That's not equal. Especially in a world where men still have significant advantages over women.

I don't think Karen Woodall has stopped to consider that at all.

To go back to the topic, I'm a father who doesn't like what these people do. Whilst their stated aim is laudable, their tactics serve only to antagonise, and their attitude appears to be 'if you don't agree with us unreservedly we'll cry about it online'.

Good post kritiq.

I personally do notbelieve for a minute this organisation are representative of fathers in UK today. I do not know any fathers that behave in the way they appear to.

Well extreme tactics is what got women the vote. Sometimes it is necessary. I would like F4J to campaign against absent parents who choose not to have contact with their chidlren (there are many many of them).

I would like them to support default legal position of children being with both parents 50% of the time meaning 50% of the washing and all the reality of having a child shaerd by the other parent. They have too many members who only want children on their terms 100% of the child or just a right over key decisions not day after day mundane care, up in the night, cleaning clothes and children etc.

I certainly support their 50% stance and I would like every housewife drummed off the planet and if anyone stays home doing dull stuff it should be male all the time until we hvae had 5000 years with women being the majority in the cabinet and the like. We have a huge way to go before there is fairness for women.

Also if a lot of these men before divorce ensured they didn't have a houswife at home, supported their wife's career etc they would find a lot more fairness (and money) after divorce.

God, my sister and I would have been miserable as sin if we'd been forced to live with our father 50% of the time when my parents split up. And he was and is a nice guy.

The children's preferences should be considered and surely those should be an important factor in determining the "default position" when parents part company with each other.

It's not just about mothers' rights vs fathers' rights. There are children involved and they are small human beings, not possessions to be argued over when a partnership splits asunder. They have rights, too.

i think they should campaign against man cardigans

applaud kritiq

'decades of intimidation at the hands of women's organisations' - it would be funny if people weren't taken in by this shit!

How does the 'tyranny of the weak' explain the rape conviction rate, then, eh? By this logic it should be running at near 100%! With all the convicted men sent down by female judges, of course

How does the 'tyranny of the weak' explain continuing pay inequality? Grr.

How does the 'tyranny of the weak' explain the Panorama programme I've just watched about 'honour' killings Eighties chick?

Gah, I'm just so sick of reading about F4J and their bloody pity parties when shit like that is going on

Which right would you rather lose by virtue of your gender - the right to care for your children or the right to vote?

Honest answers please. It's a serious question. :)

I don't see any value or point in that sort of trade off. Care to explain why you are posing the question? I'd like a bit more context before I complete this particular Cosmopolitan quiz of the week.