You don't seem to grasp the seriousness of this. On these occasions I had my older daughters with me, they were 11 and 13. What effect do you think these attacks had on them?Nigel Irritable said:
Fathers for Justice
- Thread starter nosos
- Start date
Nigel Irritable
Five, Ten, Fifteen Years
Nothing at all to do with "feeling safer".
You post in support of a movement which is not entirely made up of misogynistic scumbags but which is absolutely riddled with them. You then post horror stories about being persecuted by feminists. You can hardly be surprised when someone draws the obvious conclusion.
So let me put it this way. Is your only problem with feminism that you met some people who described themselves as feminists and then treated you badly? Or do you have some other additional problem with feminism?
As for freethepeeps, I haven't read all of this extremely long thread. If someone describes themselves as a feminist and also says something unfair, I hold no brief for their unfair remarks. I'm a socialist and I'm well aware that plenty of socialists have said stupid things over the years too.
You post in support of a movement which is not entirely made up of misogynistic scumbags but which is absolutely riddled with them. You then post horror stories about being persecuted by feminists. You can hardly be surprised when someone draws the obvious conclusion.
So let me put it this way. Is your only problem with feminism that you met some people who described themselves as feminists and then treated you badly? Or do you have some other additional problem with feminism?
As for freethepeeps, I haven't read all of this extremely long thread. If someone describes themselves as a feminist and also says something unfair, I hold no brief for their unfair remarks. I'm a socialist and I'm well aware that plenty of socialists have said stupid things over the years too.
I thought the horror story was about myself and my daughter being denied a relationship. The feminist stuff was just an aside addressing some of the points raised earlier in the thread. But, of course, you've not read the thread, have you?Nigel Irritable said:
Of course I have, in much the same way as I have problems with patriarchy and "dictatorship of the proletariat" - its exclusive, elitist and wrong. And I have a major problem with the way that feminists and their apologists equate anti-feminist with anti-woman.
Nigel Irritable
Five, Ten, Fifteen Years
I've read about six pages of it. And it is also possible to have knowledge of a subject that isn't entirely gleaned from the content of an Urban75 thread.
I have every sympathy with anyone who has genuinely suffered a grievance at the hands of the family courts. You may well be such a person, I don't know and I don't pretend to.
I do know my way around the father's rights movement and I do know what "anti-feminism" normally translates as. And none of it is very appealing.
Just in case anyone thinks that I'm slurring the father's rights movement, I'm going to provide you with some links to their own websites. They don't need me to make things up about them, they are quite capable of displaying incredibly reactionary views all on their own.
Here is a sample from the "Justice in Family Law" site:
http://www.justiceinfamilylaw.co.uk/
"The anti-heterosexuals within this most corrupt New Labour government not only want to corrupt the children you love by encouraging them to be promiscuous via the school syllabus, but will also try to drive a wedge between parents and their children with this nonsensical excuse 'Children Rights."
Next you can have a look at the website of the Uk Mens Rights Movement, a compendium of distorted information, self-pity and whining about uppity women:
http://www.ukmm.org.uk/
I have every sympathy with anyone who has genuinely suffered a grievance at the hands of the family courts. You may well be such a person, I don't know and I don't pretend to.
I do know my way around the father's rights movement and I do know what "anti-feminism" normally translates as. And none of it is very appealing.
Just in case anyone thinks that I'm slurring the father's rights movement, I'm going to provide you with some links to their own websites. They don't need me to make things up about them, they are quite capable of displaying incredibly reactionary views all on their own.
Here is a sample from the "Justice in Family Law" site:
http://www.justiceinfamilylaw.co.uk/
"The anti-heterosexuals within this most corrupt New Labour government not only want to corrupt the children you love by encouraging them to be promiscuous via the school syllabus, but will also try to drive a wedge between parents and their children with this nonsensical excuse 'Children Rights."
Next you can have a look at the website of the Uk Mens Rights Movement, a compendium of distorted information, self-pity and whining about uppity women:
http://www.ukmm.org.uk/
White Lotus
Provisional Buddhist
C'mon hippy, you're using the word "feminist" the way the red-tops use "Islamic", without even their begrudging tacking-on of words like "fundamentalist" or "militant".
I'm sorry you had such a bad experience with your former partner. People can be shits, not because they're male or female or feminists, but because they're people. I'd call myself a feminist too, as long as women continue to struggle for things like equal pay for equal work. I also (as per previous post) support men's rights not to be shoved into damaging stereotypes, any more than women should be.
For those who say "yes but what's best for the children?" I couldn't agree more. But there are organisations who support children's rights, like NSPCC, NCH, Barnardo's, Childline, etc, and a fine job many of them do.
I worked for a children & families charity myself, and I remember many impassioned debates about the issues of fatherhood, from family centres who wanted to exclude male carers to make the building a "safe place" for bullied women, through those who said "of course fathers have equal access to our services" – although funnily enough, none seemed to avail themselves of this. Weird feelings of deja vu on the second position, not that long since we heard the same about people from minority ethnic groups ...
... but I digress. The important point is, children should be given the choice but it shouldn't be either/or, choosing to live with one partner shouldn't mean they can't see the other. Also, that choice needs to be revisited at regular intervals; what a 5-year-old wants may not be what a 8- or 10- or 15-year-old wants. And they shouldn't be emotionally blackmailed or made to feel disloyal by the custodial parent, if they want to continue contact with the other one.
I'm sorry you had such a bad experience with your former partner. People can be shits, not because they're male or female or feminists, but because they're people. I'd call myself a feminist too, as long as women continue to struggle for things like equal pay for equal work. I also (as per previous post) support men's rights not to be shoved into damaging stereotypes, any more than women should be.
For those who say "yes but what's best for the children?" I couldn't agree more. But there are organisations who support children's rights, like NSPCC, NCH, Barnardo's, Childline, etc, and a fine job many of them do.
I worked for a children & families charity myself, and I remember many impassioned debates about the issues of fatherhood, from family centres who wanted to exclude male carers to make the building a "safe place" for bullied women, through those who said "of course fathers have equal access to our services" – although funnily enough, none seemed to avail themselves of this. Weird feelings of deja vu on the second position, not that long since we heard the same about people from minority ethnic groups ...
... but I digress. The important point is, children should be given the choice but it shouldn't be either/or, choosing to live with one partner shouldn't mean they can't see the other. Also, that choice needs to be revisited at regular intervals; what a 5-year-old wants may not be what a 8- or 10- or 15-year-old wants. And they shouldn't be emotionally blackmailed or made to feel disloyal by the custodial parent, if they want to continue contact with the other one.
Whilst I don't feel as ROH does towards feminists (it covers so many different views that I avoid having a fixed view of feminists as a whole) if his experiences of feminists have been solely negative then it isn't surprising that he draws such conclusions. The actions of feminists is (or should be) the measure by which feminism is judged.
meanoldman said:
It isn't dissimilar to FH and her experience of fathers though, is it?
If FH's experience of fathers is as negative as she says then, as with ROH, I'm not surprised that she holds such views. In both cases though I don't think the extrapolation to the rest of society holds up.
meanoldman said:
Jolly good - that makes two of us.
Nigel Irritable said:
None of those websites are F4J though, are they?
Nigel Irritable
Five, Ten, Fifteen Years
No. There is in fact very little information of any kind on the F4J website. Neither have I ever met anyone in F4J.
These groupings do exist in a wider milieu however and that wider milieu is a deeply misogynist one. There are as I have already said plenty of exceptions to the general rule, but given the reactionary political bent of their movement you will have to forgive me if I tend to assume the worst.
If you have some spare time you should check out the mailing lists, e-groups and so on that the fathers rights people frequent. It's like bathing in vomit.
Fathers with a real grievance against their ex-partners or the courts or both do themselves no favours by associating themselves with woman-hating idiots.
These groupings do exist in a wider milieu however and that wider milieu is a deeply misogynist one. There are as I have already said plenty of exceptions to the general rule, but given the reactionary political bent of their movement you will have to forgive me if I tend to assume the worst.
If you have some spare time you should check out the mailing lists, e-groups and so on that the fathers rights people frequent. It's like bathing in vomit.
Fathers with a real grievance against their ex-partners or the courts or both do themselves no favours by associating themselves with woman-hating idiots.
Without checking, I think I first used the word feminist in quote marks. It was intended, as I said, merely as an aside, as a reference to something earlier in the thread. Of course I don't hate all feminists, I have some very good friends (and lovers) who take that label. 
But Nigel illustrates the point I was reaching for - he came very close to saying that men who don't like feminists have no business having relationships with children. Well if that's the case the femintern and their inquisition are going to have their work cut out 
It is worrying that Nigel finds more to comment on over my use of a word than he does over the relationship of me and my daughters. Thanks very much, Nigel, we all came through it relatively unscathed.
But Nigel illustrates the point I was reaching for - he came very close to saying that men who don't like feminists have no business having relationships with children. Well if that's the case the femintern and their inquisition are going to have their work cut out It is worrying that Nigel finds more to comment on over my use of a word than he does over the relationship of me and my daughters. Thanks very much, Nigel, we all came through it relatively unscathed.
Give us some hints on action to take, then.Nigel Irritable said:
Or share some of YOUR problems over access/custody with us. 
Nigel Irritable
Five, Ten, Fifteen Years
reallyoldhippy said:
I said nothing at all about who should or shouldn't be allowed to have relationships with anyone. Anyone who is opposed to the struggle for women's liberation is in my view an arsehole, but I have no interest in separating arseholes from their kids.
The advice about not hanging around with the kind of lunatics who populate the websites of the father's rights movement was a freebie. You don't have to accept it. If you only want the sympathy of people who read Melanie Phillips avidly, that's your business.
Oh, and "Femintern"? What the fuck?
You know that phrase was copyrighted by a bunch of french Women? Very sisterlyNigel Irritable said:
. How did we get from feminism to women's liberation? The same way as various trot groups think they're the vanguard of the revolution, no doubt. 
Nigel Irritable
Five, Ten, Fifteen Years
reallyoldhippy said:
Because the feminist movement is a synonym for women's liberation movement.
absolute bollocks. Says who? Oh yeah: feminists. So it must be trueNigel Irritable said:
Nigel Irritable
Five, Ten, Fifteen Years
This is just fucking nuts. What do you think feminism is, other than nasty women coming round to your house and chanting at you?
Nigel Irritable said:
They were self-proclaimed feminists - surely the question should be:
What do they think feminism is?
Thankyou, ftp.freethepeeps said:
Nigel, if you read the "can men be feminists?" thread and my contributions to it, you'd have a better idea of where I'm coming from. Its not my place to define feminism, suffice it to say I've met a lot of nasty feminists as well as some very nice ones. And I've met women who reject the feminist tag but are ceaseless workers for the liberation of women, in fact the liberation of all humanity.
Nigel Irritable
Five, Ten, Fifteen Years
reallyoldhippy said:
Yet you feel free to define it as something other than the movement for women's liberation.
Nigel Irritable said:
I understand that there are a many women who are committed to womens liberation, but don't call themselves feminists.
That's not a definition, though, is it?Nigel Irritable said:
I'm against patriarchy; feminists claim they are: does that make me a feminist? Phototropic
Active Member
Well you are either a feminist or a mysoginist, so if you are against patriarchy then you are a feminist.
Simple really.
Simple really.
Phototropic
Active Member
Nigel Irritable
Five, Ten, Fifteen Years
freethepeeps said:
Indeed there are, which is a sad and unfortunate result of the relentless attacks on feminism which have been mounted by reactionaries and misogynists in the mainstream media for decades. They have tried to make "feminist" into a dirty word, for the very simple reason that they are opposed to women's liberation. And they have had some success.
So you will sometimes find women (or men) saying things like "I'm not a feminist, but..." and then putting some feminist line of argument. That's a problem to be overcome not a sign that the reactionaries are correct and that feminism really is just about brutal haircuts, hating men and badly fitted dungarees.
The last thing that two "anarchists" should be doing is weighing in in support of those attitudes.
I took a look at what reallyoldhippy had to say in the men and feminism thread, and the answer was... not much. About the most significant thing he said was:
"why, when it purports to promote equality of the sexes, does it use the name of only one side of that?"
...which completely misses the point that women are oppressed in a patriarchal society and that while men may suffer some disadvantages in such a society too, we are not its primary victims.
Feminism is the movement for women's liberation. It is not a homogenous movement and in fact it contains a wide range of strands and tendencies, from liberal feminism, to radical feminism, to socialist feminism. It includes organisations that contain both men and women and it includes entirely self-organised groups. You can agree or disagree with various parts of the movement while remaining a feminist.
I've just lost the will to livePhototropic said:
goodnight
Phototropic
Active Member
Nos: Allright I will rephrase. You are either beleive in the equality of the sexes, or you don't.
Feminism, a beleif in equailty of the sexes.
If you are a bloke and you don't beleive in that then you are a patriarch, if you are a woman then you are a matriarch.
I know I am probably sounding overly simplistic, but surely you either want equality or you don't
Feminism, a beleif in equailty of the sexes.
If you are a bloke and you don't beleive in that then you are a patriarch, if you are a woman then you are a matriarch.
I know I am probably sounding overly simplistic, but surely you either want equality or you don't
Similar threads
