Philip Lewis wrote:
> http://www.angryharry.com/index2.html
>
> The Times newspaper, once again, tries to undermine Fathers4Justice.

It's only begun.  The more progress F4J makes, the more abuse they'll
get.

[...]

> Dear Editor
>
> re: You don't see many mothers dressing up as superheroes and hanging
off
> public buildings, largely because they know it is not in their
children's
> interests. Alice Miles

This is a primitive version of the flames women have posted here for
years.  This smacks of someone who wants to bash F4J but doesn't have
the man-bashing experience of Malaprop, Liz, Trash Wailson, and the
like.

This response to F4J is no surprise.  Women respond to backtalking men
the same as they do to backtalking children.  They call us childish and
bad.  We're all used to it, and I hope the brave men of F4J have
equally thick skin, because the anti-man clucking has only just
started.

[...]

> Like Miles, I have reservations about F4J's doctrine, but I have no
> criticism at all about their confrontational methods. The UK Men's
Movement
> have for 10 years used reason, argument and an appeal to justice in
our
> efforts to obtain equal rights for men and fathers. We have achieved
a few
> marginal successes in health and education, but father's rights are
> diminishing, as politicians on the Left are ideologically committed
to
> destroying the family and disempowering ordinary men, whilst the
Right and
> Centre toady for women's vote.

Agreed.  Polite reasoning won't work.  They've gone as far as to write
that we don't need rights, and there's no reasoning with that.  All we
can do is take our natural rights back, whether cowed bureaucrats think
we need them or not.

It can't matter what women want for us.  As long as it does, we'll
always get the shaft.  We must protect our freedom regardless of their
smarmy little opinions, because there's no hope convincing them that we
are human beings endowed with natural, inalienable rights.

[...]

> disappointment of kids whose fathers don't turn up for contact. Sure,
there
> are lousy fathers, and lousy mothers too, but Miles ( like judges)
uses
> these imperfect fathers to damn all excluded fathers, and to condone
the
> contempt of court of mothers disobeying contact orders, and omits to
> castigate mothers who disobey because it suits them, not their
children.

And what if we used the same idea with mothers?  Today there are
several articles in soc.men about women who killed their children.  One
had a felony record, and one woman, in addition to killing a baby,
severely burned two other children before burning a house down.  Apart
from these specific examples, various studies claim that natural
mothers are the most frequent abusers of children.  And surely a
failure to show up or send a check on time isn't as bad as killing or
burning children.  So if we used the same logic against mothers as is
used against fathers, courts would presume father custody.

> Miles claims that all demonstrating fathers are merely CSA-dodgers,
and that
> "no decent man would make any link between paying maintenance to
support his
> child and the right to see that child" .

Again, it can't matter what they think, because they will never think
differently.  They must be sufficiently motivated to act fairly no
matter what they think, and the confrontational style of F4J is far
more effective motivation than the style of so-called moderates who'd
rather debate.  Debate has been tried.

[...]

> Finally, she decided to shoot the messenger, and launches a personal
attack
> on the Spider-men and Batmen of F4J. \

Only because she's incapable of any other more substantive attack.

> Sure, some are, or have not been, model fathers; does she know,
> or care, about whatever faults the mothers may have?

No, and the fathers' supposed faults aren't her concern anyway.  She
writes her screeds because she can't just come out and call us
"uppity."  But she would if she could, becuase the assertiveness of we
uppity "males" is what chaps her roughened hide.

> By sanctioning the mother's abuse of father and child, she closed the
door
> on redemption, as people change, quite often as the result the
realisation
> of how much their failures and short-comings have hurt others. " You
don't
> see many mothers dressing up as super-heroes and hanging off of
public
> buildings" observes Miles. "Duuuu.....uuuh", Alice,
that's because
they don't 
> have to, they get the kids.

Amen!  

[...]
---
þ RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info{at}bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2áÿ* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 1/7/05 8:12:02 PM