The Forum > Article Comments > Mischief in the Family Law Act > Comments
Mischief in the Family Law Act : Comments
By Patricia Merkin, published 30/6/2011Broadening the definition of domestic violence will ensure children's safety.
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- 3
- ...
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Page 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- ...
- 28
- 29
- 30
-
- All
Posted by Antiseptic, Saturday, 9 July 2011 12:11:22 PM
| |
I rest my case.
Posted by happy, Saturday, 9 July 2011 12:31:39 PM
| |
Much mischief is being enacted here, dogs are male and so are Smurfs except for one. Some fathers actually understand:
http://www.maxbarry.com/2011/07/08/news.html Posted by Ammonite, Saturday, 9 July 2011 3:41:55 PM
| |
happy:"I rest my case."
Thank gawd for that. perhaps we can get on with some sensible discussion at last. Ammonite:"dogs are male" Yes dear, I already pointed that out. However, your author, no matter how challenged he seems to find himself with matters of animal gender, is quite wrong. Most people who meet my dog Max for the first time, for example, make the assumption that he's a bitch, presumably because he's friendly and has a nice shiny coat. The more general point he's making is moot - the generic term for humans is "Man", while many constructions use "man" as the denoter of the holder of a position or title, such as "chairman", etc. This is all old stuff, agonised over interminably by very serious little possums who had not much better to do with the uni time that the Government was giving them for free. None of it is relevant to a discussion about family law and let's face it, neither is your contribution, since you have no children and, by the sound of it, little prospect of acquiring any. That makes you at best a meddler in the affairs of others, at worst a Mother Grundy. Patricia and Chaz are arguing for their livelihoods and will say whatever they think it takes to protect them. This is standard fare for maternal bias proponents, all of whom are seeking more money, more power, more, more more - all paid for by men. What a weak bunch of hypocrites. Posted by Antiseptic, Sunday, 10 July 2011 5:36:45 AM
| |
Antiseptic ~ Its ok, sonny. We all know your mummy didn't love you and thats perfectly understandable, and no woman has ever done so. But you can get help with that, once you are able to accept it. You summarise yourself perfectly, sonny, when you say, "None of it is relevant to a discussion about family law and let's face it, neither is your contribution".
Now sit quietly while the grown-ups talk about serious things. Posted by ChazP, Sunday, 10 July 2011 7:10:43 AM
| |
ChazP:"I know you are, but what am I?"
I think we've already covered that, don't you? Posted by Antiseptic, Sunday, 10 July 2011 7:26:11 AM
|
You're quite right, Patricia, the generic term for female canines is "bitch". Thanks for pointing that out.