Cotter, I see you out of necessity had to bring gender into it and then attack based on something I never said. This reaction only proves my point about the sexism inherent in feminism and it's teachings.

Perhaps you are not aware of it and in that case you can be forgiven as feminism uses propaganda effectively.

Cotter>"Protect children? you don't care about protecting children."

No comment necessary.

Cotter>"You just want to blame someone, so why not the feminists......by anyone who supports anything female (except subservient women, and you despise those)"

What a wierd, albeit not entirely unexpected, reaction... this is a great example of the indoctrination I'm talking about...nonsensical hate and destructive beliefs.

Here you also mistake the feminist roots with current agendas.

-=-=-=

ChazP

I can't see anyone who fits into this dishonest assertion about male posters.

ChazP>"Nor is this a `feminist’ plot – why, because I am not female"

What's your point? No one claimed that only women can be feminists. That's like saying, "Nor is this a 'terrorist' plot - why, because I am a White male with New Zealand citizenship"

...

ChazP>"and do not support ‘plots’ by either gender."

You are but one of dozens who do, with your ignorance.

ChazP

'The comments of the male contributors to this discussion simply confirm that their position is that males must dominate and that male rights to possess women and the children of their union are their sole concern.'

Please outline these comments. I think you'll find nobody holds the position you claim they do. I really think you need to have a look at your prejudices, and stop putting words in people's mouths.

Good on you fellows who managed to completely bully anyone who had a contrary view to yours. (Intelligent, child-focussed responses respected). It might help silence anyone who dares critique the systems and actions that leave children vulnerable to dominance and harm by parents - because they just can't be bothered carrying on a conversation with ignoramus. Or is that ignorami?. But denial wont stop the abuse, the violence. When are you fellows going to start doing that? Focus on the safety and future of children? Usual suspect, why do you instruct ChazP to outline what he has already said. So you can negatively attack again? Dominant. Bossy. Always right. Verbal abuse.

And Steel. 'What a wierd, albeit not entirely unexpected, reaction... this is a great example of the indoctrination I'm talking about...nonsensical hate and destructive beliefs'. What a silly response - So really, you are now trying to claim you love and admire women - except feminists who have opinions of course? Seems to me ChazP is righter than you know. Scared of females with opportunity. Whoops sorry, there goes that feminist rhetoric again!! Fancy giving women a fair go!!

"Good on you fellows who managed to completely bully anyone who had a contrary view to yours" - Cotter are you serious? Does your reading of the preceding posts actaully give you that view?

I've been back over the posts and I don't see any complete bullying. I see some insults and attacks coming from both sides of the debate. I don't see any threats. I see early in the debate false claims made about what Sam had said (the claim that his post claimed that Sam was attacking all mothers rather than some.

I see an early reference to "the ruminations and selfish assertions of embittered and dogmatic gender warriors" seemingly aimed at those who do think that part of the problem is the acceptance of false allegations as a tactic.

I see Sam respond to claims by dott with a suggestion that she wake up and accept facts.

I see the statement "It seems to me that 'Sam' and the like is the reason this article was written. I cannot help but reply to your deliberate though somewhat incoherent provocations."
and
"Sam, Why do you have so much invested in attacking those who seek to speak up for children?" when Sam does not seem to have done any significant attacking of other posters but has stated his views on causes.

I see Sam suggest that Justice For Kids alias is a bad name choice and make some other comments which I thought were unfair and pointed out at the time. http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=7623#118975 - no serious attack by Sam though.

Sam responds to me pointing out how many of the red flag tactics are in JFK's story, again no great attack but pointing out his view of the issues. At most the red flags comment and the comment about moving interstate might seen as attacks.

JFK then calls Sam names (the first directed personal insult of the thread that I've noticed). JFK then tells Sam "Sam,you reduce yourself as a human " because he does not see things the way she does.

TBC

R0bert

PART 2 OF 2
I then respond pointing out the hypocracy in JFK using the very tactics she criticises and stating some of my own experience.

Cotter then describes posts which don't conform to her or his view as "and a lot of diversive, narrow, self-promoting crap "

mog then says "all the loonies that have posted their misogynist vitriol re this article " apparently attacking those who don't see things her or his way.

Cotter tells Mog that they "are absolutely correct"

Usual Suspect points out the problems with claiming that it's about the children when you stand to benefit yourselves.

ChazP then says "The comments of the male contributors to this discussion simply confirm that their position is that males must dominate and that male rights to possess women and the children of their union are their sole concern. Such males tend to be frightened of women and therefore must try to dominate women by whatever means possible, whether by bullying or violence."

Steel responds for the most part politely - at worst is the comment "You are but one of dozens who do, with your ignorance."

Usual Suspect then asks ChazP to back up the claims made about male posters.

Cotter then jumps in with claims "completely bully anyone who had a contrary view to yours" and "Dominant. Bossy. Always right. Verbal abuse." and "Seems to me ChazP is righter than you know. Scared of females with opportunity. "

Have I missed a whole bunch of posts or something. It seems to me that most of the bullying, name calling and character assanation has not come from "the male contributors to this discussion".

This is an opinion forum, rebutting ideas, putting a contrary viewpoint etc is quite legitimate and for the most part thats what Sam, steel, Usual Suspect and myself have been doing.

Robert

Cotter - I would suggest not getting involved in these attempts to distract and sabotage the discussion and not wasting your time, energies, and clear intellect on such responding to such negativity. Patricia Merkin has made some important points and related experiences of the flaws in the Family Law Act and its implementation. One of her most important points is that "it (the Courts) consistently grants access and residency to violent parents. Unless the victim can present overwhelmingly convincing evidence that a parent has engaged in the most obvious forms of domestic violence, the violence is minimised or ignored entirely and the biological connection to the abusive parent is prioritised." In effect Ms Merkin is confirming my own experiences and those of many others that Courts are completely ignoring the human rights of children to be protected from abuse and exploitations. In many of such cases the views of the children are not given full account and consideration. How `meaningful' can that be for a child?.