Intellectual honesty.

I stand corrected about the child sharing bit, but I wonder what group those women who oppose shared parenting so strongly, belong too.

I am going blind so it is really hard to read these days, SJF. Shame the print isn't made bigger in the texts etc.

I think I almost got this intellectual honesty connudrum sorted out.

If someone publish and original piece of research, that is being intellectually honest, anyone who publishes research that contradicts or criticizies that research is being intellectually dishonest.

So in fact research by for example Lenore Weitzman is intellectually honest and those who found her research to be faulty are intellectually dishonest.

Neat!

No need to rethink or to readjust your belief systems.

So Christine Stobla was being intellectually dishonest when she found that feminist texts, contained errors of fact, sins of ommission and errors of intepretation.

There is a process of projection and transference, I cant remember which is which, but basically you accuse another person of doing the things you are actually doing yourself.

For example a racially prejudice person accuses some else of being racial prejudice. So in this case is much easier to label MRA's as being intectually dishonest, than it is to challenge feminist research.

"If mama ain't happy. Nobodies Happy" Michelle Obama.

"has been delegated to the disempowered gender"

"of having the universe revolve around the needs of poor menz."

"Similar to women, children occupy a lower, largely disempowered position in a male-centric social hierarchy"

One of the problems we seem to have here, is about belief systems, for example if a person grows up feeling/believing that they are not worthwhile, then that is the lense through which they will view the world and relationships.

They will follow a personal script, which ignores any evidence that does not support their original position.

Another example is that if someone grows up being abused, it is possible that they then will extrapolate that to all or the majority of human relationships.

I find it immensely exasperating that I have written several posts here that focus on the general rights of children in this society. Yet, rather than anyone picking up on this and respectfully discussing it with me, I’m am STILL being hit with lengthy responses to what people think I’m supposed to be saying, for no reason other than that I’m a feminist.

Hardly any posters here have been able to get into the mindset that children exist IN THEIR OWN RIGHT and that they hold a disadvantaged position in the power hierarchy – one that deems them to be the chattels of their parents or guardians (although this is changing). Criminal and/or ‘disciplinary’ assault on children by a parent or relative is about the only form of assault that our society still condones – both socially and legally. This is a major stumbling block in achieving any gains in the fight against child abuse.

Why is this so hard to mentally grasp? I have used the position of women only as a point of comparison, to show that once a social paradigm shifts – e.g. gender attitudes to rape – then legal and political changes tend to follow.

This is where my interest in the gender war – in relation to this topic – begins and ends. The fact that the author used female examples has overwhelmingly dominated this thread - when it is largely irrelevant. Women tend to focus on women - so what? I am not interested in all this father’s rights versus mother’s rights crap (although I admit I have allowed myself to get side-tracked into that scrum, mostly in response to being misrepresented). If others are concerned with this, that’s fine. But please leave me out of it

David29

There are a lot of pyschobabble theories about - including good old castration anxiety - to supposedly explain why so many people irrationally fear feminism or any form of women's advocacy, but I have refrained from going down that road with you. It may one day be relevant to another OLO thread, but not this one.

JamesH

Sorry to hear about your failing eyesight … and my little jibe about reading was not meant to be taken seriously. I hope you still have many good reading years left.

Leftbehind father says to me:
"It is still clear that you have not acknowledged that the only thing you require to take away a father's child is for the mother to say he was abusive"
This is a piece of propaganda. It is wrong. It is a false belief.
Research Report 15 of the Australian Institute of Family Studies (http://www.aifs.gov.au/institute/pubs/resreport15/main.html) found the most common response by the courts to allegations of abuse was no response. That is their orders were no different from orders in cases where there were no allegations of abuse.
Mothers who allege abuse face being labelled as falsely alleging, vindictive, seeking advantage, being an unfriendly parent. They risk court costs, fines, imprisonment and loss of contact if they do not abide by court orders. The abducting mother of this thread can expect that she will have her child removed by Police, placed in foster care and she will be imprisoned and have supervision whenever/if she sees the child again. There are no rewards for her or the child here.
Certainly the misogynist posters on this thread have given vociferous examples of the kinds of furious hatred directed at women who challenge violence or abuse against them. I guess this post will attract a fresh round of sound and fury. As usual

"..found the most common response by the courts to allegations of abuse was no response"

No, the courts hear people peddling bullcrap everyday and tend to develop a talent for recognizing it. I did not say the courts believe any abuse allegation I said, "It is still clear that YOU have not acknowledged that the only thing YOU require..." (emphasis added)

"Certainly the misogynist posters on this thread have given vociferous examples of the kinds of furious hatred directed at women who challenge violence or abuse against them."

lol.. I love reading your convoluted exercises in vocabularic profoundity.. I have a good $5 word for you: sophistry

"I guess this post will attract a fresh round of sound and fury. As usual"

Not really, aside from pointing out the above distortion in your response i've lost interest in anything else you have to say. Not that I will play the fractelle card and tell you not to post anymore. Feel free to drone on as long as you'd like :)