SJF:"boohoo, you're all mean and I wan't talking to you anyway"

Guess what? Who cares?

If you continue to do as you've done to date and tell lies then I'll continue to point it out. I will not allow you or the other dishonest feminists here get away with your constant stream of misinformation and generalised abuse of men. As an example, from your last post:"posters like you present it (that Family Law is there mainly to protect the rights of vindictive women … groan). Would you like me to go back and find the many times I've specifically rejected that particular straw-man? Thought not, after all, that wouldn't be "telling lies for feminism", would it?

If, OTOH, you choose the honest route, I'd be happy to discuss the subject with you.

Your claim to be a victim is rejected, now go ahead and stand up for yourself instead of whining.

SJF:"children occupy a lower, largely disempowered position"

Especially in "single-mother" households, not in "a male-centric social hierarchy" as you like to put your claim for victimhood.

As it doesn't seem to have sunk in, I'll just remind you that most violence against children is perpetrated by their mother and non-related men associated with their mother, not by biological fathers. I don't believe you're the slightest bit interested in the plight of those children, because you've not once bothered to mention them, merely the lower number injured by their fathers. IOW, yours is a political, ideological position, not a compassionate, caring one.

Just as we thought.

SJF,

"Which of your diagnoses do you wish me luck with?"

My first reaction would be, all of the above, though it's more constructive (and accurate) for you to view your condition as a cohesive whole rather than view each separate symptom as a separate diagnosis. I find it very promising that you are able to keep a sense of humor about it. I myself find it pretty funny.

Cheers,
David

This sequence of postings reveals really interesting social responses to the issue of post-separation child abuse. The first noticeable thing is there is a terrific off-topic shift into each parent being more to blame than the other for everyting.
It leaves me with questions of the 'audience'.
Would a child experience a different quality of suffering if the same abuse was perpetrated by a male parent or a female parent?
Are male parents and female parents differently entitled to abuse children?
Is survival with the loss of parental relationship better for a child than having a relationship with the parent who kills her/him?

mog;"off-topic shift into each parent being more to blame than the other for everyting."

It's not off-topic, because the topic is the author's article, in which she mentions not a single case of abuse by a mother and several cases of the less-common abuse by a biological father.

That biased form of reporting gives an altogether false impression of the likely perpetrator to the casual reader.

Furthermore, by ignoring the abuse perpetrated by mothers, the author shows that her intent is to vilify fathers rather than to protect children.

If you don't agree with her, say so, don't blame me for setting the record straight.

mog:"Are male parents and female parents differently entitled to abuse children?"

According to Barbara Biggs's article here, it seems she thinks so. What do you think?

mog:"Is survival with the loss of parental relationship better for a child than having a relationship with the parent who kills her/him?"

What a stupid thing to say. Firstly, few children are victims of filicide, by either parent, therefore you're trying to generalise from extremes. Do you also favour immediate confiscation of all motor vehicles because some people are dangerous idiots behind the wheel? The vast majority of kids do better with frequent, prolonged periods with both their parents. Secondly, in cases of divorce, it is more frequently the custodial parent or those associated with that parent who will be an abuser. The stresses of parenting alone can be great and the child is always there, as well as being unable to fight back.

Anti-septic name-calling is a juvenile response which reveals a competency gap in your argument.
The article focuses on filicide in post separation contexts.
That is the topic.
At least it is clear that you still don't comprehend that.

Mog,

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. The only thing that has been objectively or even convincingly shown is that a woman parentally abducted a child and took them out of the country. If we can agree that parental abduction is child abuse, the only question that remains to be answered is if that abuse was justifiable in the sense that it was done to avoid greater harm to the child. What I found interesting, though not suprising, is how many of you (notice I did not say women, because men will also do so) assumed she was protecting the child. A year ago I may have made the same assumption, even today the question arises in my mind.

I have read the article the author referred to as the basis for hers. It has even been on my own site dedicated to international parental abductions since before she wrote hers:

http://hagueabductions.com

To my knowledge there has been no credible evidence or even uncredible allegations by anyone but the mother that the child is in danger with the father and we are approaching a year since the kidnapping occurred. If you study parental abduction cases you will see that almost every single one of them, whether perpetrated by a male or female, will allege abuse occurred as a justification for their crime. That is not to say that abuse never occurs, only that the allegation of it is virtually guarranteed and cannot be used as the sole basis of anything.