I don't get the point of their superhero costumes.
I also feel somewhat queasy at the use of 'feminist agenda', but then the word has various meanings doesn't it; there are several women I know who I'd regard as feminists but they deny it because they think the word has strong overtones of a belief in female supremacy.
Taken at that meaning - which, I emphasise, I have no idea if it's their intended one or not - they're absolutely correct about rights of fathers.
mojojojo wrote: I'm not saying that father's unjustifiably being denied access to their kids never happens
It's not that it happens more than 'never', it's that it's the norm. Hearings for custody of children are hugely biased towards the desires of the mother and against the father.
Just because we live in a sexist society that denigrates women doesn't mean there isn't a serious point here - in fact, it is *because* we live in that sexist society that thinks women are always better at administering care and are naturally better parents that the courts have their bias towards mothers getting better custody and access rights.
mojojojo wrote: group of bullies
As I understand it, their actions have involved a lot of roof-sitting, some chucking paint around and a bit of blockading. How does the word 'bullies' apply to them and not to, say, people outside arms fairs or blockading GM crop companies?
mojojojo wrote: Funny how they only pull this sort of shit on female ministers, judges etc. Oh, and Tony Blair I suppose.
And the Lord Chancellor, and - their main focus - a whole load of gender-neutral government buildings.
There are clearly some criticisms to be levelled at Fathers 4 Justice, but only targeting females is well wide of the mark. That's just inaccurate though, whereas the allegation that they want to be able to beat up their ex-wives is outright offensive.
In reply to:
Re: (mojojojo) | |
Replies:
Re: (mojojojo)
|
|
