| |
|
GGM says, of what follows:
"I wouldn't, and haven't asked for SS to be banned based on one post, or one thread. This, for the purposes of my request to have him banned, or at the very least 'frozen', is some of the background of what may have seemed to some to the quick-to-anger response evidenced in the Duke thread."
I say: isn't GGM a much more reasonable person than me? I started thinking about showing dude the door around the time of his first post in the Fathers For Justice thread, in which he said:
but i can say from direct experience that attys for moms routinely and categorically promote false/overblown claims of violence and abuse in order to villify the dad.
and:
i can say from direct experience that dads will always get less custody time than mom. if both parents are ruled fit, the mom gets more. period.
How one can have direct experience of every custody battle ever fought between a heterosexual ex-couple is a question I will leave you, gentle readers, to ponder over dinner, or in the shower or bath. You might also want to note that in his first post to that thread, Shadowsax also suggests that kidnapping Blair's son was an idea he could see the justification for, although of course he doesn't condone it.
Let's note that our boy ends said post on a note that, in my opinion, shows his real attitude to the board better than all the subsequent half-apologies and maybe-if-I-lower-my-profile-they'll-all-forget-that-stuff stuff:
if you think i'm mistaken here, you're wrong and ill-informed. sorry bout ya.
When I call him on this, he replies:
actually i thought it best to lower to the standards already presented in this thread.
anyway, just wanted to fend off any disagreements. dont i get the last word?
At this point, were I in Tom Coates' position, I would have taken measures to ensure that this was, in fact, his last word on Barbelith. But what do I know?
Back to GGM (I can't keep putting those quote marks in, the rest of this post is GGM):
"Ill-informed speculation presented as fact here:
dad is the primary earner, earning a higher wage due to the culture of dad working the "main" job (not due to the myth that men make more than women for the same job).
which isn't backed up, as refuting posters do, by any external source, becomes generalising about women...
it's also a fact that mom will illegally keep dad from kids
and then generalised into a theory of dads and feminism:
the only reason that fathers are in this situation is because of a massive and often angry, disruptive feminist movement. they got what they wanted. dads are trying to fight the remnants of that whole thing. you know, "all heterosexual sex is rape," that kind of stuff.
Same thread:
earlier in the 20th century fathers were always given custody. this changed prior to the feminist movement, with the establishment of the "nurturing" parent idea, which was then summarily used to put children with mom. but the money stuff started later, as did the new laws on restraining orders. those are from the feminist movement which has cast women as victims in general.
He raises equal pay as a 'myth' and then dimisses both Haus and Jack Fear when they respond with figures and sources.
Ie, he is not interested in any argument that destabilises his 'women have all the cards'/are unfairly in charge POV.
FFJ, page 4.
regarding domestic abuse charges as they related to f4j. i'll answer this as proxy first, to say that to direct concerns of custody to custody matters, domestic abuse of a partner has as much relevance to a custody case as does any other allegation of past criminal behavior. many fathers rights groups will position themselves in this way. the good, valid (i think) reason is that domestic abuse charges are often overblown or the allegations come after the custody situation has already been engaged.[Italics GGM's.]
Assumption and propogation, with no evidence, of the idea that women (in his egs, its all women and men, afai can see) routinely exaggerable/lie about domestic violence."
[Back to me Fly/Gundetta: there's more stuff from the FFJ thread to come, and we haven't even got onto the 'Sensitive Rapist' or 'Pro-choice should extend to men' threads yet...] |
|
|
