"The idea that family courts are biased against men is a dangerous fallacy". Thoughts on this article? Does it have any merit or not? If so, why or why not?

EvilLothar · 2020-03-05T19:22:03+00:00

Where is the archive? I don't want to give that trash clicks.

RichardJLyon · 2020-03-05T19:58:20+00:00

I just read it. Parental alienation is “junk science”.

Criticises guidance given to courts to assume that children benefit from contact with both parents (I.e. the father). (This is rooted in hard feminist jurisprudence that seeks an end to nuclear families as the foundation of society).

“growing evidence” of its claim amounts to: an uncited academic paper; some feminist advocacy “research”; and a selection of cherry picked anecdotes from hostile jurisdictions.

All of this from an ideology that tolerates spoof academic papers claiming that tolerance of dog rape in public parks is evidence of rape culture, and the publication of sections of Mein Kampf reframed in the language of intersectional feminism.

In short: highly persuasive to those susceptible to its arguments; a confection of intellectual dishonesty to everyone else.

2020-03-05T19:07:32+00:00

At a glance, it's a Gish gallop

orangeLILpumpkin · 2020-03-06T02:55:22+00:00

Since 97% of alimony payers are men, it seems like there's probably not a lot of merit.

DubsPackage · 2020-03-06T04:11:13+00:00

The article puts forth the idea that women are the "default parent" and men must prove XYZ and be on good terms with the mother in order to have access to their children.

In other words making women the arbiters and gatekeepers of what is good for children and whether a father should be involved in his child's life based on similarly biased "Duluth Model" that incorrectly frames women as eternal victims.

Lethn · 2020-03-05T19:39:08+00:00

It's just outright lying and making shit up or they've interviewed people like for instance the women involved in these cases who will inevitably have an agenda. I actually don't know who would genuinely believe this aside from other feminists yet they insist on peddling this myth that family courts are biased in favour of fathers to paint themselves as the victims. I mean it works in our favour because even the most casual people who don't look at this stuff regularly are going to go hang on a minute at this.

I'm actually kind of amazed this was written so recently and I double check the date just to make sure this wasn't a repost so good job finding it. I wonder if feminists know there's a growing amount of sympathy for fathers and the cause that MRAs are proposing so they're trying to drum up some counter propaganda to make it out that MRAs are just full of shit but they've done a really bad job of it even by their standards.

Strikester101 · 2020-03-05T19:04:48+00:00

Here's the first thing I noticed; the author is appealing to emotion.

She defends her position by stating that 50 children die in 25 years by abusive parents.

...I mean, it doesn't take much intelligence why it's outright asinine. It's basically 2 child deaths per year. Which is not as remarkable as the author makes it out to be.

jbbf__nlebbh · 2020-03-06T06:43:08+00:00

No evidence, no sources. This form of ‘news’ needs to stop being normalized

Tacoboutit2me · 2020-03-06T09:32:56+00:00

Good old, don't believe your eyes, just believe what I tell you.

Remember that the fallacy about movie producers trading sexual favors for parts.

furchfur · 2020-03-06T10:52:07+00:00

The family courts are 100% biased against men.

This is blatant feminist propaganda. Feminists do not want to give up rights over children to men and want to be able to use alienation and false accusation without penalty.

Comments