Tuesday, October 9, 2007

Some are more equal than others

Dear Peter Burns

The piece below is published today in WorldNetDaily, which has a huge and very influential circulation. It addresses child custody within the context of new feminist attempts to change the Constitution.

To help get more such pieces published, please respond with letters to the editor. Please use letters@worldnetdaily.com.

Regards - Stephen

In fact, if any group faces systematic discrimination today, it is males. And it is not trivial. Men routinely lose their children, along with everything else they possess (including their freedom), in divorce courts, because child custody is virtually automatic to mothers, even when the mother is the one breaking up the family. Feminists not only

read more | digg story

1 comment:

Peak Oil Conspiracy said...

Now this is what your blog should be about: good links and good discussion. I see you pulled yesterday's post - or was it one from the day before - about James Sleep. Is Roger Nome still trifling with you?

The paragraph from the article which appeals to me:

Here too the consequences are far more serious than "discrimination." Patently trumped-up domestic violence accusations are likewise used in custody cases to break up families by ensuring not only that divorcing mothers get monopoly custody of children, but that the children will be excluded from contact with the "patriarchy" represented by their fathers. Further, fathers are criminalized not for physical assault but for domestic "violence" that has no precise definition and may be no more than verbal insults.

We discussed this aspect the other day. I still remain of the view that it's difficult to devise a court system which gets to the truth in every case. Judges are faced with conflicting stories. And there will always be cases where women - and men - cynically make the system work for them.

Your suggested solution is to cause fathers to have a sense of family responsibility. And if the father is the root of the problem, and can bring himself to make a fresh start, then I'm all for that. But what if he can't? Likewise, there are frequently stories of mothers who leave children locked away in cars while they gamble away family funds on the pokies.

Look, if you toned back the invective somewhat, and formulated arguments supported by compelling evidence, then you could quite possibly become the Garth McVicar-like spokesman for your cause. But if you just spout off with angry drivel, as you tend to do, then you alienate your audience.

Fair comment?