THERE ARE NO FECKLESS MOTHERS WHO DENY CHILDREN ACCESS TO THEIR FATHERS...

is there Rt. Hon Iain Duncan Smith MP?

And of course Cafcass, family law courts, judges, solicitors and those feminists who think men/fathers are superfluous.

That's what Duncan Smith seems to be saying here.

Comments

[Stephen]

Hey again.
Firstly, -10 credibility points for quoting an article from the Daily Mail as primary (and in fact sole) source. Especially if said article relies upon a somewhat dubious story (i.e. the Bible).
You know, something else I'm loving about this website. It claims to be "The UK's leading website for raising issues about...discrimination against men." and yet has so few people frequenting it. Maybe a reflection upon the numbers of people who adopt your viewpoint?
The main thing I wanted to say though is you got it wrong. It's not "mothers who deny children access to their fathers". It should be "mothers who deny fathers access to their children".
Why? Because the mothers are protecting their children. These are not feminist mothers wanting their children to have an upbringing isolated from all male influences. These are mothers who want their children to have a safe upbringing. For, in cases such as these, it is due to abusive and violent husbands, who are a danger to both mother and children.
Please try and see this. You like stereotypes don't you? The idea that males are better because they were made to be dominant? If you're quoting an article based on Christianity then I'll assume so. So look at it this way. Stereotypically males are stronger and more violent. This is due to the lovely little Y chromosome we have, which scientifically explains how males are more aggressive. Testosterone plays a part. XYY males are especially violent. Females have no Y chromosome (generally, unless you're talking XXY but still), and as a result are generally less violent and more calm and forward planning. This generally means that when, in a relationship, something screws up, it is the male being a dick. They are violent, and the females are at risk.
It is no society-induced bias in that women are seen as victims. It is because this is what is true.

[J. MacKie]

Ah! Its Stephanie again.How is our closet Fawcett society individual getting on this merry christmas?
If the rightsofman website is so ineffectual why does it attract such feminist hatred? First from West Yorkshire Police and now from dear Steph....again steph...I was in uniform before you were in liquid form. Love and kisses for xmas.

[Stephen]

Hi...I am unsure why you turn my name into its female counterpart. It adds no value to your argument, an ad hominem attack is a logical fallacy, and has no effect upon my arguments - unless through attacking me personally you can show I am not of compos mentis, it is futile, and I still remain male. Also I am not a member of the Fawcett Society, nor any other society linked to gender equality, focusing on either sex. I assure you that if I were, however, it would not be closet, I would happily share with you any allegiances I held. To answer your question, I am fine thank you, this Christmas has been good. How was yours?
Why am I bothering with this debate if I believe the site to be ineffectual? Honestly because last night I could not sleep, so thought arguing my points in a friendly manner could pass the time. I had hoped that maybe I would get an argument back to my points, as that is the nature of a debate, and I like to be open to points made that I personally disagree with. It would seem you will not lend me this courtesy however.
As you repeat your last point I shall reiterate mine - there is no innate wisdom that comes with age that would mean you do not have to listen to me. You can choose not to, of course, but if that were the case you would not reply. As it stands I am an adult, I have the same rights as you, and we are equals. While you have more experience than I, my points are still valid, you are not innately better than me.

[Sick of Lies]

Okay, please forgive me as this is a bit off-topic, but I've just seen a shining example of pure, sexist bias by a judge against men today in a local paper.

http://www.southwalesargus.co.uk/news/8757615.Man_bit_mum___s_friend_on_the_nose/

Yes, biting someone on the fingers and the nose is pretty gruesome, but when I read on further about the incident it seems that the heavily intoxicated woman attacked the guy first by ramming her fingers down his throat as the guy was trying to stop her attacking his mother. Since she'd already smashed the windscreen of his mother's car, was trying to attack her, was in a state of extreme drunkeness and had already shoved her fingers down this man's throat I could well imagine that this could be a case of self-defence and maybe the biting aspect couldn't be helped when an attacker unexpectedly rams their fingers down a person's mouth?

For this, the judge handed the man a suspended sentence, and is quoted as saying something like: "A man who attacks a woman is nothing but a coward and a bully." What about a woman who attacks another woman or man (particularly if she's young and her victim is elderly)? Clearly, the judge is biased. I thought that the whole point of judges is that they are supposed to judge the crime impartialy, not the gender or class of the person accused of it. Instead, this judge clearly has his own sexist political beliefs here and he allows it to intefere with his work. I mean, isn't that technically a form of corruption?

Sorry, to be off-topic. Just couldn't help citing it as an example of sexist bias against males when you mentioned judges. Pretty glaring example of anti-male bias, eh?

[Sick of Lies]

Um...okay, correction as I misread the fact that the guy punched the woman's windscreen first(!)

But, surely the judge shouldn't have used the court as a platform to promote his own political beliefs?

[Jon]

"This generally means that when, in a relationship, something screws up, it is the male being a dick. They are violent, and the females are at risk."

That is a disgusting remark. Stephen, you truly are a sexist individual no matter what chromosomes you have.

Also, given that you accept that men and women are NOT equal, I guess you are in agreement that the 'gender pay gap' could well be due to men being more assertive in the world of business and so rightly deserving of their alleged higher pay rates?