Re: Fathers 4 Justice

message from Steenkin Man on 20 May 2004

They're guaranteed to see their kids now because the media will be
camping on their ex-wives doorsteps until they do.

One guy hasn't seen his children for five years, despite numerous
court orders that say he has that right. Now the judges will be forced
to take action against the females who are in contempt of court.

Those men are brave, they risked their lives and liberty for love of
their children.

You, on the other hand, are a feminazi ****e.

Kurious Oranj replied to Steenkin Man on 20 May 2004

I wouldn't go as far as the last comment, but one things for certain,
they've made this an issue, to the degree that within a few years,
politicians will be saying that "maybe laws and courts were biased
against men a little too far in the name of equality"

These guys have learnt from people like Greenpeace. Disobedience without
malice achieves far more than letter writing. The only thing with stunts
is, people have to have a good moral case and be easily understood. I'm
involved in a few campaigns that I don't think most of the public would
really care about if they knew about them, so stunts wouldn't work.

Maria replied to Kurious Oranj on 20 May 2004

The pols won't care until they think that the people will get rid of
them for not caring.

Kurious Oranj replied to Maria on 20 May 2004

Exactamundo!

Pols will care about what they care about, or what they are made to care
about. Complaining letters can be ignored and thrown in the bin.

If there's a change in the law regarding father's access rights in 3-5
years, it will be mostly because of this incident, not some pol actually
caring.

Maria replied to Kurious Oranj on 20 May 2004

Just can't see how.
In our 5 year battle to achieve and maintain contact with my step-son,
I don't recall ever meeting a single other person who actually cared
about it.
Not the solicitor - they get paid whatever...
Not the magistrate - they have another 15 cases like this today but
concerning children who get fag butts stubbed out on them.
Not the childs teachers - it's not our business we must not
intervene...and by the way, can you show us your PRO?
Not the social services - well unless you have evidence that the child
is actually being physically harmed on a regular basis...
Not the doctors - he hasn't been here for two years - we have no idea
if he is well oh and by the way, can you show us your PRO?
Not the CWO's - can't you give in a little Mr. Thomson, because she
won't? The child's welfare is irrelevant to the case Mr. Thomson.
Not the CSA -paying maintenance is not related to your contact with
the child Mr Thomson.
Not even the grandparents - you should have just walked away while you
could.

People who showed a jot of interest simply presumed that the courts
would just 'do the right thing', and were not interested or surprised
to learn that the whole system is biased.

As it stands, men are not in a position to make their case - they need
to behave more like women, ie. give up work to care for their kids and
be prepared to sacrifice their freedoms a bit. They need to instil a
new view that men do belong in the home with the children. Perhaps
some of them might even like to stand as magistrates instead of
leaving it to bored middle class housewives, many of whom still
believe that the children belong with the mother at any cost.

We need to see more cases where the principle that the child's welfare
is paramount has been ignored or abused by irrational judgements. We
need to publicise these cases.

But most of all we need to find a way to make people *think* - last
person to give up please switch off the light on the way out.

Greg replied to Maria on 20 May 2004

It's considered good practice to define abbreviations before you use
them.

In other words, what the hell is a PRO?

So goes the age old cry of the make-a-baby-win-a-prize freeloader.
Isn't it odd that the only people clucking incessantly that visitation
shouldn't relate to support are ..... the ones getting support?

Look, fathers obviously can't rely on the courts to enforce
visitation. What will the courts do? Throw poor widdle hewpwess
mommy in the pokey where she damnwell belongs? Fat chance. Hence,
fathers need another way to make their rawhide-chewing ex wives live
up to their agreements. Withholdhing of support has an immediate and
punishing effect. Of course, mommy can currently go crying to the
courts when this happens, but what if she couldn't? Think more
mommies would suddenly start allowing scheduled visitation?

And it's only fair anyway. If two people make an agreement, and one
doesn't live up to it, there is no agreement. If two people agree to
partner in pursuit of a common goal, and one does no work, there is no
partnership. Is this sinking in yet?

Today's vaunted single mommy is like a sweatshop proprietor with a
room full of illegals chained to their stations. Since his workers
must work for him lest they face deportation or worse, he has no
particular incentive to treat them well. But if they aren't slaves,
and if they have the freedom to stay or go, the former master must
provide some _incentive_ for the workers to stay and work. Such
incentives may include pay, benefits, a safe work environment, and
protection from discrimination or harassment.

In the case of the single mommy, this incentive may be to let Dad see
his kids. But instead of doing that, she'd rather have her way and
_force_ him to work for her. And if he strays from the narrow path
she has laid for him, she calls him an immoral deadbeat for seeking
his own freedom and loving his children, and she calls in her courts
and her police to reign in the uppity man. But the real deadbeat is
the one beating her hairy chest and extorting money from her former
man like a high school thug taking lunch money.

Why? Why be so terrible, especially when it's so harmful to the
children? Because she hates him more than she loves them. She blames
him for the failure of _her_ marriage, and she can use the full power
of the State to express her displeasure with him.

What were you saying about someone stopping records? Here is another
common femmunist argument. If a man can avoid marriage, it's somehow
OK to do as you like to him once he gets married.

Not for you to decide, sweet cheeks. King George III didn't think the
Continentals were "in a position to make their case." But make it
they did, just not in a way acceptable to His Majesty.

Guffaw! Oh my word! A feminist telling me to be more like a woman!
I've NEVER heard that before!

Get some new material. I'm not quite ready for the collapse of
western civilization. Something must prop it up, and women aren't it.

They really can't do that when their wives are either unwilling to
work or unable to do anything that pays well. Someone has to pay the
bills.

If he slaves at a desk job so his wife can play house on his nickel,
he's given up a bit of his freedom.

That's not a new view. Feminists have just nagged it out of
existence.

Indeed, some would like to do that. But they can't, because they have
to WORK. Ugh. Take your motherly care ethic to the nearest market
and see if they give you food for it, you self-praising oaf.

You are in no position to issue that challenge. How can you make
others think if you can't think?

If I were you, I too would ask someone to put my lights out.

Maria replied to Greg on 21 May 2004

Apologies...

A Parental Responsibility (PR) Order. Ideally both parents of a child
have parental responsibility (equal say in the upbringing of the child
and parental rights). The parents of a child born in wedlock
automatically have this legal responsibility - wrt a child born out of
wedlock, the mother automatically has PR but the father does not. The
father can have Parental Responsibility if the woman agrees, but if
she doesn't, then he must ask a court to award it to him and the woman
must accept that he has it. From then on, the father can take matters
of PR to court if the woman will not take his opinion into account.

I don't know if that is true but it seems that way. You pay support,
the contact is unrelated, you don't pay, you don't have rights. The
law appears to support the notion that it is unrelated.

Not really no. It worked in our case because the woman's embarrassment
in court made her give in, but she gives it and withdraws it again at
the drop of a hat.

Nope. Though it has been done IIRC.

Ha!

Depends how bloody-minded she is. In our case, the woman would have
paid in order to prevent the child from seeing his dad - the principle
was more important than the fact. Alsooo that women are not allowed to
keep their child support if on Income Support so it makes no odds to
them whether he withdraws it or not.

Doubtless. OTOH could absent fathers who do not wish to have contact
then have a case for not paying?

Sory I don't follow you. Where I come from, if people make an
agreement, then that agreement can be enforced if one party refuses to
live up to it.

Not really. I don't think I know what agreement you are talking about.

I see, yes I understand. Really it would be better to abolish the
obligation to support your children then. Maybe people would be more
careful about who they have children with (both parties), and we
certainly would not see many cases like ours where the woman had a
child simply to entrap the man.

I don't think we are in any disagreement here.

Sorry I can't see how that is connected to what I said. I was making
the point that sometimes if you go complaining to your parents about
what your ex partner is doing, they will take the line that you should
have not hung around, or you made your bed you lie in it. That kind of
thing, IOW they are not interested either.
Grandparents could perhaps actually help if more of them went to court
over access to their grandchildren.

I didn't decide it - the society they created did.

I should have added the word 'lawfully'.

Why do you think I'm a feminist? I'm not, for what it's worth.
Most men I know haven't got a clue when it comes to understanding
women (and vice versa). It can help to have a woman on side or at
least a woman's input.

Women have always propped up civilisation whether men or women like it
or not. (I don't like it - I would rather have been a man). It's just
the nature of things (see below).

You fall at the first fence then. That's where it all falls down. If
you want your kids, you'll do it, because that's what women have have
always done.
That's why the world sees women as child devoted and oriented people.
What would you say to her if she said 'I'm not going to work, I'm
staying home to look after the baby whether you like it or not'? Okay
then hunnney... What do most men say if the woman has a baby and then
declares that she is going straight back out to work? They get an au
pair or a nanny because men's work is important to them.
What do you do when she closes her legs to make her point?
What you do is give in - if she thought you'd just go and pay, it
wouldn't work
Be prepared to go without money. Be prepared to go without a car. Be
prepared to go without a night out with the lads. Be prepared to give
up beer. Be prepared to give up work, blessed relief that work may be.
.
Yes and no. I'm not so man-blind that I don't know what going to work
means to a man. He is not programmed for that staying in the house all
day cleaning floors alone thing. She can do it if she has gaggles of
like-minded friends to hurl coffeea and moans at.
I believe that for men, work is a refuge and home can be a fairly
repressive female dominated environment. She chooses the decor, she
makes the rules. However jointly those decisions appear to be made,
very often the man just gives in because he doesn't really care what
bloody colour the walls are (though he does when he is a batchelor,
oddly). I don't believe that many men are gagging to give up work and
tie themselves to the isolation of the house, but please correct me if
I'm wrong!

I agree, but the courts (at least here) have upheld that view for a
long time. Children and careers do not go together, and largely it was
men who had the careers before.

No you DON'T. Just give it up and see what happens. It;s what women
have to do. It's what women do when the relationship breaks up. It is
the assumption that if a couple get divorced, the man will carry on
working to support her and she will jsut give up work.
You don't want to give up? Well there you go then.

And that is why women will always win - because you think my argument
is unsound because you just can't see yourself giving up work.

I'm not self-praising, I'm telling you facts - oh and kindly remember
that your issue involves women. My life is dominated by my husbands ex
shag - she makes the rules, I must play along with them for his sake
and his childs sake. For 5 years I have had to give in and allow this
woman to not only dominate my husband, but dominate me and my children
too. For five years I have watched money pour out of our bank account
and into our lawyers, and into her bank when she spends it on booze
and neglects the child.

You either adopt the motherly care ethic, or you will never be seen as
an equal. Not by me, but by the courts.

I get along fine thanks -enough to elicit a reply from you at least.

You carry on wading through the mud. You deserve it.

Steenkin Man replied to Maria on 20 May 2004

Typical feminazi. Men can have equal rights but only if they turn into
females.

Men *will* get equal rights, but not by following advice like yours.

Men will get equal rights by *taking* them, not by begging for them.

Yep, men have too much freedom, don't they? They have the freedom to
support females who can't make it on their own. They have the freedom
to lose their children on the whim of some bitch.

There's a new attitude growing in today's men. You aren't going to
like it.

Maria replied to Steenkin Man on 20 May 2004

Jesus change the record...

No. How do you make a case for the importance of men in children's
lives without taking on some of the woman's role? How did women
achieve the rights they have now? By going out into the workplace and
trying and putting up with discrimination for years. That is what it
takes to push the issue into the public consciousness.

Please yourself and throw flour bombs then.

You take by going out and participating. Or perhaps you want your cake
and eat it. Pub friday nights, kids saturday mornings?

There is no such thing as 'too much'. There is relative freedom,
that's all.

They have choice - they don't have to choose that.

Then be careful which bitch you plant it in, or play an equal role so
that you have a strong case.

What's that then?

Joe Hutcheon replied to Maria on 21 May 2004

They're going to whinge like wimmin!

Maria replied to Joe Hutcheon on 21 May 2004

LOL!

Philip Lewis replied to Maria on 23 May 2004

Joe Hutcheon replied to Philip Lewis on 24 May 2004

See what I mean? Whinge, whinge whinge.

Philip Lewis replied to Joe Hutcheon on 24 May 2004

| "Philip Lewis" <NotTelling@hotmail.com> wrote in message
| news:2hbh1jFavksiU1@uni-berlin.de...
| >
| > "Maria" <frustrated@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
| > news:40ae02a0.51546104@News.Individual.NET...
| > | On Fri, 21 May 2004 12:55:13 +0100, "Joe Hutcheon"
| > | <j.hutcheon@jisc.ac.uk> wrote:
| > |
| > | >"Maria" <frustrated@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
| > | >news:40ad2bd9.2752850@News.Individual.NET...
| > | >> On Thu, 20 May 2004 22:58:27 +0100, Steenkin Man
| > <me@privacy.net>
| > | >> wrote:
| > | >> >There's a new attitude growing in today's men. You
aren't
| > going to
| > | >> >like it.
| > | >>
| > | >> What's that then?
| > | >
| > | >They're going to whinge like wimmin!
| > |
| > | LOL!
| >
| > So this is the 'Maria' that is 'supportive' of justice for
| > fathers!
| > Looks like you let your disguise slip - fool!
|
| See what I mean? Whinge, whinge whinge.

Given your response it is clear you have little sense of irony.

Dom Robinson replied to Maria on 20 May 2004

If only yesterday's event had got rid of the pols who aren't caring about such
situations.

When the Oscars was on, I wondered what would happened if a terrorist attack
wiped out everyone in that room, since you wouldn't get many more big-name
films made for some time, and then if the same had happened yesterday...

Let's hope that they realise next time that they should NOT let them out of
the chamber in such a situation, otherwise anthrax/ricin would be spread to
the public.

Maria replied to Dom Robinson on 20 May 2004

Well I hope it doesn't happen, because the first thing that would
happen would be that a National State of Emergency would be declared
and we would lose every last vestige of 'rights' that we have
remaining.

Philip Lewis replied to Maria on 23 May 2004

| On Thu, 20 May 2004 22:06:58 +0100, Dom Robinson
| <murphyisamuppet@hotmail.com> wrote:
|
| >In article <40acfbf4.13960836@News.Individual.NET>,
frustrated@ntlworld.com
| >says...
| >> >You don't have to get the public to care, you have to get
the
| >> >politicians to care.
| >>
| >> The pols won't care until they think that the people will
get rid of
| >> them for not caring.
| >>
| >If only yesterday's event had got rid of the pols who aren't
caring about such
| >situations.
| >
| >When the Oscars was on, I wondered what would happened if a
terrorist attack
| >wiped out everyone in that room, since you wouldn't get many
more big-name
| >films made for some time, and then if the same had happened
yesterday...
| >
| >Let's hope that they realise next time that they should NOT
let them out of
| >the chamber in such a situation, otherwise anthrax/ricin would
be spread to
| >the public.
|
| Well I hope it doesn't happen, because the first thing that
would
| happen would be that a National State of Emergency would be
declared
| and we would lose every last vestige of 'rights' that we have
| remaining.

Fathers have already lost that!

Kurious Oranj replied to Dom Robinson on 22 May 2004

Who were the people on the planet in hitch hikers? telephone sanitation
engineers and the like. Add politicians. Mostly, the country would
function far better if the civil servants just did it all and made all
the decisions and laws only got changed when they really had to be, not
because of some Daily Mail headline.

Paris replied to Maria on 20 May 2004

Sadly, they don't care until things become violent.
If 100,000 anti-war protestors had each smashed a window, and then got
back on the train.
We might be living in a different world now.

Steenkin Man replied to Paris on 21 May 2004

Well, there soon won't be any trains. Is this a plot to stop mass
protests in London this summer?

Remember how all the London transport got ****ed up on the Father's
Day Demo last year?

The Demo this year is June 18, London. Be there! You'll see history
made! **** it, you'll MAKE history!

Maria replied to Steenkin Man on 21 May 2004

All they have to do is ban your protest on the grounds of national
security. Chucking things around in the HOC is likely to make that
more likely.

Maria replied to Maria on 21 May 2004

You might smile, but if you take a step back and take a look at
society all over the world, you might see how vitally important the
mothers role actually is and why it is that way.

First thing you need to do is undestand what is going on here. I have
an acquaintance who is a surrogate mother (about to have her 3rd or
4th child). Women are even prepared to pay £20,000 to have a child if
they can't have one themselves. They are driven to have and keep their
children. They only ovulate once a month. They carry the child for 9
months - they can't run away from it. The programming is different.
The second thing to do is to realise that women aren't necessarily
evil because of what they do. Very often the women cannot see the harm
she is causing (I have overheard terrible rows where you wouldn't
think the child even exists, even though the argument started about
the child). Very often her possessive instincts regarding the child
are very strong - this is how *she* is programmed. Very often the
child is a meal ticket for her, and she can't help it that she has a
survival instinct, however wrong it may be - that's the way our
society is. Very often the women is emotionally hurt by the break up
of the relationship and uses the child as a weapon to take revenge on
the father. Again, rightly or wrongly, she is doing what comes
naturally, just the same as a father might when he even considers
having her knee-capped to get her out of the way in order to see his
child.

At the end of the day, there is little you can do, because this is the
manner of human nature. Nobody wants to be controlled, and a father
demanding to see his child after a relationship has broken up is seen
as an attempt to exert control over the mother, while the mother
exerts control over the father by disallowing it. These are the things
that are the basis of animosity. Men often don't know what hurts
women, and women can't understand why men don't understand or
acknowledge why they are hurt.

Any man already has the power to assist himself here by thinking about
it, identifying with the woman's hurt and learning how to (genuinely)
apologise and break down barriers and talk. Anything that prevents
resentment from building up will help prevent some of these cases.

Secondly, society is already changing, with more and more women seeing
and enjoying the benefits of working and having time to themselves and
enjoying their freedom. Play on these things and encourage the woman
that she might benefit from sharing responsibility and even residence
of the child. But how many men say 'I can't share residence, I'm
working?' They must assume some of the motherly position, however
unthinkable it might be if they want to 'win'..
Women also feel very resentful - I spent many years as a single
parent, and you can't even pop out for a packet of ciggies once the
children are in bed. Earning money becomes an impossibility without
strong family back-up. They see seperated men living the single life,
or with a new partner, they see them having money, they see them
having freedom and going down the pub. They see them having a laugh
with their mates and walking about with no responsibilities. Then once
a week or fortnight, he wants to come and take the child out or to
stay overnight, but then the child is brought back in time for him to
resume his single/new life. He can go out whenever he feels like it,
he can work and earn money. Imagine how it actually is to be a lone
parent. I don't think most people can know unless they actually do it.
If some of that resentment can be swept away, it would go a long way
to easing the parental rights of the father.
Many men don't even understand what it means to be a housewife.
My husband was forced to give up his job due to the ex - he hasn't
'worked' since then. We are self-employed but I do most of the office
stuff while he cares for our two young'uns. He says he can't believe
how soul-destroying housewifery can be and that he had never imagined
it could be such a drudge. He's done it for two years, I did it for
13.

The gap is so yawning, I don't believe it can be overcome overnight.

Yes. Unfortunately my husband assumed the male position (dishonesty
and then resignation then the three monkeys and then beer) and allowed
the rot to set in. He couldn't talk to her and the resentment was so
enormous that she actually stabbed him out of pure frustration.
By the time they got as far as mediation, there was nothing left to
say and the CWO had to try and persuade one of them to talk.

What do people do when it's gone this far? Talk. Write letters. Be
understanding. Don't criticise. Anything to try and break down some
of those barriers.
My experience with men is that they they rarely say 'what's the
problem?' and actually listen to the answer. In my case, if my husband
could just talk to his ex and ask her why she is so angry, and listen
to her, and let her get it out of her system, I believe it would be a
great help. This is two people who can barely exchange 3 words without
blowing up, it's that bad.
When people get like this, they will cut off their noses to spite
their faces, and any amount of discomfort is better than 'giving in'.

We have contact now, but there is little chance of it increasing. Our
solicitor is very negative, saying 'well you risk alienating her if
you press for more contact, so I think you'd better just leave it'.
Solicitors like that...get rid.

No, sorry - my empathy is for the children. Every child has the right
to see it's father. My empathy for my step-son has been the only thing
that has kept me going and saved us from a divorce.

I am not saying that I don't believe in protest - I just believe that
some types of protest are counter-productive. Look at the image the
anti-war movement has here now as an example. Image is everything.

Women had strong support because 50% of the population is female.
Fathers denied access are not in a majority or anywhere near it.

F4J has already managed to piss off motorists and now the HOC.

I do suggest protest, but I would do it differently. Numbers are
everything.
First you need to get other men interested, and you don't do it by
calling all women feminazi's, since most men actually like women and
are partnered by one.
I suggest very peaceful but massive protests - to get that kind of
support, F4J has at least got to come across as rational.
Become too radical, they risk alienating Joe Normal and definitely
Josephine normal.
I'm on F4J's side, but I've been insulted and called feminazi several
times.
Who thinks that this is going to make me want to become a 'purple
heart'?

Ian replied to Maria on 21 May 2004

I've never heard such self serving Garbage on usenet. Men DIE everyday
protecting and providing for their family. They fight wars to make
the home safe for their offspring. Women merely cook the food.

The social use of a mother is care, wiping arses, and menial feeding
until they are 7 or eight. At that point the absence of a father to
teach life skills to his son, causes the son to completely fail to
be as successful an adult as he could be. The reason women aren't
very good at anything is because if they were, the kids wouldn't
have someone to try to beat.

Oh, and please don't say "First thing you need to do is undestand what
is going on here." It's insulting to everyman's intelligence.

If you want to show how good you are, build a skyscraper.

Bigot replied to Ian on 21 May 2004

news:<40adc4ae.35685581@News.Individual.NET>...

First off they should try building a home then a family, if after forty
years or so they can show the world they are good at it, then we might
consider letting them build a bungalow:-)

Maria replied to Ian on 21 May 2004

How so?

So? That is their role.

Indeed.

Really. So how you gonna fight wars with several sprogs hanging on
your ankles? Stick them in your backpack?

Everything they learn in the first 5 years has the most profound
effect on their lives. Be there or be ?

I agree entirely.

Do men really think this? Why do you think that women aren't any good
at anything? If they aren't, then why is it that women are actually
good at some things, in spite of what you say?

I have already said that men don't understand women and vice versa.
Which part of that didn't you understand?

So there you have it. Men think that building skycrapers is an
achievement, for women, building a home and a strong family is an
acheivement.
Sure you wouldn't like to reconsider?

Scott Gilbert replied to Maria on 21 May 2004

I have never seen anyone deny this, it is so far from being denied as
to be an underlying assumption of _every_ serious person who has ever
engaged in this debate. It is the role of the father that even you
tacitly downplay the importance of in the above paragraph.

[snip]

And no one bothers to acknowledge male hurt at all. Often not even
the man who has obviously been slaughtered in the pro female free for
all that is the family court. His pain, his injuries are so terrible,
so obvious, but even as we are spattered with gore, we pretend that
everything is as it should be. Fathers for Justice is here to tell us
that all is _not_ as it should be.

First, often, he has nothing to apologise for. Second, grovelling in
fear and abject terror rarely accomplishes much in the face of a
determined and vengeful foe.

Most divorced men would literally kill for shared residence if doing
so would be effective. It is not because men refuse to accept this
responsibility that it does not happen, it is because they are not
permitted to do so.

It's a very interesting picture, but like so many works of art, it has
little relationship to reality except inasmuch as it reflects the
perceptions of divorced women who have, in fact, labored long and hard
to manufacture exactly that situation by refusing to consider shered
residence.

She stabbed him because he wouldn't talk, yet you manage to paint
_him_ as the villain of the piece. I'm getting the feeling "he" is
nothing more than an artifice used to pretend that you care for the
plight of fathers separated from their children, for your writing
betrays nothing of any such concern.

[snip]

And here's where your "plan" comes unstuck. Massive protests only
come when there are massive numbers of people who care. Yet the only
way to expose massive numbers of men to our message is massive
publicity. Massive publicity requires radical, extreme acts. Joe and
Josephine normal do not attend protests, they're much to busy just
surviving. It is the philosophers among us who attend protests
(witness the incidence of university students in any major protest),
and such people can see past extreme acts to the motives that drive
those acts and are capable of evaluating the legitimacy of the
greivances being expressed despite the inconvenience that is inflicted
(witness the sympathy for the motives of terrorists that can be
observed in the work of many left wing commentators).

In any case, the acquittal of "spider man" on the basis that the road
closures were nothing more than a police negotiating tactic has ripped
the guts out of any legitimate criticism of his acts.

alleigance is as alleigance does. Portraying men separated from their
children as a bunch of abusive assholes who deserved what they got for
hurting their lily white innocent wives is not the act of an ally.

Your husband may or may not be the worthless loser that you portray
him as, but that image is certainly not representative of even a small
cross section of the men who find themselves raped by family courts.

derek replied to Maria on 21 May 2004

Whitelist
Like the "Surrogate mother" who got sent to gaol at Leeds Crown Court
this morning for selling the same baby 2 times over. LOL

DG

Maria replied to derek on 21 May 2004

Your point?

Maria replied to Paris on 21 May 2004

I can't think of many issues where civil violence has changed the law
in recent times. ?

We might but I doubt it.

Mike Hall replied to Maria on 21 May 2004

The Brixton riots (ok. that changed police attitudes not the law, really),
the Poll Tax, Animal Rights...
Protest rarely works unless accompanied by headline-grabbing violence due to
the intrinsic corruption of our Parliamentary 'Democracy'.

Mike Hall

Maria replied to Mike Hall on 21 May 2004

I don't know if that changed anything.

I thought it was that so many people just refused to pay that brought
that down.

The animal rights thing didn't really work until they had the bloody
fur coat stunt - I believe it was a commercial decision to limited the
use of animals. Much of what was won then has melted away though.

Reading the news this morning, it has indeed worked, in highliting a
gaping hole in the PM's security.

I see Max Clifford is on the case though. That should finish F4J off
for good (sadly)

As for the F4J demonstrators, they evidently don't have the bowels for
it. They apologised for not thinking about the terrorist aspect, and
also said they wouldn't throw flour while Blair was speaking about
Iraq because it would be 'disrespectful'.

Forgive me for thinking that nothing (at least regarding absent
fathers) will change because of this..

Maria replied to Maria on 21 May 2004

Ok. Now give me one reason why any of this should persuade me to
support F4J?

Don't tell me, you don't want the support of people like me.

ROFLMAO.

Steenkin Man replied to Maria on 21 May 2004

Without wishing to be offensive (as if), you're right. Decent men
don't want support from your kind because you pollute whatever you
touch.

You're on record as saying that men should learn how to apologise (for
what? Being men?) to females. You sympathise with the female who
stabbed your own husband and you make excuses for her.

Those new to the Men's Movement will often welcome females like you
with open arms because they are socialised to seek approval from
females. You love the attention you get, but then your mask slips and
they see you for the parasite that you really are.

The Men's Movement, in all its branches, does not need the approval of
one single female to achieve its aims. What must be done will be done
in spite of females, not because they give their blessing.

Decent women will help where they can and get out of the way when they
can't help.

cacked this ****in treat out!

you should convert to islam....wanker

"...Men have authority over women because God has made the one
superior to
the other, and because men spend their wealth to maintain them. Good
women are obedient. They guard their unseen parts because God has
guarded them. As for those among you who fear disobedience, admonish>
them and send them to beds apart and beat them." Sura 4:34

"...Women shall with justice have rights similar to those exercised
against them, although men have a status above women. God is mighty
and wise." Sura 2:228

Have a Maria Award: http://urlcut.com/Maria

cacked this ****in treat out!

have this award ****stick!

http://www.amishrakefight.org/gfy/

That's the trouble with feminazis, no class.

This is how it's done: http://www.tourettes.co.uk

cacked this ****in treat out!

then tell yer mother

another award for YOU
http://www.bitchmakemeasandwich.com/

tables turn'd ****stain

Genesis 8. [16] Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow
and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and
thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

Proverbs 12.
[4] A virtuous woman is a crown to her husband: but she that maketh
ashamed is as rottenness in his bones.

Sir.25 3. [24] Of the woman came the beginning of sin, and through her we
all die.

Maria replied to Steenkin Man on 22 May 2004

If this is how you treat people who are on your side, there isn't much
hope. What's more, you risk the reputation of men who are not
women-hating who have lost their children.

For their mistakes. It takes two to get on amicably. You want to see
your kids - you learn how to apologise. It's called playing the game.
You whinge when you lose but refuse to learn the rules of the game.You
play the game, you win, your kids win, your wife thinks she has won
(and has to some degree0.
Play or lose - you choose,

Learn to read. I empathise with her, I do not sympathise with her. She
is a nutcase and a first class controlling bitch, but at the end of
the day, she has conrtol of my husband's child. I *have* to learn to
understand her, for the child's sake. Other than that, I can tell her
to **** right off, which I would love to do, but if I did that, he
would never see his child again. I am learning to play the game, and I
am a woman.
As for making excuses for her, my husband treated her like a sack of
****e as much he she treated him badly, so yes I do understand why she
is the way she is. I am not blinded by my allegiance to my husband - I
know what I have to do and what has to be done. In 6 years time it
will be irrelevent and I can go slap her face for all the trouble she
has caused me. For now, I play the game, for the child's sake, and
that is what matters..

I do not seek your approval - I support the right of a child to have
access to both its mother and its father and was interested in F4J for
that reason.
I toss my opinion into the hat - you can take it or leave it. That's
what this forum is for.
But you have not won my support - the negative publicity you have
brought people like my husband is not welcome from people who actually
care about the child.

You may think you can do without it, but you are in the distinct
minority, and need the backing of every person you can find.
By fighting with women, you are alienating people, and you are
alienating the very people you need to win over.
When women read your 'opinion' of them, they will likely dig their
heels in even more.

As much as I am not a man, I am not gay either, nor am I disabled, nor
am I an ethnic minority, but I uphold the rights of all those groups
to receive justice.

Women make up 50% of the population. Many of the people in the justice
system and the legal system are women. Alienate them at your peril.

Which is what I have always done. But that is not what you have done
is it? What you have done is insult me and tell me that you don't want
my help.
What 'decent' woman would tolerate that?

Sean MacCloud replied to Maria on 23 May 2004

Oh you mean like the Japanese in WWII did?

[Kaboom!!]

(I'll explain it to you since you're a female [read dumb]: You're going to
need more muscle. Stoppping pro-fem is not a democracy movement: Pussy is
going to need aptitudes it doesn't have (for genetic reasons) to stop the
bluty bluty revolution that is coming.)

Nonsense.

Bang!!

You know what that sound was? No?

Good.

Maria replied to Steenkin Man on 22 May 2004

Interestingly, the F4J related threads are not x-posted to
uk.people.fathers. I presume they are not interested in the poor lost
souls over there who have also lost their children.

Mike Hall replied to Maria on 21 May 2004

Only a little offence meant, but you really need to read more if that is
what you think! The Brixton riots completely changed the entire outlook of
the police force in relation to black people and created the need for the
tactics used today in combating mass unrest (tall translucent shields etc.).

Mike Hall

Maria replied to Mike Hall on 21 May 2004

I've just never looked into it.

In what way did it change their outlook in relation to black people?

Ian Stirling replied to Maria on 21 May 2004

It made it sort of blurry, as the shields were only translucent.

Maria replied to Maria on 22 May 2004

I left school in 1977...whaddya think?

You think? Your history might be good but your current affairs is
****e.

Mike Hall replied to Maria on 22 May 2004

Oh! You sound younger re: not knowing the massive effects of the Brixton
riots on the UK.

Mike Hall

Steenkin Man replied to Maria on 22 May 2004

Coming up to the menopause about now, are you? That explains why
you're so angry and inconsistent in your views.

Maria replied to Steenkin Man on 20 May 2004

Do you think so?
Can't see it. What's more, I sincerely hope that the action of these
people has not jeopardised the future of father's rights movements by
prejudicing public support for them.

The sheeple tend to think that parties that lob stuff in the HOC are
radical activist loons.

The best way to have manipulated those people would have been a few
NSPCC style ads showing children crying because the nasty parent won'y
let them see the absent one.

I hope that's all they risked.

Tony replied to Maria on 20 May 2004

What world do you live in? This was high entertainment and I say, good for
them. Not only has it shown how crap the security is in the House, but its
highlighted their issue with no harm to anyone. Papers are greatly enjoying
it, MI5 are shaking their heads, the punishment will be very minor -
EVERYONE is a winner.

Oh don't be pathetic - people barely cared about the cartoon ads with kids
being kicked downstairs - at least, the donations did not change at all
which is the main way of measuring the success of such an ad. What
difference do you think a crying kid saying 'Wheres daddy?' would make.

Tony

Maria replied to Tony on 20 May 2004

The real one. The one where real people just love to have an excuse to
tut tut at people and then blame them for bringing their problems on
themselves.

That''s about all.

It's what people think that matters, and it's what people think that
changes things. See paedophile paranoia as an example.

What use cartoon kids?

It appeals to bleeding hearts, of which there were many. Had you got
Di onto the case before she bit it, it would have been a winner.

At the moment, the only people who care whether you get to see your
kids or not is you and your kids.

Tony replied to Maria on 20 May 2004

What about this as an example? I don't see the analogy.

If that was a sentence, I may be able to reply to it.

Yes, but F4J is a growing organisation and this will help it grow and
through growth of such an organisation, change is facilitated.

It was nothing more than a PR stunt and a very good one that has cost them
nothing and gained them a great deal.

Tony

Maria replied to Tony on 20 May 2004

You have to drum it into them and cause a moral panic.

I mean that people are so accustomed to violence on TV that they are
probably becoming immune to it - certainly a cartoon character getting
beaten up is nothing new for kids raised on a diet of Tom and Jerry.

I hope so, but FNF has been around for some time.

I hope you are right.

Philip Lewis replied to Maria on 21 May 2004

| On Thu, 20 May 2004 18:48:14 +0100, "Tony" <Rodney@10uk.net>
wrote:
|
| >Maria wrote:
| >> On Thu, 20 May 2004 18:33:35 +0100, "Tony" <Rodney@10uk.net>
wrote:
| >>
| >>> Maria wrote:
| >>>> On Thu, 20 May 2004 17:57:35 +0100, Steenkin Man
<me@privacy.net>
| >>>> wrote:
| >>>>
| >>>>> On Thu, 20 May 2004 15:02:47 GMT, Terry Wilkes
| >>>>> <Terry@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
| >>>>>
| >>>>>
| >>>>>> Isn't there something slightly ironic about Fathers 4
Justice
| >>>>>> using, of all things, condoms, to throw at the PM in
order to
| >>>>>> raise (must be some flour pun there) awareness for their
| >>>>>> campaign? And how likely is it that they'll see their
kids now
| >>>>>> they've got criminal records?
| >>>>>
| >>>>> They're guaranteed to see their kids now because the
media will be
| >>>>> camping on their ex-wives doorsteps until they do.
| >>>>>
| >>>>> One guy hasn't seen his children for five years, despite
numerous
| >>>>> court orders that say he has that right. Now the judges
will be
| >>>>> forced to take action against the females who are in
contempt of
| >>>>> court.
| >>>>
| >>>> Do you think so?
| >>>> Can't see it. What's more, I sincerely hope that the
action of these
| >>>> people has not jeopardised the future of father's rights
movements
| >>>> by prejudicing public support for them.
| >>>>
| >>>> The sheeple tend to think that parties that lob stuff in
the HOC are
| >>>> radical activist loons.
| >>>
| >>> What world do you live in?
| >>
| >> The real one. The one where real people just love to have an
excuse to
| >> tut tut at people and then blame them for bringing their
problems on
| >> themselves.
| >>
| >>> This was high entertainment
| >>
| >> That''s about all.
| >>
| >>> and I say, good for
| >>> them. Not only has it shown how crap the security is in
the House,
| >>> but its highlighted their issue with no harm to anyone.
Papers are
| >>> greatly enjoying it, MI5 are shaking their heads, the
punishment
| >>> will be very minor - EVERYONE is a winner.
| >>
| >> It's what people think that matters, and it's what people
think that
| >> changes things. See paedophile paranoia as an example.
| >>
| >
| >What about this as an example? I don't see the analogy.
|
| You have to drum it into them and cause a moral panic.
|
Yeah well 'moral panics' tend to cause a lot of innocent
casualties - better to just make the changes and then let the
benefits of THAT 'social engineering' do it's work.

| >
| >>>>
| >>>> The best way to have manipulated those people would have
been a few
| >>>> NSPCC style ads showing children crying because the nasty
parent
| >>>> won'y let them see the absent one.
| >>>>
| >>>
| >>> Oh don't be pathetic - people barely cared about the
cartoon ads
| >>> with kids being kicked downstairs
| >>
| >> What use cartoon kids?
| >>
| >
| >If that was a sentence, I may be able to reply to it.
|
| I mean that people are so accustomed to violence on TV that
they are
| probably becoming immune to it - certainly a cartoon character
getting
| beaten up is nothing new for kids raised on a diet of Tom and
Jerry.

If moms who are accustomed to using their kids as pawns suddenly
realised they could go to jail and lose custody I'm sure they
would 'wake up' pretty quickly!

| >
| >>> - at least, the donations did not change at all
| >>> which is the main way of measuring the success of such an
ad. What
| >>> difference do you think a crying kid saying 'Wheres daddy?'
would
| >>> make.
| >>
| >> It appeals to bleeding hearts, of which there were many. Had
you got
| >> Di onto the case before she bit it, it would have been a
winner.
| >>
| >> At the moment, the only people who care whether you get to
see your
| >> kids or not is you and your kids.
| >
| >Yes, but F4J is a growing organisation and this will help it
grow and
| >through growth of such an organisation, change is facilitated.
|
| I hope so, but FNF has been around for some time.

F4J is showing them how it's done.

Maria replied to Philip Lewis on 21 May 2004

What I am saying is that not much else than moral panics tend to cause
change. If you can change things by assaulting the president, go ahead
and try.
More likely you'll be arrested and most people will forget you ever
exist, if they notice in the first place.

Yes they would, but while women are viewed as the 'mainstay' of the
family, that's not likely to happen.

Philip Lewis replied to Maria on 21 May 2004

| On Fri, 21 May 2004 08:19:29 +0100, "Philip Lewis"
| <NotTelling@hotmail.com> wrote:
|
| >Yeah well 'moral panics' tend to cause a lot of innocent
| >casualties - better to just make the changes and then let the
| >benefits of THAT 'social engineering' do it's work.
|
| What I am saying is that not much else than moral panics tend
to cause
| change.

Nonsense.

| If you can change things by assaulting the president, go ahead
| and try.
| More likely you'll be arrested and most people will forget you
ever
| exist, if they notice in the first place.

Well in this case we don't have to speculate as the 'purple
flour' incident has once more gained worldwide publcity for F4J's
cause. True not ALL outlets focused on the fathers rights
motivation and issues - but many did. Quite a result I'd say!

| >If moms who are accustomed to using their kids as pawns
suddenly
| >realised they could go to jail and lose custody I'm sure they
| >would 'wake up' pretty quickly!
|
| Yes they would, but while women are viewed as the 'mainstay' of
the
| family, that's not likely to happen.
|
Well since that view hasn't worked - that is the very view that
is targeted for change - shared parenting recognised the
contribution BOTH parents have to give to their children and that
is the way it should be.

OffLine replied to Philip Lewis on 21 May 2004

Yep, we're constantly reminded that women have always contributed in their
own way to society (see most of hyerdungs posts for references) and even
businesses (see Heidi Graw's recent posts for references), is it not fair to
finally balance the playing field by giving recognition to men's & father's
contribution's to the family environment?

Philip Lewis replied to OffLine on 21 May 2004

| "Philip Lewis" <NotTelling@hotmail.com> wrote in message
| news:2h69e9F91b25U1@uni-berlin.de...
| >
| > "Maria" <frustrated@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
| > news:40adbb46.33276847@News.Individual.NET...
| > | On Fri, 21 May 2004 08:19:29 +0100, "Philip Lewis"
| > | <NotTelling@hotmail.com> wrote:
| > |
| > |
| > | >Yeah well 'moral panics' tend to cause a lot of innocent
| > | >casualties - better to just make the changes and then let
the
| > | >benefits of THAT 'social engineering' do it's work.
| > |
| > | What I am saying is that not much else than moral panics
tend
| > to cause
| > | change.
| >
| > Nonsense.
| >
| > | If you can change things by assaulting the president, go
ahead
| > | and try.
| > | More likely you'll be arrested and most people will forget
you
| > ever
| > | exist, if they notice in the first place.
| >
| > Well in this case we don't have to speculate as the 'purple
| > flour' incident has once more gained worldwide publcity for
F4J's
| > cause. True not ALL outlets focused on the fathers rights
| > motivation and issues - but many did. Quite a result I'd say!
| >
| >
| > |
| > | >If moms who are accustomed to using their kids as pawns
| > suddenly
| > | >realised they could go to jail and lose custody I'm sure
they
| > | >would 'wake up' pretty quickly!
| > |
| > | Yes they would, but while women are viewed as the
'mainstay' of
| > the
| > | family, that's not likely to happen.
| > |
| > Well since that view hasn't worked - that is the very view
that
| > is targeted for change - shared parenting recognised the
| > contribution BOTH parents have to give to their children and
that
| > is the way it should be.
| >
|
| Yep, we're constantly reminded that women have always
contributed in their
| own way to society (see most of hyerdungs posts for references)
and even
| businesses (see Heidi Graw's recent posts for references), is
it not fair to
| finally balance the playing field by giving recognition to
men's & father's
| contribution's to the family environment?

Of course it is - but once more I have to pinch myself because
just a few decades ago I never even dreamed that the BLEEDING
OBVIOUS would have to be explicitly stated over and over again
and that people (read 'feminists' in the main!) with a so called
'education' would persist in PRETENDING they don't know what we
are on about!!!!

Ian replied to Tony on 21 May 2004

1. Government pays MI5 to advise on security.
2. Government ignores it's own security department's advice.
3. Government looks like ****heads.

Conclusion, you've got to pass tests to be a civil servant, but any
stupid ****er can be an MP.

Ian replied to Maria on 21 May 2004

Not really, rome wasn't built in a day. However, feminists did exactly
the same thing in the Albert Hall, less than thirty five years ago.

Last year there was a BBC Documentary describing their lives. To be
fair, none of them have actually really done anything with their lives,
but, they got their way, even if their way was just money for nothing.

This will never happen. The NSPCC is infested with fawcett society types.

The NSPCC's response to the fact that more mothers hurt their children
than fathers is to...
1. Pretend it doesn't exist.
2. Ignore it when making policy to government.
3. Never advise courts on this situation.
4. When forced, campaign not for more custody for Dads, instead
campaign for Dads to pay even more to pay for other women to help
the abusive mother.

Stop whining.

Steenkin Man replied to Maria on 20 May 2004

Yes, I'm sure you've got sincere hopes.

"Manipulated those people"? That's feminazi-speak.

The heroes were drawing attention to their plight in a humorous
fashion. Public opinion is moving rapidly onto their side. They've
even got females joining because, as they keep pointing out, for every
man who never sees his kids, there are two grandparents who never see
their grandchildren.

Most grannies aren't feminazis and F4J is getting the granny vote.

Maria replied to Steenkin Man on 20 May 2004

Indeed.

Try reading the sentence without your bias hat on.

People are currently in a panic that we are under assault from hordes
of marauding muslims and are even happy to pay for ID cards to protect
them from the baddies. What do you think they are going to think about
the potential terrorist threat that has been illustrated? Why do you
think the media is concentrating on that rather than children who
aren't allowed to see their dads?

I will wait and see, and hope you are right.

Steenkin Man replied to Maria on 20 May 2004

Touched a nerve, did I?

Don't talk ****e.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/05/19/id_card_poll_tax/

Looks like the heroes did Parliament a favour by highlighting a
security weakness. Now they're patriots as well as seekers after
justice. Double-bubble.

Why do I feel that you don't mean that?

Maria replied to Steenkin Man on 20 May 2004

You're paranoid. Manipulation is an essential tool of politics, for
men and women.

Things must have changed radically then.

Do you think the anti-capitalist demonstrators screaming to feed the
world are heroes? Their cause may be just but their tactics lead to
derision.

Probably because my name is a female one.

Archived message: Re: Fathers 4 Justice (UK DIY House Renovation)