Disgustingly biased "interview" with CPS - video

[Evil Lord Sauron]

I have sympathy with the guy, but it is obviously horribly biased. He has a restraining order so must be something wrong there, and obviously isn't the first time he's had such an incident or been dragged into CPS (why else would he be recording it). The concern the CPS brought up over the tablets is valid, but he managed I think to explain it away and does have a point he should of been told. Though if the mother isn't speaking or seeing him makes that difficult, but why they are blaming him for not realising she doesn't have mental issues when he hadn't been told why she was on the tablets in the first place.

Despite getting her facts wrong and coming across as an idiot, she also does have a point that if he is weighing his daughter every week and telling her she is overweight the daughter is going to develop a complex. Then taking her to McDonalds isn't going to help. He has a right to be concerned but and wants to spoil his daughter when he is with her, but the CPS women has a point that he is reinforcing the weight issue and going to ensure she develops self-image issues down the line.

In all I don't have too much against the content of the interview and the main points that are raised by the CPS. I do have a problem with the tone of it. They do however seem extremely aggressive and not at all understanding of his side/point of view. And as he's pointed out the mother is no saint herself (losing his daughter twice, once locking her out the apartment).

[Ecans]

/shrug

My brother has had two different lawyers from two different firms tell him that a man can't get full custody in Missouri unless he can prove the mother is a "hardened criminal" or a "persistent drug user" of "something harder than marijuana".

I can see why some people get frustrated and blog.

My mother-in-law didn't get full custody of her children even after my partner's sister was molested by their biological father. My partner stopped visiting only because his biological father wasn't interested in seeing him without also seeing his sister.

Actually, I think that of all my friends who are children of divorce (or parental breakups), they had shared custody arrangements. In many cases this lasted until their fathers lost interest (and some of my friends are still trying to chase their biological fathers for child support; in one case one of my friends was promised---in a written contract---some money toward her tuition that never arrived).

edit to add: Most custody arrangements are shared and they are typically decided by the parents in arbitration, not by a judge. Anyone has to have a damn good reason or an apathetic co-parent to get sole custody.

And yet this man (unlike all of the men in your friend's lives) wants to be involved in his daughter's life. I have seen, through men in my family and friends, how the courts apportion custody. The court in all of these cases has come down on the mother's side. The father gets a small portion of time with his child. In one case the mother flatly refused to allow any time with the child in spite of the courts order. And nothing was done. The court ignored the blatent refusal and contempt of the court order.

Gender bias is rampent in custody cases. Lack of male parenting is just beginning to be percieved as a serious issue often leading to terrible outcomes for both children and society.

[Dakini]

My mother-in-law didn't get full custody of her children even after my partner's sister was molested by their biological father. My partner stopped visiting only because his biological father wasn't interested in seeing him without also seeing his sister.

Actually, I think that of all my friends who are children of divorce (or parental breakups), they had shared custody arrangements. In many cases this lasted until their fathers lost interest (and some of my friends are still trying to chase their biological fathers for child support; in one case one of my friends was promised---in a written contract---some money toward her tuition that never arrived).

edit to add: Most custody arrangements are shared and they are typically decided by the parents in arbitration, not by a judge. Anyone has to have a damn good reason or an apathetic co-parent to get sole custody.

And yet this man (unlike all of the men in your friend's lives) wants to be involved in his daughter's life. I have seen, through men in my family and friends, how the courts apportion custody. The court in all of these cases has come down on the mother's side. The father gets a small portion of time with his child. In one case the mother flatly refused to allow any time with the child in spite of the courts order. And nothing was done. The court ignored the blatent refusal and contempt of the court order.

Gender bias is rampent in custody cases. Lack of male parenting is just beginning to be percieved as a serious issue often leading to terrible outcomes for both children and society.

Yeah, my partner's biological father really wanted to see his sister too. That doesn't mean that he should have been allowed to continue to see her. Given that all we have is a heavily edited video and a heavily biased blog to go on, we don't know if this guy was ever a suitable parent who should be allowed to raise children.

[Harrietharmman]

I have sympathy with the guy, but it is obviously horribly biased. He has a restraining order so must be something wrong there, and obviously isn't the first time he's had such an incident or been dragged into CPS (why else would he be recording it).

So no smoke without fire then?

FYI he overturned the restraining order as it was based on false accusations. In total he's faced 3 different sets of such allegations and the courts (eventually) ruled them to be without foundation on every single occasion. This man and his daughter are quite clearly being abused by the mother and by CPS and is now too scared to see his daughter as he knows it will result in the mother calling the police and beginning yet another series of false complaints.

He has now launched a lawsuit against all those involved.

[Ecans]

And yet this man (unlike all of the men in your friend's lives) wants to be involved in his daughter's life. I have seen, through men in my family and friends, how the courts apportion custody. The court in all of these cases has come down on the mother's side. The father gets a small portion of time with his child. In one case the mother flatly refused to allow any time with the child in spite of the courts order. And nothing was done. The court ignored the blatent refusal and contempt of the court order.

Gender bias is rampent in custody cases. Lack of male parenting is just beginning to be percieved as a serious issue often leading to terrible outcomes for both children and society.

Yeah, my partner's biological father really wanted to see his sister too. That doesn't mean that he should have been allowed to continue to see her. Given that all we have is a heavily edited video and a heavily biased blog to go on, we don't know if this guy was ever a suitable parent who should be allowed to raise children.

Yes. We don't know either way. My point is that, in general, gender bias exists and absent fathers, for whatever reason, may lead to bad outcomes. Children need both parents. If possible on an equal time basis. The powers that be are just beginning to recognize this and perhaps the value of good fathers may soon be recognized.

[Scolopendra]

Let's not link to hate sites, okay? Since this is the first time I've even heard of the site in question I'm not going to warn anyone; we're going to presume that it was an honest mistake.

Let it be known from here on out though that A Voice For Men is about as welcome here as Stormfront: it isn't

Should I see it again, I'm going to come down hard.

[Dakini]

Yeah, my partner's biological father really wanted to see his sister too. That doesn't mean that he should have been allowed to continue to see her. Given that all we have is a heavily edited video and a heavily biased blog to go on, we don't know if this guy was ever a suitable parent who should be allowed to raise children.

Yes. We don't know either way. My point is that, in general, gender bias exists and absent fathers, for whatever reason, may lead to bad outcomes. Children need both parents. If possible on an equal time basis. The powers that be are just beginning to recognize this and perhaps the value of good fathers may soon be recognized.

Children don't need both parents. While dual-parent households are beneficial for other reasons (e.g. finances), single parents do manage to raise successful children too. Especially if they have the support of friends and extended family who act as additional adult role models. Furthermore, parents who remarry can result in additional role models and parental figures in the home.

[Harrietharmman]

Let's not link to hate sites, okay? Since this is the first time I've even heard of the site in question I'm not going to warn anyone; we're going to presume that it was an honest mistake.

Let it be known from here on out though that A Voice For Men is about as welcome here as Stormfront: it isn't

Should I see it again, I'm going to come down hard.

FFS it isn't a hate site, it's one of the most important civil rights sites supporitng gender equality, the SPLC site itself is more hateful than AVFM, how dare you smear them in such a way or make such a disgusting assertion. The SPLC have zero evidence of hate and backtracked on most of what they said in that previous post (though funnily enough people only link to the discredited original rather than the clarification, if you want to ban people how about banning those who post such bullshit?. Basically the idiot who wrote the SPLC "report" argues the following: Andres Breivik once criticised feminism and AVFM do that too, therefore AVFM = Anders Breivik.

People who pretend it is a hate site are merely extremists trying to shut down discussion. I challenge you to fInd one hateful remark on that site (that isn't satire or a quote of a feminists). If you cannot then please retract the above post and take action against those using these forums to defame AVFM.

Not that anyone should care what the SPLC think, they've been a joke of an organisation for a couple of decades now. However, here's the proof of them backing down:

MODEDITED LINK

"It should be mentioned that the SPLC did not label MRAs as members of a hate movement; nor did our article claim that the grievances they air on their websites – false rape accusations, ruinous divorce settlements and the like – are all without merit."


Some important further reading:

MODEDITED LINK

[Dread Lady Nathicana]

Harrietharmman: *** Warned *** for reposting right after being asked not to.

[Harrietharmman]

Stop censoring the truth, you've even removed the SPLC link where they back down. If they're banned too then that's fair enough and I'd accept that, can we have it in writing if they are considered a hate group please as that would make more sense than labelling AVFM as such.

AVFM is not a hate site and you have no right to ban it unless you're going to ban half the internet. Either provide evidence for your ban or retract it. Thank you. They are a hugely popular site, the most popular men's equality site ever.

Once again, here is the proof that even those extremists making the smear have backed down:

http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2012/05/1 ... activists/


Either the ban or AVFM is lifted or I'll call for a boycott of this site and we'll assume it to be hateful towards males.

[Torcularis Septentrionalis]

Well, I could link you towards many, many examples of AVFM being a hate site. Telling readers to beat women, that women are "vile pieces of human garbage," and where they have openly stated that the only reason they don't beat every woman they see to death is because we are not "worth the trouble."
But, I'm just going to let you stew in your anger and disbelief.
Plus if I linked to any source that wasn't the AVFM you'd claim the source was just lying or something.

[Christmahanikwanzikah]

we'll assume it to be hateful towards males.

We?

[Christmahanikwanzikah]

AVFM is not a hate site and you have no right to ban it unless you're going to ban half the internet. Either provide evidence for your ban or retract it. Thank you. They are a hugely popular site, the most popular men's equality site ever.

I'm pretty sure the internet is half porn.

So, yeah, we've already banned half the internet here. Whoops!

[Individuality-ness]

Since I was the one who pointed the fact that AVFM is a hate site to moderation... okay then. Refute this. You need to refute all of those quotes and explain to me how every single damn quote is not hateful, inciting violence, abetting terrorism, or the like.

All of these are from AVFM. You can Google them yourself, they're all active.

Now go on. Refute.

[Dakini]

Stop censoring the truth, you've even removed the SPLC link where they back down. If they're banned too then that's fair enough and I'd accept that, can we have it in writing if they are considered a hate group please as that would make more sense than labelling AVFM as such.

AVFM is not a hate site and you have no right to ban it unless you're going to ban half the internet. Either provide evidence for your ban or retract it. Thank you. They are a hugely popular site, the most popular men's equality site ever.

Once again, here is the proof that even those extremists making the smear have backed down:

http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2012/05/1 ... activists/


Either the ban or AVFM is lifted or I'll call for a boycott of this site and we'll assume it to be hateful towards males.

Did you read the link you just provided? It ends by saying:

I dare say that if social justice and equal protection under the law were all that the MRM were about, then the SPLC would have had no reason to write about it. If the article inspires more self-criticism in this vein, then perhaps it did the Men’s Rights Movement a service.

I would hardly call that backing down.

[Torcularis Septentrionalis]

we'll assume it to be hateful towards males.

We?

(He assumes there's enough MRAs on NS who would agree to a boycott to constitute a 'we')

[Dyakovo]

we'll assume it to be hateful towards males.

We?

Him and the mouse in his pocket.
*nods*

---

We?

(He assumes there's enough MRAs on NS who would agree to a boycott to constitute a 'we')

As if any of them would be missed...

[Dakini]

Well, I could link you towards many, many examples of AVFM being a hate site. Telling readers to beat women, that women are "vile pieces of human garbage," and where they have openly stated that the only reason they don't beat every woman they see to death is because we are not "worth the trouble."
But, I'm just going to let you stew in your anger and disbelief.
Plus if I linked to any source that wasn't the AVFM you'd claim the source was just lying or something.

Well, plus you don't want to get warned for posting a link to a now-prohibited website.

I mean, AVFM runs "Register Her" which is a website built with the sole purpose of stalking and harassing women who report sexual assaults (or you know, any woman who bothers the people who frequent that website).

[Individuality-ness]

We?

(He assumes there's enough MRAs on NS who would agree to a boycott to constitute a 'we')

Honestly, if they did a total boycott, I'd say good riddance. NSG doesn't need misogynists hanging out on this site.

[Dakini]

We?

(He assumes there's enough MRAs on NS who would agree to a boycott to constitute a 'we')

Oh, whatever would we do without MRAs on this website? A boycott would sure show us.

[Torcularis Septentrionalis]

Well, I could link you towards many, many examples of AVFM being a hate site. Telling readers to beat women, that women are "vile pieces of human garbage," and where they have openly stated that the only reason they don't beat every woman they see to death is because we are not "worth the trouble."
But, I'm just going to let you stew in your anger and disbelief.
Plus if I linked to any source that wasn't the AVFM you'd claim the source was just lying or something.

Well, plus you don't want to get warned for posting a link to a now-prohibited website.

I mean, AVFM runs "Register Her" which is a website built with the sole purpose of stalking and harassing women who report sexual assaults (or you know, any woman who bothers the people who frequent that website).

Or any woman who dares steps out of "bounds" set by MEN, THE RIGHTEOUS RULERS!

[Individuality-ness]

Well, plus you don't want to get warned for posting a link to a now-prohibited website.

I mean, AVFM runs "Register Her" which is a website built with the sole purpose of stalking and harassing women who report sexual assaults (or you know, any woman who bothers the people who frequent that website).

Or any woman who dares steps out of "bounds" set by MEN, THE RIGHTEOUS RULERS!

Fucking women riding the alpha cock carousal, those sluts. How dare they decide not to have sex with meeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!11!

[Torcularis Septentrionalis]

(He assumes there's enough MRAs on NS who would agree to a boycott to constitute a 'we')

Honestly, if they did a total boycott, I'd say good riddance. NSG doesn't need misogynists hanging out on this site.

For real, let him and anyone else go. We've got enough non-MRA women-haters on here already.

[Individuality-ness]

Honestly, if they did a total boycott, I'd say good riddance. NSG doesn't need misogynists hanging out on this site.

For real, let him and anyone else go. We've got enough non-MRA women-haters on here already.

Exactly. I'm tired of all of the misogyny. It'd made this site a more female-friendly place, if just a little.

[Harrietharmman]

I mean, AVFM runs "Register Her" which is a website built with the sole purpose of stalking and harassing women who report sexual assaults (or you know, any woman who bothers the people who frequent that website).

AVFM documents women who make false allegations and admit as such. It is doing similar work to the SPLC in targeting hate, albeit without the extreme left wing agenda and the need to manufacture stories.