matt of f4j tackles blatant feminazi on sky news..

[Aristotle]

I thought he did rather well in that interview. The presenter was barely present while Julie Bindell was flinging poo, I mean propaganda, about the place. However, I do take the point that we don't want our leaders turning into alpha males and selling us out.

[Celtic Druid]

He is a great leader, who later on made mistakes.

I would say he was a leader of sorts, who later on made many (political mistakes). He's had his time, he's too tarnished. Let's have a new fresh, driven and untainted leader for fathers rights to emerge.

The more politically astute amongst us will recognize him when he appears.

[The Possible Human]

If you look at feminism 101, the key part of winning a debate is to dominate it by fair means or foul. It doesn't matter that you don't have a better argument or debating skills. If you swallow up the main chunk of time, impart emotionalism, expect chivalry and throw in a raft of unsubstantiated statistics and play the victim card, you can pretty much discount reality no matter how potent.

Exactly. Debating ethics go out the window when a feminist enters the debate. Better to assume you are going into a true battle.

[shaazam]

what still amazes me despite the plethora of evidence exposing the feminit creation the misandrist Family Court

( a Bolshevik style feminit star chamber) - to flay men - why men cohabit with new age brainwashed wimyn like the one in the video misandrist to the core and only see men as sperm donors prior to being frogmarched to the Family court to separate him from his kids and assets; new age wimyn hate men more than their own shit

[nevosopelo]

So, there's no change on the feminazi front!

This woman only argument for depriving fathers of their children is, as always, domestic violence of which she has made a big argument of it. It should be noted however that she never inferred how many women are guilty of child abuse. This fact is hidden by feminist radicals who do not want to admit what is happening to children. The official statistics shows most babys and very young children die at the hands of their neglecting mother. Also has to be said that not all fahters are nasty brutes. They are a small minority which are already being dealt with.
She is also wrong when she says, and quote "The mother's word is not enough, all claims have to be substantiated". Anyone who has been in the family court knows very well that the mother's word is all that counts for the judge. The evidence is never required when the judge rules for the mother, usually backed up by social services, who's incompetence is a well established fact.
She also state of "never heard of that happenning" when is pointed out to her the discussion is about good, loving fathers. Of course she doesn't, she does not want to hear anything that is the inconvinient truth.
It is that kind of women who, eventually, will destroy feminism and all its evil deeds.

NEVO

[Popadibs]

She never heard of it happening because she hadn't yet removed her head out of her ass.

[Popadibs]

So, there's no change on the feminazi front!

This woman only argument for depriving fathers of their children is, as always, domestic violence of which she has made a big argument of it. It should be noted however that she never inferred how many women are guilty of child abuse. This fact is hidden by feminist radicals who do not want to admit what is happening to children. The official statistics shows most babys and very young children die at the hands of their neglecting mother. Also has to be said that not all fahters are nasty brutes. They are a small minority which are already being dealt with.
She is also wrong when she says, and quote "The mother's word is not enough, all claims have to be substantiated". Anyone who has been in the family court knows very well that the mother's word is all that counts for the judge. The evidence is never required when the judge rules for the mother, usually backed up by social services, who's incompetence is a well established fact.
She also state of "never heard of that happenning" when is pointed out to her the discussion is about good, loving fathers. Of course she doesn't, she does not want to hear anything that is the inconvinient truth.
It is that kind of women who, eventually, will destroy feminism and all its evil deeds.

NEVO

She says that parents should gain access to children who wish to see them but judges don’t decide on child custody based on “whether the child wishes to see them”. It is ridiculous that she brings up accusations of chronic domestic violence made by women who divorce as if their allegations are never lies and that she states that some judges and mothers want to keep children away from violent and aggressive fathers. Not all fathers are abusers, not even all of those fathers alleged to be abusers.

What isn’t stated is that we aren’t doing enough to protect children from violent and vindictive mothers who alienate their children’s father from the children and poison children’s minds against fathers in the same way she attempts to poison the public’s mind against fathers. If the public is so easily brainwashed by this woman's lies then how much easier are children brainwashed by their mothers? I don’t believe that mothers that murder their unborn children and celebrate that fact (planned parenthood funding) have any problem abusing their children nor a system that allows them to abuse it by separating their fathers from their children.

Added after 12 minutes:

Matt put up a good fight, but not good enough.

What the discussion focused on was abusive parents/domestic violence and Matt was on shaky ground.

He needed to get the debate centered around about how men and the courts are powerless to help fathers see their children if spiteful mothers stand in the way - and this is the opinion of senior Judges and Justices, like Lord Justice Ward Vengeful mothers leave good fathers powerless to see child, says judge – Times Online « Parental Rights

Further it is well know that spiteful mothers posion the mind of the child against the father - Parental Alienation Syndrom.

It was surpising that Matt was not more aggressive agains the accusation that "4 million fathers are abusive" - that would mean about every 3rd father in the UK is abusive!

In terms of presentation it would be enough to apply common sense and say "is every third man you know abusive" and throw a bunch of statistics over flase reports into the story

Nope, for me, Matt lost the arguement on TV ):

We don’t know that all 4 million men that are separated from their children are abusive just because Julie says so. She isn't a Goddess, her word isn't divine. As a matter of fact, based on what we do know that is a lie! Oh, so I guess NAFALT doesn’t apply (not all fathers are like that); I suppose that only applies to women. Her claims are based on lies and mistruths. "I never heard of" isn't a good argument nor is it a good reason to believe anything this woman says. It just shows that she's not informed. Her denials don’t make what she says true nor what Matt says untrue. I've never heard a woman scream while being raped in the butt but that doesn't mean it has never happened. Somehow, I doubt that she listens in the background every time a crime takes place. She keeps bringing up domestic violence for the same reason many women bring up domestic violence during divorce and child custody battles. It is to gain leverage and control. This isn't about domestic violence. This is about fathers being separated from their children.


She says that Matt paints a rosy picture of fathers that are loving and desperate to see their children that they are denied access to but this woman paints a lovely picture of mothers that wish to and do separate children from loving fathers. She also wishes to paint a dirty picture of loving fathers herself. She makes no distinction between good fathers that are separated from children and bad fathers. She makes no distinction between truly reasonable fearful mothers and mothers with a vendetta. According to her good fathers don't fear for their children's safety when they are around such vindictive mothers so callous that they don't care if their children grow up without a good father. She never addresses this but neither does Matt.

Added after 6 minutes:

If you look at feminism 101, the key part of winning a debate is to dominate it by fair means or foul. It doesn't matter that you don't have a better argument or debating skills. If you swallow up the main chunk of time, impart emotionalism, expect chivalry and throw in a raft of unsubstantiated statistics and play the victim card, you can pretty much discount reality no matter how potent.

Like many women (the women causing this epidemic) she calls the same behavior she exhibits towards others abuse and aggression especially when it is done by a man towards a woman. She even exaggerates the behavior of others (Matt and fathers) or outright lies just as many mothers do to get their way. If she considers Matt aggressive then what does she consider herself? She is just afraid of a man expressing his legitimate freedom to speak his point of view. She is afraid of her lies being exposed.

She's saying he's aggressive as if we're supposed to ignore that she's dominating the entire encounter. It isn't his aggression she has a problem with; she just doesn't want to be opposed nor challenged. Many women have this attitude. Not that many men don't but there is distinction WOMEN GET AWAY WITH THIS KIND OF ATTITUDE AND BEHAVIOR WHEREAS MEN GET KNOCKED THE FUCK OUT. It isn't mothers being separated by fathers here but vice versa. Bigots like her need to be met with aggression, though, for the good of children and society. She needs to know that her bigotry is not acceptable and a lot of men would be more aggressive than Matt who behaved somewhat docile. If she is ever met with aggression it isn't because she's a woman but because she is a hostile bigot who wishes to keep good fathers separated from their children.

She keeps stating that it's very rare for a judge to decide against contact when a father is loving. No matter how many times you repeat a lie it is still a lie. Where are the studies that prove, not simply state, that a child's best interest is to be separated from their father? She has none.

[Richard]

Thus we can conclude that we need several short concrete. "bunker busting" arguements to deal with: Domestic violence.

And this still brings us back to the arguement, why was Matt so silent on this issue? Does he agree with her?

[Celtic Druid]

She keeps stating that it's very rare for a judge to decide against contact when a father is loving. No matter how many times you repeat a lie it is still a lie. Where are the studies that prove, not simply state, that a child's best interest is to be separated from their father? She has none.

It's at this point rather than emptly trading facts and figures, that you pull out something to give you the personal edge...As I remembered with Julie Bindel, and her 2006 piece entitled 'Why I hate men.' If the enemy keeps robotically droning on, get down and personal. Do whatever it takes to win the fight. Look at the tactics of the opposition and develop effective counter measures.

[Popadibs]

It's at this point rather than emptly trading facts and figures, that you pull out something to give you the personal edge...As I remembered with Julie Bindel, and her 2006 piece entitled 'Why I hate men.' If the enemy keeps robotically droning on, get down and personal. Do whatever it takes to win the fight.

We won't always have that edge in every argument, though.

[Celtic Druid]

We won't always have that edge in every argument, though.

Then you create the tool/opportunity so that you win. Become the better chess player, always. Never be despondent.

[outdoors]

I have been thinking about this a bit.

With all of these "violent" men that she claims have been justifiably being removed from their children by the court system.

Of how many of these were nothing more than "accused" of petty d.v. accusation's,if any actual d.v. at all happened or not,removed from their home and then just could not afford the cost of justice?

Would they not be labelled as violent whether they were or not,just because of the accusation which could have been nothing more than a pre-requisite in the female securing the children as hers along with full custody?


I don't know if I said that right?

[Popadibs]

I have been thinking about this a bit.

With all of these "violent" men that she claims have been justifiably being removed from their children by the court system.

Of how many of these were nothing more than "accused" of petty d.v. accusation's,if any actual d.v. at all happened or not,removed from their home and then just could not afford the cost of justice?

Would they not be labelled as violent whether they were or not,just because of the accusation which could have been nothing more than a pre-requisite in the female securing the children as hers along with full custody?


I don't know if I said that right?

A lot of things that people like her label as violent they don't label as violent when women do them.

[The Possible Human]

She never heard of it happening because she hadn't yet removed her head out of her ass.

I believe that's a condition known as rectal-cranial inversion. Most feminists and politicians suffer that malady.

A lot of things that people like her label as violent they don't label as violent when women do them.

eg: slapping a man in the face when frustrated or angry. Acceptable to women everywhere.

Whee a man does it to a woman, look out. The Gendarmes come out with guns drawn and taser's at the ready.

[Richard]

Now when it comes to DV/Voilence we have

- an actual physical attack (of various grades)
- emopty accusations
-psychological violence/abuse
-Verbal abuse/attack.

When I accused the couurt psychologists in my case of corruption (I caught them out as liars and charts - no doubt about it), the said I was saubjecting them to a "verbal attack" and needed to see a psychiatrist, to which I replied, "In Poland whne one catches out a state officxal for corruption, maybe one needs a psychiatrist, but in this case, European norms, and not Polish norms apply"

Thus why is considered abuse and violence it quite wide and selected by the "victim" to suit the circumstances