matt of f4j tackles blatant feminazi on sky news..

[felixblue]

I reckon matt could have easily owned this wicked feminazi if he had just laughed at her ridiculous assertions!

[outdoors]

1....2....3....4....5...6...7....8....9..........


Ok-cooled down now,don't want to get myself banned for language or what ever else I may say.

[Duran]

That was a good debate, did she ever once mention that women also commit domestic violence? I don't think she did. Matt was right, she just sidelined the whole thing.

[Richard]

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 ):

[Percy]

The amount of time afforded to the feminasty to air her bigotry was just so typical. Lie after lie, mendacity after mendacity, she went on and on without the interviewer challenging her to provide evidence.

O'Connor dropped the ball. I cannot say I blame him (interviews on TV can be daunting) but he was nonetheless unassertive in his challenges and failed to present the MRM case effectively.

Can any of us have done better?

[Celtic Druid]

Julie Bindel, the same misandrist who penned an article back in 2006 entitled 'Why I hate men' Why I hate men | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk says that not only are family courts fair, but she then seeks to further take the piss by engaging in projection - whereby she claims the system sides with the male abuser.

She unfolds all the unfounded hysteria about protecting children, yet the greatest threat physically and from murder comes from the mother. It was embarrassing to witness Bindel continue her spiteful tirade, whilst Matt O'Connor replies like a neutered male and not debate her bullshit vigorously. Some say O'Connor sold out to the state years ago and he just acts as a safety valve to things erupting politically, regarding men's rights. He's certainly doing a very good impression of that!

I've previously written to Sky News asking why they overload political discussion with regular feminist guests such as Bindell, Germaine Greer and Polly Toynbee (alongside politically correct and feminist appeasing presenters). I've not had a reply thus far, nor do I expect a comprehendible one particularly soon.

[outdoors]

He could have done a lot better but how could he really?-she was interuptive,loud and controlling.


She is the perfect example of a female committing domestic violence according to the definition's.

Any man could have been sent to jail and banned from his kid's for doing the same thing in his home.

[Celtic Druid]

He could have done a lot better but how could he really?-she was interuptive,loud and controlling.

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.

[Duran]

Julie Bindell, the same misandrist who penned an article back in 2006 'Why I hate men' Why I hate men | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk

Oh man, if he knew she wrote that she'd of been completely fucked.

[felixblue]

Interesting.. They should have put erin pizzey up there, she would have wasted the feminazi without a doubt.. Matt's reluctance to give the feminazi's a good shafting when its on a plate waiting for someone to just state the obvious, or even just laugh at them as they try and defend the indefensible, leaves quite a few folk wondering whether his famous blurting out "I am a feminist too" that he made when losing ground in a similar head to head a few years ago, is one of the few truly accurate comments he has ever made..

Maybe that is unfair, he has written some solid anti-feminist stuff in the last year or so, its just a shame he never speaks it when face to face with the horrorbags..

[Celtic Druid]

Oh man, if he knew she wrote that she'd of been completely fucked.

Certainly, which adds to the value of researching any enemy you potentially face. Don't be armed with just sterile statistics, but have devastating personal information that can blow opponents like Bindell clear out of the debating water! Preparation is everything in battle.

[felixblue]

Oh man, if he knew she wrote that she'd of been completely fucked.

Matts knowledge is very selective, I doubt very much that he was unaware of that, he just chooses to be nice to feminazi's when face to face with them. Why? I don't know, unless it has some sort of strategic meaning to it, as his supporters seem to often claim of every seemingly soft approach he has.. Many folks also wonder why he married a woman who headlined a few years ago for running matts f4j while at the same time denying access to her ex..

Added after 5 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.

Indeed, thats how these harridens "win".. Did anyone note how she accused Matt of being "aggressive"? Classic ploy of the feminazi when they are starting to lose the argument, again, Matt failed to capitalise on that one as well as he could have..

I think they key to "winning" with feminazi's is to use the classic male "dirty trick" of fair debate.. Let them make stupid comments, then dismiss them with a roll of the eyes and a humourous comment..

"Sorry darling, I can't tell what you are saying, your mouth appears to be full of shit.."

Added after 5 minutes:

She unfolds all the unfounded hysteria about protecting children, yet the greatest threat physically and from murder comes from the mother. It was embarrassing to witness Bindel continue her spiteful tirade, whilst Matt O'Connor replies like a neutered male and not debate her bullshit vigorously. Some say O'Connor sold out to the state years ago and he just acts as a safety valve to things erupting politically, regarding men's rights. He's certainly doing a very good impression of that!

.

Some do indeed say that.. I those that say that seem to be extremely knowledgable.. Not that it cannot be easily deduced, It took me approximately a very short time indeed to work out that f4j was always coming from a very feminist inspired perspective.. It has warped the fathers movements attitude severely away from where it needs to be (much more in line with the MRM, and with a much broader agenda that tackles more of the main CAUSES of the shit and misandry..)..

Added after 30 minutes:

I always get the impression that Matt, f4j, and the other groups that do similar stuff are at best treading water, and to be more realistic fantasising that concentrating on a couple of very minor areas of mens sufferring will, if their demands be met, be of much real significance to the increasingly dire plight of fathers and families.. It has been said by well learned MRA's many years ago, that the state will eventually "give in" to those demands, but by then, it will be not long before those folks realise that there is much wisdom in the saying "be careful what you ask for, you might just get it!".. Meaning that it will probably be the worst thing that could happen, and will almost immediately show that there is indeed much work still be be done if any "statist" solution to this highly personal shit can ever even begin to show hope of addressing what will become even greater burdens upon men, children and families.. Any remotely intelligent person could easily predict the realities of what will happen, and what will have to change, and what reactions will come from that, by a universal state granted "right" to equal parenting by default.. I have seen how it works in practice.. Basically, it means men work twice as hard, trying to pay for two homes while only having a share of power in one, and subsidising mothers twice, or thrice over.. Do the maths and see for yourself!

[Richard]

The amount of time afforded to the feminasty to air her bigotry was just so typical. Lie after lie, mendacity after mendacity, she went on and on without the interviewer challenging her to provide evidence.

O'Connor dropped the ball. I cannot say I blame him (interviews on TV can be daunting) but he was nonetheless unassertive in his challenges and failed to present the MRM case effectively.

Can any of us have done better?

Could any of us have done better?

Hmm. Matt is a battle hardend fighter - he has written a book, been on TV numerous times, and is involved in marketing/PR professionally. So yes, he could have done better, much better. He lost the No1 rule - he let the enemy dictate the battle ground (DV/abuse not spiteful women blocking contact - a a simple statistic of say how many court cases there are over contact would suffice, or else citing the Dutch example where shared cusotyd is the norm (I think!!)

Yes I agree TV interviews can be daunting and he was put up against a journalist, but he failed to live up to his abiliites. Its time for him to report to AM for basic training (:

Let us make an A team of cheeky Fleixbule, wise Percy and razor sharp Lady C be his drill seargents (;

Matt O'Connor replies like a neutered male and not debate her bullshit vigorously. Some say O'Connor sold out to the state years ago and he just acts as a safety valve to things erupting politically, regarding men's rights. He's certainly doing a very good impression of that!

Yes, CD hit the button.

One is indeed left with that impression

He could have done a lot better but how could he really?-she was interuptive,loud and controlling.

Sure, but the point is, Matt is not green as grass, he is an experienced fighter. His poliotical backgroudn stems back to the stormy 1980s. In any debate, the trick is to get the terms of the debate on your ground, so not answer the opponents questions, but answer your OWN questions. This is very basic tactics, which Matt, with a background in PR knows.

Thus one must conclude with CD that he has sold out.

Indeed, in his own book, Matt confesses that one of the main threats he demobilised F4J was the fact he received death threats from the various elements in the state. Thus him making a comeback only to "let us lose the deabtes" does not look like coincidence to me.

Interesting.. They should have put erin pizzey up there, she would have wasted the feminazi without a doubt..

Great point - Matt needs to recognise this and accept it. If his strengths are planning campaigns, then let himm stick to that, and let another, eg Pizzey or Harry take up the front line media position.

It would be good if our comments could reach Matt!

[Celtic Druid]

I do remember most vividly, on Sky News, several years ago - Matt O'Connor admitting he supported feminism (his second wife Nadine is coincidentally a feminist).

We need an untainted leader who speaks passionately for fathers without political ties, and isn't more worried about his hairstyle than the pressing concerns which face him.

[Richard]

Indeed, but let us not forget that Matt was a great leader who achieved a lot. No onther man has brought the publics attention to the plight of fathers as he has.

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