How to paint the bias against fathers as unfair to mothers.

that quality enshrined in a man who, having killed his mother and father, throws himself on the mercy of the court because he is an orphan.

— Leo Rosten on the definition of Chutzpah

I found a link from Manboobz’ site to another SPLC page:  Leader’s Suicide Brings Attention to Men’s Rights Movement.  It is a pretty typical litany of these men are scary, these men are angry, these men are sexual losers, etc.  However, this one part made me chuckle (emphasis mine):

But Molly Dragiewicz, a criminologist at the University of Ontario Institute of Technology and the author of Equality With a Vengeance: Men’s Rights Groups, Battered Women, and Antifeminist Backlash, argues that cases in which fathers are badly treated by courts and other officials are not remotely the norm. The small percentage of divorces that end up in litigation are disproportionately those where abuse and other issues make joint custody a dubious proposition. Even when a woman can satisfactorily document her ex-husband’s abuse, Dragiewicz says, she is no more likely to receive full custody of her children than if she couldn’t.

I have to hand it to them, they took the fact that women nearly universally get custody whether or not the father is an abuser, and turned this into something for women to complain about.  The feminist capacity for martyrdom and self pity is truly one of the most powerful forces known to man.

As I’ve shared before:

Edit:  After reading Opus’ learned comment I realized that I had missed the good feminist using another bit of misdirection, which is to suggest that since the courts only decide a very small percentage of the cases the outcomes of the rest of them are somehow unrelated to the bias of the courts.

Double points to Ms. Dragiewicz and the SPLC for a rationalization twofer!

This entry was posted in Fatherhood, Feminists, Motherhood. Bookmark the permalink.

16 Responses to How to paint the bias against fathers as unfair to mothers.

  1. Anonymous says:

    It’s official… Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) declares Manosphere to be “Hate”:

    “The so-called “manosphere” is peopled with hundreds of websites, blogs and forums dedicated to savaging feminists in particular and women, very typically American women, in general. Although some of the sites make an attempt at civility and try to back their arguments with facts, they are almost all thick with misogynistic attacks that can be astounding for the guttural hatred they express.”

    It’s now officicially “Racist” to have a Y-chromosome and not want to be divorce-raped by a spouse.

  2. George Booth says:

    Good eye, Dalrock! I missed that point completely.

  3. Breeze says:

    Mysoginist! Using facts against feminists

  4. greyghost says:

    You know dalrock the fact that women are capable of such rationalization means the death of feminism and the repeal of legal and cultural misandry will just be something that happened when nobody was looking It will be like none of this ever happened.

  5. Joe Sheehy says:

    The SPLC is an aggressive, intolerant, left-wing pressure group that attempts to smear a broad swathe of Americans as being potential terrorists. They exert influence over law enforcement to try to impose their totalitarian agenda with the police power.

    On the other hand, don’t expect them to pay much attention to the association of men like Barack Obama with leaders of groups like “the weather underground”

    That’s because they’re not about stopping hate, they’re about imposing a politically correct police state, in which feminism, and many other intolerable aspects of the current system will be imposed rigorously and in which opposition to it will be crushed, by resort to the police, if necessary.

  6. namae nanka says:

    The reference frame of feminism being women, it’s never her fist that hits, just misogynists who don’t accept that they are hitting women with their faces.

  7. Opus says:

    What struck me from the quote was this:

    “The small percentage of Divorces that end up in Litigation”.

    Perhaps I have not understood, but Divorce IS litigation. A Petition is presented to the court with prayers (that is the correct terminology – as it derives form the Ecclesiastical Courts) to end a Marriage with, usually, application by the ex-wife for Ancillary Relief (ie Cash and Prizes) and equally frequently Custody of Minor children (bonus prize for possessing a Vagina). I am a little bit behind the times (as it is happily a long time since I practised any family Law), but sole Custody was always the norm – in fact I cannot think of a single case of Joint Cuustody, which in any event sounds like a recipe for disagreemnent and more litigation – and abuse was always non-existent (even and especially amongst the English Chavs I so frequently represented). Perhaps it is different in the Dominion of Canada, but I doubt it. It seems to me that the writer of the Article and the $PLC are drifting into dystopian fantasy.

  8. minuuteman says:

    Not that it makes much difference, but the University of Ontario Institute of Technology (U Owe It), Used to be the fairly good technical school known as Durham College that morphed into a third rate university.

  9. Samuel says:

    Disgusting. They glibly ignore the bargaining under the shadow of the law too.

    Trying to insist that the “family courts” aren’t biased is like trying to insist that water is not wet.

  10. wavevector says:


    Here’s another Huffington Post article that’s right down your alley.

    I Just Wish He Would Have An Affair!

    “These women are done. They say they aren’t happy. They say they aren’t in love with their husbands (or any other man — they aren’t having affairs). They say they simply wish they were no longer married to him. They aren’t fulfilled. They wonder if this is how they are doomed to live the rest of their lives (and God-willing, most of them have another 40+ years ahead of them).

    The common factor amongst all of these women is that they say that their husbands are really solid, good, nice men. They are not victims of physical or emotional abuse. They are not married to felons. They are not married to alcoholics or drug addicts. Their husbands are not having affairs. In fact, they tell me, there really isn’t anything “wrong” with their husbands … they just don’t want to be married to them anymore because they have fallen out of love. It’s actually a depressing conversation. When did we all become so unfulfilled with life?”

  11. Wow. I really need to get better at the recognition of deflection and hamsterization women do. I would never have noticed the shadow of the law part without it being pointed out.

    So wait, is she claiming that women that can prove abusive marriages are JUST AS LIKELY to get the children as those that can’t prove a damn thing? Are there any stats on how that compares to the few women that don’t claim abusive marriages?

    I mean, I know that the numbers are high, skewed towards women, and hopeless right now anyways…. But if there was literally no difference between any of those situations and the courts ruled the same regardless of if a man was abusive, if that could be proved, or if she even said he was (implying the court believes he was regardless of if she says it or not)…. Fuck that.

  12. Dalrock says:

    @Leap of a Beta

    So wait, is she claiming that women that can prove abusive marriages are JUST AS LIKELY to get the children as those that can’t prove a damn thing? Are there any stats on how that compares to the few women that don’t claim abusive marriages?

    She uses an interesting term instead of “prove”: satisfactorily document. That can’t be an accident. Prove is a much more natural term, so there must be a reason she didn’t use it. I suspect that what she found was that women who had reasonable enough (to her) seeming cases claiming abuse had roughly an 85% chance of getting custody.

    Edit: It is also possible that this is all about her misunderstanding the shadow of the law, and comparing cases which went to trial (where these kinds of claims are made) and those which settled, and found very little difference. Either way, the complaint as she worded it is ludicrous.

  13. Hmmm. Interesting point on her word choice allowing the kind of confusion my original topic. It also is allowing people to infer their own conclusions on what she meant so as to deflect from the truth and inspire the anger and complaints your original post is about.

  14. cassius says:

    Even those case where abuse can be show do not affect custody… This argument is a classic red-herring/straw man. The issue is not joint custody. Its the whole system – alimony, child-support, DV, custody, and more. The article is trying to present the whole issue as a question of custody, and then brushing it away by saying even demonstrating violence won’t affect the outcome. This is meant to leave the reader with the picture that the whole MRA is just some violent men who can’t accept reality….

  15. John says:


    Have you seen the new movie “Courageous”?

    I’m interested to hear your response.

    It is made by the same people who made “Fireproof”, which you were so critical of.

    I think the development of an Evangelical Christian alternative entertainment industry is good news, given the utter depravity of Hollywood, but I also think constructive criticism such as your review of “Fireproof” will play an important part in the maturing of the Christian entertainment industry.

    Also, did you like Mel Gibson’s “Passion of the Christ”? Do you think his planned movie about Judas Maccabee will be the next installment in a series of Catholic Traditionalist films?

  16. Rivelino says:

    “The feminist capacity for martyrdom and self pity is truly one of the most powerful forces known to man.”

    well said dalrock.

    i have started calling this PVM. pure victim mentality.

    i am seeing it a lot in black culture too.

Comments are closed.