Shakehandsman (talk | contribs) listing additional coi account |
Shakehandsman (talk | contribs) →Sources for criticism of Men's/Father's rights groups: rational for POV tag |
||
Line 105: | Line 105: | ||
[[Special:Contributions/121.222.152.149|121.222.152.149]] ([[User talk:121.222.152.149|talk]]) 02:52, 7 February 2010 (UTC) |
[[Special:Contributions/121.222.152.149|121.222.152.149]] ([[User talk:121.222.152.149|talk]]) 02:52, 7 February 2010 (UTC) |
||
:Thanks for all your hard work. It's very clear that criticism of father's rights groups is one of his main activities. I'd encourage peopl to incorporate this content into the article. A clear breach of NPOV to not have this mentioned.--[[User:Shakehandsman|Shakehandsman]] ([[User talk:Shakehandsman|talk]]) 03:12, 15 January 2011 (UTC) |
:Thanks for all your hard work. It's very clear that criticism of father's rights groups is one of his main activities. I'd encourage peopl to incorporate this content into the article. A clear breach of NPOV to not have this mentioned.--[[User:Shakehandsman|Shakehandsman]] ([[User talk:Shakehandsman|talk]]) 03:12, 15 January 2011 (UTC) |
||
::I've given the article a much needed POV tag. We can't let COi editors simply remove every single last trace of criticism and controversy regarding their work. Flood is cited all over Wikipedia attacking fathers rights groups, yet his own article doesn't' even hint at his views.--[[User:Shakehandsman|Shakehandsman]] ([[User talk:Shakehandsman|talk]]) 07:14, 15 January 2011 (UTC) |
|||
==Essentialism?== |
==Essentialism?== |
Revision as of 07:15, 15 January 2011
![]() | Biography Stub‑class ![]() | |||||||||
|
![]() | Australia: Education Stub‑class ![]() ![]() | ||||||||||||||||||
|
"Beating the Backlash"
(Adding this back from the archive in order to allow Dr. Flood to elaborate and provide possible further sources about his views on men's/father's rights groups, and to allow other editors to read and discuss this material. These issues were raised on this talk section only days ago so and it is premature to archive them)
Below is a direct quote of a speech given (and subsequently circulated) by Dr. Flood in which he encourages feminists and mother's rights activists to actively work against fathers who want to be fathers and be involved with thier children. The entire speech can be read here
The following is a quote of Michael Flood's speech.
[Start quote]
The following are some of the political strategies we can use to help beat the
fathers' rights backlash.
Discredit fathers' rights groups. Emphasise that they;
-Are interested only in reducing their financial obligations to their children;
-Are interested only in extending or regaining power and authority over
ex-partners and children.
-Do nothing to increase men's actual share of childcare / parenting or men's
positive involvement in parenting both before and after separation.
-Collude with perpetrators of violence against women and children, protect and
advocate for perpetrators, or are perpetrators.
-Produce critiques of their lies and their strategies which are credible and
accessible.
-Co-opt the new politics of fatherhood;
-Support positive efforts to respond to separated fathers. (And emphasise that FR
groups fix men in anger and blame, rather than helping them to heal.)
-Build on men's desires to be involved (and nonviolent) parents.
-Find alternative male voices: supportive men and men's / fathers' networks and
groups.
-`Speaking as a father…'
Tell women's stories
-Atrocity tales: Stories of abuse and inequality.
In letters, submissions, on talkback, etc.
(But beware of the ways in which these can (a) portray women only as victims, (b) homogenise and essentialise women's (diverse) experiences of violence, and (c) undermine credibility and support. )
Find and nurture male allies: in government, the community sector, academic,
etc.
[end quote]
Thought the above might be useful material for those trying to understand more about Flood's father-freindly views. Again, for those who wish to read the entire speech click here
Cheers 121.222.152.149 (talk) 12:41, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Michael Flood again. True, I've been highly critical of the agendas of fathers' rights groups. And I think they do little to actually help separated fathers maintain positive relationships with their children (and their children's mothers). At the same time, I have been a passionate promoter of fathers' positive involvement in children's lives. See for example http://www.xyonline.net/content/promoting-positive-roles-fathers. Best wishes, michael Michael Flood (talk) 22:36, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- Hmmmm. I'm trying to understand your stated desire (in your writings) to promote a diversity of 'masculinities', ie. the proposal that there are or should be numerous schemas of masculinity recognised. But then you seem to promote the extreme contrary view by insisting that there exist no diversity of masculinities inside men's/father's rights collectives, and that a diversity of masculinities exists only outside these groups in the thinking of pro-feminist persons and groups. You seem to suggest that such men represent a singular (stereo) type. I know a number of men who belong to fathers or men's rights collectives (although I dont belong to such groups myself) and can say these men hold a variety of views and exemplify a panopoly of diverse masculinities, ie. they are not all domineering violent patriarchal oppressors- the strereotype you offer for all men belonging to such groups. The fact that you say above that all dads belonging to fathers rights groups "are interested only in reducing their financial obligations to their children" is an extraordinary monocular stance, but one which must stay on the record whilst you hold to it. This anyway is not a place to question your views but merely to clarify and record them as in the above quote, for the purpose of accurately representing your publicised beliefs. 121.222.152.149 (talk) 22:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
- I encourage Dr. Flood to provide further links to his relevant criticisms of fathers/men's groups in order that editors here may gain a balanced sense of his views, which can be incorporated into the entry in a balanced way if useful. I understand there exist several published papers by Dr. Flood criticising father's and men's rights groups generally? Please point us to them or tell me where they can be found and I will post the links here. 121.222.152.149 (talk) 02:16, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Sources for criticism of Men's/Father's rights groups
Sources can be added here as they turn up. Here are a few of Dr. Flood's recently posted criticisms:
Posted on his XY site Fri, 05 Feb 2010 'Fathers' rights' and the defence of paternal authority in Australia
Posted on Tue, 08 Sep 2009 What's wrong with fathers' rights?
Posted Wed, 13 May 2009 Backlash: Angry men's movements
Posted on Wed, 13 May 2009 ‘fatherlessness’ and ‘male role models’
Posted on Wed, 20 May 2009 Fathers' Rights and Family Law
Posted on Wed, 13 May 2009 The politics of fathers' rights activists
Posted on Wed, 13 May 2009 What’s Wrong With a Presumption of Joint Custody?
Posted on Wed, 13 May 2009 Separated fathers and the ‘fathers’ rights’ movement
Posted on Wed, 13 May 2009 Myths about custody and domestic violence
Posted on Tue, 12 May 2009 Fathers' rights and violence against women
Posted on Thu, 23 Apr 2009 Responding to men's rights groups
Judging by the sheer volume of criticism above (and this is only a small portion) I believe this can be counted as a cornerstone of Flood's work.
121.222.152.149 (talk) 02:52, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for all your hard work. It's very clear that criticism of father's rights groups is one of his main activities. I'd encourage peopl to incorporate this content into the article. A clear breach of NPOV to not have this mentioned.--Shakehandsman (talk) 03:12, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
- I've given the article a much needed POV tag. We can't let COi editors simply remove every single last trace of criticism and controversy regarding their work. Flood is cited all over Wikipedia attacking fathers rights groups, yet his own article doesn't' even hint at his views.--Shakehandsman (talk) 07:14, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Essentialism?
I'm amazed that Flood seems to have a 100% negative 'essentalist' view of all men belonging to men's rights collectives, categorically. Ie. he says over and over that "all" these men are all domineering oppressors of women, with no other objective. One would hope that, somewhere, he has acknowledged that men's groups are comprised of a variety of males each with differing views and psychological dispositions? Does he always portray them in negative essentialist terms? Perhaps he has written about the variety of maculinities inherent to men's rights collectives, some positive encouragement which could be added to the main entry to show that he has (or not?) a balanced viewpoint? I recommend that if such statements from Dr. Flood exist then they ought to be highlighted in order to soften his seemingly one-sided stereotyping. Maybe Michael can point some of his writings out?
Just a thought. 124.185.34.204 (talk) 06:36, 20 September 2010 (UTC)