You know, it's funny. I've talked to juries, jury panels and judges. I've taught in law school. I've given speeches to various audiences from labor union locals to political party gatherings. I've written papers, essays and legal briefs. And never once has anyone in any of my "audiences" come up to me and said something like "Gee, Mr. Franklin, I really didn't understand what you were saying." In short, I communicate reasonably well both in writing and orally. But on Braodsheet threads and on this one, it is absolutely routine that people "respond" to what I write with total incomprehension. (It's further interesting to note that when I post to War Room or Glenn Greenwald threads, no one ever seems to misunderstand what I say.) Now why do you think that is?

I suppose it's pointless for me to ask you to actually read what I've written. What did you think I meant when I said in my original post that none of what I was saying about the tendencies of children in single-parent families necessarily applied to Louise Sloan's child and that he/she might well turn out just fine? What is it that's not clear about that to you? It's perfectly simple. It's kind of like you and your child. What I'm talking about are tendencies and increased risks. There's no way to say that any individual will suffer the consequences that generally children do. And I didn't say that, so why do you act like I did?

You say I'm talking about stereotypes. I'm not. Look up the word.

Look, if you want to discuss what I write, fine. If you want to disagree, fine. But if you just want to make stuff up, please do it about someone else's posts, OK?

There are plenty of people in fathers' rights organizations who are perfectly temperate in what they say and write. A few aren't and they tend to stick out. And there are plenty of women who back those organizations as well. Frequently, those are women married to a divorced man with children from his first marriage. They see the abuse fathers take from the system and are apalled.

But you refer to anti-father family court bias as if there were some question about it. Have you read anything on the subject? I urge you to. It's quite outrageous.

I never insult my wife. And yes, I do find the sort of intemperate language used by some angry men highly offensive and above all counterproductive. It reminds me very much of what I used to read in feminist publications back in the late 60s and 70s. I hope the fathers' rights movement will grow beyond that. If they're serious about what they say they're trying to accomplish, they'll cut that nonsense out.

Please see one of my recent posts. You're making up stuff about me. It strongly suggests you have nothing with which to counter my arguments. Can't you do better than that?

well, maybe you're right. Maybe she's too busy to read books or articles on subjects she's not to busy to opine on anyway. Which just establishes her ignorance on the subject, right? By the way, how do you know that anonymous is female?

One thing to remember: when all you can do to respond to an opponent's arguments is to make up personal stuff about him/her, it's a sure sign you don't have anything meritorious to say on the subject. Most people know that and read what you write accordingly.

If I were you, I'd read Divorced Dads by Sanford Braver. It's an easy read, has a lot of good citations and in depth descriptions of what he and his team did and what they found. Richard Gelles is a good academic resource too.

But you didn't answer my question. Cite me a source, even one that claims that feminists do one thing to support equal rights for fathers in family courts.

You're right that social movements like feminism change over time and I'm well aware that feminism has done so. I'm also aware of 3rd-wave feminism, although, compared to the previous two waves, I think 3rd wave is pretty lightweight. But that's neither here nor there. And yes, those 70s feminists were anti-sex in ways that younger feminists thankfully are not. But, if you want to claim that feminism is no longer anti-father and anti-family, you have to do more than just make the claim. As I've pointed out before, today, right now, feminist organizations like NOW are actively opposing equalization of rights in family courts. You can't pretend that's not happening, or that it's of a piece with the anti-father values of "2nd wave feminism." Again, show me the feminist writers, the feminist organizations that support men's rights in family courts. I don't see them. In fact, they do everything they can to keep fathers and children apart.

No, I for one am happily married. We just had our 18th anniversary yesterday. What gets me and others like me riled up is the frank and massive anti-father nature of family courts and family law. It's there for all to see, so I can't guess why you don't. Let's find out: since you apparently don't think there's any legitimate reason why fathers feel aggrieved by family courts/law, can you cite any statistic that suggests equality of the sexes in that arena? Can you refer us to a single book you've read on the inequality of the sexes in family court and explains why you debunk it? Anything at all? Or is it just more pc nonsense. In case it's the latter, please be informed that there's plenty of that already on Broadsheet threads. We don't really need any more.