Helen Gregory begins the article by summarizing the few public murders associated with Family courts omitting any reference whatsoever to data collected by the domestic violence homicide team or any other credible research.
She even went further to override consistent empirical research that supports that a majority of homicides linked to family court proceedings are not out of propriety, revenge or hatred. She refers to another male supremacy campaigner who also happens to a psychologist. Not a professor or a researcher, just a local psychologist prepared to support the same rhetoric.
He claims that the reason behind homicides is because men feel helpless, as though we should sympathize with the murderer above the murdered. It kind of brings a new meaning to the phrase, "The dead don't tell tales". Not only do they tell no tales, but the death they never wanted, brought shorter than the natural course but how it ended was all in vein. One can delve into politics, philosophy, science and introduce theories that become popular and novice in its own merit, but if its not logical - then its a complete waste of time. What is logical about comparing the value of a life over needing to hierarchy one mans urges over the plight of a child or mother whose life is at risk.
No different than the oil companies who hired people with a degree to battle in the academia arena a truth that was in plain sight: Climate Change. They were just as selective with statistics as these people are. It was quite a simple formula that kept the truth at bay for many years: Just provide data from five years instead of fifty and shout it out as loud as you can so that the truth cannot be heard. This is how these recent deaths occurred. Its because a bunch of abusers collaborated to fight for laws so that they can continue to abuse without challenge and anyone who knew would turn a blind eye. There is quite a history on these groups linking to actual abusers that have been found out and given that they wish to fight against laws that protect children from family violence, it is bizarre that three years later, they got exactly what they wanted at the cost of life.
Then there is Carl Boyd, a barrister who is stretching beyond his credentials in the realm of psychology, sociology and psychiatry to reaffirm the notion that parents kill due to lack of control. Its either Law Degrees are offering far more than promised these days or the writer was really scraping the bottom of the barrel to find a bunch of misogynist's who had some type of title. Any title, it seems - but wrong context. Let me repeat that phrase again, "Lack of control". How much power does one need? So, let me get this straight, should we sympathize with murders, simply because they were distressed? Never mind the turmoil their victims would have gone through until their last breath. I wonder if the last lingering thought of the children these fathers killed were, "Why daddy? Why did you do this?". You know they say that suicide is selfish, yet there is obviously not enough attributed to how selfish taking away another's life is. According to this article, we should feel sorry for them, forget the kids, give them what they wanted and pray that they don't kill the children because they began to want more or they had another urge. Boyd also claims that child homicides and familicide's are predictable, that they occur within 6 months to 1 year. Thats a dangerous assumption, considering that Arthur Freeman's killing took a lot longer than that and many other killings happened even up to seven years in the making after separation.
Greg Andresen, where do I start...this troll has been around attacking womens experience of domestic violence for years. Its not exactly an intelligent strategy, as you can quite clearly see that first he denies womens experience of violence and then goes on to purport that men are far more likely to be victimized. One only has to look at Mens health and realize that its nothing to do with mens health. Where is the information about prostate cancer or any other medical issues affecting men? Carl Boyd the camouflages the issue completely by stating that mothers making allegations of violence or child abuse as the issue. Whilst he uses the term "false", I am dubious on how a barrister with such emotive views tilted towards men would be able to reach a legible conclusion.
The article drags on to promote dad's in distress that has received yet another million dollars to fund unqualified counselors facilitating groups of men discussing child custody issues. Just as the shared parenting bill came into affect, family violence workers were instructed not to discuss any issues or grievances with their clients as it might be considered, "coaching". The reason why there are few groups supporting women going through the family court is because of section 121 of the Family Law act and a group is also considered a "public forum". One may wonder where the real bias is.
In no place in the article was there a consideration for the victims they blamed or the mothers they accused or any real credibility to the rhetoric.
Propaganda Level: 100%
Misogynous level: 100%
Intelligence level: -0.05%
Best use for this article: kitty litter