By Corrine Barraclough
If you are male, expect to be ignored by both leading Australian political parties.
If you are acknowledged at all, prepared to be labelled as “angry”, your views dismissed as “dangerous”, “disgusting” and “offensive”.
Identity politics is roaring in Canberra.
When One Nation outlined domestic violence policy this week, angry objectors attempted to silence discussion the moment the words were out there. The political herd have become utterly allergic to hearing father’s visitation should not be “unnecessarily restricted by separation”.
Opposition family violence spokeswoman Ros Bates slammed the policy in Parliament. She accused One Nation QLD leader Steve Dickson of being “brainwashed by a few jilted men caught up in custody battles”, before filming a segment for The Project.
In that interview, she admitted the system isn’t always fair to men.
This is the extent that furious, pearl-clutching feminists believe they ‘own’ the issue of domestic violence. I have said before, and will continue to repeat, feminism should never have ever wrapped its man-hating narrative around domestic violence. An anti-men approach will never be effective.
Bates said Dickson had listened to the views of “a few angry men”. She’s talking about Australian Brotherhood of Fathers who repeatedly lock horns with Red Heart Campaign (RHC). RHC masquerades as an organisation giving a voice to victims of domestic violence while heavily peppering posts with far left activism and transparent man hating.
It was interesting to see Bates tag RHC in her critical post of One Nation. And, importantly, politically revealing. If the two major parties are aligning with far left feminists, isn’t it correct that One Nation brings some balance to the conversation?
If Bates herself admits that there are some good fathers who are getting a tough deal, isn’t it right that some political parties give them a voice?
Why is Hanson the only politician speaking up for men?
Why is Hanson, yet again, the lone wolf attempting to ensure that good fathers are able to see their children rather than being alienated from their by vengeful exes.
A series of incredibly biased columns fluttered into MSM. Of course, they too are peppered with the far left activism of RHC.
Anyone who is still denying the connection between the soaring male suicide rate and family court issues may like to refer to previous MLO articles. In particular, I draw your attention to the repeated cries of Barry Williams, National President of Lone Fathers Association of Australia Inc.
He has spoken to MLO about seeing the struggle and suffering of alienated fathers, having “blood on the carpet in this office” and the need for children to see their fathers as well as their mothers.
He also pushed the government and far left activists to stop denying the connection between family court and custodial issues and suicide. “I can give you names”, he said, of when coroners have said issues with the family court played a huge role in men’s deaths.
So, why are politicians all so fearful of listening?
Why is all conversation being shut down?
Why is the spotlight on Hanson hate rather than listening to people who have worked in this area for forty years, like Williams, and testify to the destruction being caused?
Why are politicians all so far left leaning on this issue?
Why are men’s lives being dismissed as being disposable?
Perhaps they should all ask themselves, ‘if you were being denied access to your child and had done nothing wrong, would you be angry? Would you be trying to protest? Would you be increasingly irritated that you’re being ignored?’
And perhaps they could start by having a chat with Dylan who MLO spoke to while he was sitting by the side of the road on the Sunshine Coast next to a desperate sign saying, “I want to see my son.” He is not alone; there are thousands of men in similar situations.
Rather than dismissing desperate fathers as “angry men” and a “few jilted men caught up in custody battles”, they should take a look at the soaring male suicide rate and think again. The proof is in those figures and, to use one of far left fem’s favourite words, you are complicit by not taking this seriously.
By choosing to close your ears you are also complicit in Hanson’s rising popularity.