Why are this MRA group harassing Kate Winslet?

?

2013-12-22 16:20:46 UTC

You linked to Jezebel, the site that constantly celebrates female-on-male DV and mutilation of innocent men.

"One thing i acknowledged is how the fathers have never complained about lack of access to their children and have not even reacted to this surge by this group on their behalf. Just this shows how this dysfunctional campaign is misguided as how can you claim to against this non-existant bias of between fathers and their children when fathers don't seem bothered for 'justice' in the first place?"

You just pulled this out of your @$$.

?

2013-12-23 01:46:00 UTC

I think that what Kate says wasn't all that offensive, but people make a big deal over mildly-offensive-if-you-squint comments by celebrities every day. She was talking about her own family, not necessarily saying that every family should do things the way she does. She may well be sexist, and her comment may well imply something sexist, but we can't prove on the basis of that comment alone that she is sexist or that her comment was intended as sexism.

However, for anything a celebrity says that could possibly be interpreted as offensive, someone will get offended by it. People cried misogyny because the first Star Trek reboot movie had only one major female character in it. They cried rape apology because Blurred Lines says "I know you want it" in the lyrics. They cried homophobia because a bisexual female used the word "f*ggot." They cried racism when Gwen Stefani referred to a song title that had the n-word in it. In each case, it is my humble opinion that they were, in fact, making a big deal over nothing. But it's a common occurrence for people to make a big deal out of the "nothings" that celebrities say and do.

This criticism of Kate Winselet is the same as all of those cases, except that Winselet is choosing to escalate it by suing the people who criticize her. They have just as much freedom of speech as she does, so I wonder why she doesn't just ignore them or speak out against the criticism rather than fighting a losing legal battle.

Common Sense

2013-12-23 00:28:09 UTC

You said:

"One thing i acknowledged is how the fathers have never complained about lack of access to their children and have not even reacted to this surge by this group on their behalf"

This is simply incorrect.

There are many, many fathers who would like to have more access to their kids. There are many fathers who wanted custody but did not get it due to the bias to give custody to mothers.

Kate claims, they did not accurately quote her. Both articles you link provide her quote from Vogue, but neither provides the piece run by F4J. Without being able to compare the two in full, I don't know how anyone can say whether their piece accurately reflected what she said or not.

Personally, I think their decision to use a single person and single instance was a bad move. Single examples don't prove anything. There are many sources which point to the bias in child custody and they should have kept it to the issue, rather than attacking a celebrity.

Add: It should also be noted however, that Kate chose to publicly share her personal decisions in a Vogue article. Celebrities can't expect to make such public statements but then be immune to criticism. She could could have kept such information private. She chose to have it published in a major publication.

~

Mabe

2013-12-23 00:36:26 UTC

Some men do get denied their parental rights by some women, for no other reason then they didn't receive a check in the male. Bitter, the man didn't put up with her bad ways, leaving her, rather than fight with her, using the children in order to continue staying and doing what she can to prevent him from seeing them. It takes legal action at that point. That's why each case is individual in nature, because it was so much the other way, at one point in history. It must be looked at from all sides, at what is fair for the children, becomes sometimes they want both around, when they want them.

?

2013-12-23 01:29:51 UTC

Screaming "harassment", a typical feminist self/female-victimization tactic intended to shut up the critics, is getting boring already, because those screams are usually not backed up by any evidence whatsoever, and the same applies in this case.

Screaming "harassment" each time someone calls you out on something you've said won't magically make the society in general see it as harassment, because in a vast majority of cases it (objectively) isn't harassment. Not even close!

Only a whiny, narcissistic person who believes they should be allowed to spew nonsense out in the public and that no one should be allowed to call them out on it or criticize them would classify something like this as harassment. These attempts can't be taken seriously.

She has said something. She was called out on it. She will sue because she believes her words were misrepresented and they had no right to mention her name at all. The court will decide whether this was the case or not, and whether the campaign goes on or she will be compensated and the authors punished. Justice will be served. Case closed.

This is how it all works in a civilized world.

Now let me tell you how it works when the savages are involved...

I'm sure that every decent person would agree with me when I say it would have been incomparably better that the feminists created a media campaign calling out Warren Farrell if they believed he had said something questionable, and showing proof for it, (actually, they could have done it when he first wrote what they now find questionable, which was when he was still a member of NY NOW), instead of organizing and/or supporting violent protests during seminars on boys' issues in school, demonstrating their utter selfishness, lack of any compassion for boys' issues, attempts to shift attention from the real issues on to something that's 40 years old and irrelevant, and ultimately - their savage and violent ways.

Haley

2013-12-23 01:27:08 UTC

Well considering the predicament they are in.....it is understandable that they "attack" anyone who can bring media attention to their case.

I would do worse if I wouldn't get to see my children.

No matter the outcome....they succeeded in their goal to create public awareness.

anonymous

2013-12-23 00:56:24 UTC

Oh, Laura, you're back. And you're still pretty.

Nothing against fathers who want to be in their kids lives... But MRA's seem only to be good at talking, screaming, ranting, cursing, threatening, and whining...

Taking action is pretty low on the list of things they do well.

I cannot really comment in Kate's situation, don't know enough about it. I mean, does the father want contact but is being denied? if so, why?

Need more information.

Pretty Little Liar

2013-12-23 00:26:07 UTC

No mr chao. Sam Mendez issued a formal statement to that effect. You can read it on the f4j website.

Michael Corleone

2013-12-23 00:20:40 UTC

cause she wouldn't share with leonardo D and he had to die in the water.