He has successfully brought the issue of father's rights to public attention. He told a Sydney radio station:
I've asked for help so many times - no one wants to help the blokes. The chicks get in first and start throwing stones, the blokes don't stand a chance.
Michael Fox believes that his children are at risk of harm living with their mother, though there are no details about what he believes the threat to be. It's also not clear yet why the courts have prevented him having access to his children. He was involved in a bikie shootout some years ago and a house he owns burnt down around the time he was denied access. He himself has hinted that the issue is one of parental alienation syndrome, meaning that his children have been turned against him by their mother. It's difficult right now to have a definite opinion on the rights and wrongs of his particular custody battle.
But his daring act has won attention not only to his own case, but to the issue of court bias in general. We'll see have to see how this develops.
In a sense, men are "manning up": they just take their beating and don't complain like a good stoic man is expect to.
ReplyDeleteHonestly, I'm surprised why we don't see more of this type of stuff: more of men raging against a biased system. That we don't get more Sodinis is surprising.
We need the nuclear and possibly the extended family together. We don't need single fathers, single mothers, adulterers, divorcees, gays, lesbians, transgenders, murderers, pedophiles and any type of deviancy promoted as normal.
ReplyDeleteThe man was an ex soldier, this kind of job gives you a greater nerve. If you're a white collar drone who's always used to towing the line you won't find such protests as easy.
ReplyDeleteListen to some of the comments he made to the magistrate at his court hearing.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/sydney-harbour-bridge-ban-for-determined-protester/story-e6frg6nf-1226055550136
In reply to being told he was banned from contacting his ex-wife or her immediate family including his children he said:
“I think that's pretty disgusting,” he told the magistrate.
“This is not the act of a desperate man, this is the act of determined man.”
In response to being told that he couldn't used the harbor bridge anymore and had to use the tunnel he said,
”Are you serious?”.
No surrender.
Excuse me, but isn't this a case of a man acting solely on the basis of his own, radical, autonomy? And isn't radical autonomy the big, bad, boogey-man that is eating the world?
ReplyDeleteOr are you only opposed to your hobbyhorse of "radical autonomy" some of the time, and in favor of it other times?
Or maybe, just maybe, your tidy theory isn't nearly as all-explaining as you think?
He is acting in the name of tradition, not his own freedom. He is standing up for his family and his children. Your throwing words around, and don't understand their greater depth.
ReplyDeleteAnymouse
ReplyDeleteHe is acting in the name of tradition, not his own freedom.
Rubbish. He's acting in his own name, for his own purpose.
He is standing up for his family and his children.
Again, rubbish. He's protesting an unfair action that affects him, and his access to the children he fathered. He's standing up for his rights. That's exactly what Richardson calls "Radical Autonomy".
Your throwing words around, and don't understand their greater depth.
Well, for a start, I know the difference between the word your and the word you're, which is more than you can claim. And the fact of the matter is, in a different context, Mark Richardson would denigrate such an action as one of "Radical Autonomy", a term that he continuously redefines to suit his purpose on a regular basis.
On second thought, this man's personal background is problematic. But I still can't see a reason to denigrate Richardson's concept of Radical Autonomy.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous Reader,
ReplyDeleteNo, as far as we know he's not acting for radical autonomy. His stated aim is that he wants the welfare of children put first and that the culture of divorce harms children.
If he were a radical autonomist he would want the freedom to act in any direction without impediment.
The men who are radical autonomists out there are agitating for things such as the right to walk away from fatherhood (as women can walk away from motherhood via abortion); relationships without formal commitments; relationships without monogamy etc - as these all "liberate" men to do as they will at any particular time - but obviously at the cost of stable, monogamous marriage and the civilisational benefits that come with this.
The bridge protester seems to want the opposite - he wants a more stable culture of marriage and he wants to remain in the lives of his children.
""-He is acting in the name of tradition, not his own freedom.
ReplyDelete-Rubbish. He's acting in his own name, for his own purpose.""
The problem is that you think these are contradictory.
People are biologically driven, that is how our societies have survived whatever dumb ideas we have managed to come up with.
And biologically? A stable relationship makes sense. From the same perspective each man should have one to three women depending on status.
Lots of men died very early and their "share" of the women handed out.
We moved to monogamy as most societies did because it was more efficient, low status males have a reason to work hard and create a stable, orderly society because of this.
Now we are moving back to semi-unofficial polygamy where the most desirable blokes get the best 20-something girls and funnily enough male achievement is slipping fast.
Boys have lower test scores and have less ambition, why bother after all? Why not sit at home with video games if the confident few are out sleeping with the girls of your dreams who won't even look at you until they are ready to have kids?
Men feel less obligation to treat women well than ever. I don't really think this is going to work out well for them.
Now we are moving back to semi-unofficial polygamy where the most desirable blokes get the best 20-something girls and funnily enough male achievement is slipping fast.
ReplyDeleteBoys have lower test scores and have less ambition, why bother after all?
Well put - there are larger numbers of boys now, even middle-class boys, who are opting out.
No, as far as we know he's not acting for radical autonomy. His stated aim is that he wants the welfare of children put first and that the culture of divorce harms children.
ReplyDeleteHe is protesting for his rights first and foremost. If the exact same action were performed by a radical feminist you would label it "radical autonomy" in a heartbeat.
If he were a radical autonomist he would want the freedom to act in any direction without impediment.
Once again you redefine your term to suit the debate of the moment. Do you see how this undercuts any meaning?
The men who are radical autonomists out there are agitating for things such as the right to walk away from fatherhood (as women can walk away from motherhood via abortion); relationships without formal commitments; relationships without monogamy etc - as these all "liberate" men to do as they will at any particular time - but obviously at the cost of stable, monogamous marriage and the civilisational benefits that come with this.
Great, yet another definition of "radical autonomy". Could you please pick one and stick with it? Because it is really tiresome when you keep stretching your hobbyhorse term to the point that "radical autonomy" is defined as "everything and anything that Mark Richardson doesn't like".
JesseJames, thanks for reposting several points that I have made here over the last few years. The MRA's call "opting out" by "Men Go Their Own Way" (MGTOW) and Richardson usually denounces it as another form of "radical autonomy". Of course, when it serves his purpose, as we see in this case, he won't denounce it but will rather claim that it is understandable.
So MGTOW == "radical autonomy" and is bad, but boys "opting out" == understandable. The actions are the same, but by putting a different label onto the action, Mark Richardson somehow finds the action acceptable.
It is annoying.
Anonymous reader, I've replied to you in good faith up to know. But this is becoming too much. You accuse me of changing definitions of autonomy because I wrote here:
ReplyDeleteIf he were a radical autonomist he would want the freedom to act in any direction without impediment.
And here:
The men who are radical autonomists out there are agitating for things such as the right to walk away from fatherhood (as women can walk away from motherhood via abortion); relationships without formal commitments; relationships without monogamy etc - as these all "liberate" men to do as they will at any particular time
Agitating to do as you will at any particular time and wanting the freedom to act in any direction without impediment are not conflicting definitions. I have not changed definitions, just expressed much the same thing in different words.
Now I'm really beginning to wonder why you so much object to my beliefs about liberal autonomy theory. Are you yourself someone who is sympathetic to this theory? Do you not like to see it criticised?
If so, then be open about it. Attack things head on.
Mark Richardson:
ReplyDeleteAgitating to do as you will at any particular time and wanting the freedom to act in any direction without impediment are not conflicting definitions. I have not changed definitions, just expressed much the same thing in different words.
I suppose that I could collect all the different ways you've chosen to define "radical autonomy" and post them, but since it is your "hammer", your "philosophers stone" that somehow in your mind lies at the root of all social ills, it wouldn't convince you.
Instead, I'll point out that slavery is an evil thing, that slavery exists today, that slavery existed 5,000 years ago, and that there is no way you can blame slavery on "radical autonomy" (although I'm sure you could have a go at it). If you agree that slavery is an evil thing, then you would have to admit that there are social evils not caused by 'radical autonomy'. However, you've invested yourself so much in "radical autonomy" as the central hub of all social ills, I am not sure could handle the contradiction.
If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. It seems to me that "radical autonomy" is your hammer, and therefore everything, everywhere, is a nail.
MR
Now I'm really beginning to wonder why you so much object to my beliefs about liberal autonomy theory. Are you yourself someone who is sympathetic to this theory? Do you not like to see it criticised?
I object to your holding forth "radical autonomy" as the taproot of all social ills. I believe it blinds you to many other factors.
If so, then be open about it. Attack things head on.
Sigh. I'm trying to help you understand that blaming everything bad on the planet on your pet idea isn't working. Sorry if that offends, but it's true.
Anonymous Reader,
ReplyDeleteIt's your own criticisms which are being pursued too crudely.
I have never blamed all the world's ills over the course of human history on liberalism let alone on autonomy.
I have never even blamed all of the ills of contemporary society on either phenomenon.
I believe that human nature is imperfect and always will be imperfect and therefore that no society will be without its problems even with the best political order that can possibly be had.
I focus on a few key political issues, issues which are central to liberal philosophy, such as our sex, our ethnicity, the family and concepts of morality - this is my focus rather than an abstract utopia.