‘Cinderella Law’ to stop emotional abuse of children: Parents who fail to show love could face prison

Posted on March 31, 2014 by Mike Buchanan

Our thanks to M for this:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2593042/Cinderella-Law-stop-emotional-abuse-children-Parents-fail-love-face-prison.html#ixzz2xWnBcMVk

This is going to be a charter for mothers to claim their male partners are ‘emotionally neglecting’ their children – by acting like father rather than mothers, presumably – in an effort to have them charged and possibly imprisoned, or at the very least ejected from their homes, which is probably the key driver of this proposed legislation. From the article:

Campaigners pushing for a change in the law have included Women’s Aid, which says current legislation focuses too much on specific incidents, such as an assault – and not enough on psychological harm.

M had some interesting comments to make about the story, and they take up the remainder of this blog piece:

“Mike, I predict that 98% of the parents arrested and charged under this proposed new law will be fathers. If a father shows too much affection towards his child he’ll be branded a paedophile, while if he shows too little, he’ll be branded as someone who ‘emotionally neglects’ his child, and may end up in prison.

This law would be insane. You can’t legislate for love and affection. Different people have different parenting styles, and they largely reflect their personalities, which they cannot change. Also, men and women typically have different parenting styles, and that’s a healthy thing for children. You may as well say that parents have to be above a minimum height or below a maximum weight, in which case half the mothers I see waddling around my town centre would get arrested tomorrow. And they COULD change, go on a diet and do some exercise, but they won’t. Why are men always demonised, and women never held accountable?

Time to get rid of all this crooked feminist-driven legislation!!!

About Mike Buchanan

I'm a men's human rights advocate, writer, and publisher. My primary focus is leading the political party I launched in 2013, Justice for Men & Boys (and the women who love them). I still work actively on two campaigns I launched in early 2012, Campaign for Merit in Business and the Anti-Feminism League. In 2014 I launched The Alternative Sexism Project, aiming to raise public understanding that the sexism faced by men and boys has far more grievous consequences than the sexism faced by women and girls.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

  • Already, in America, the concept of MGTOW (‘Men going their own way’) is taking hold, the blogs and chat rooms are buzzing with the idea. More and more men are realising that disengagement altogether from women is becoming the only a viable strategy for living in a feminised world where enactment of laws such as these that are dangerous to men, where women’s needs are consistently placed above mens, where the control, the abusive rhetoric, the deprivation of men’s dignity and their liberty, is now an unstoppable tide. The only logical outcome of all of this is men will eschew fatherhood altogether. I really believe they will just quietly walk away from it all, live a low profile life: earn and spend their own money, have a good social life with their mates, be responsible for no one and to no one. That is where all this is heading.

  • If the law was truely implemented and enforced impartially, but using feminist vague definitions no doubt, then the number of mothers and father arrested would be mind blowing. But we know that is not the end goal. It would not be a neutral law or be policed in a fair handed way. Feminists only put forward gendered laws. Inequality is something they brag about. The end goal is no men allowed near their own children, despite studies showing fathers are just as, if not, more important than mothers as the children mature. Who is going to define the law, the police questionaires and guidelines to implement it? We all know the answer and it is the wrong one. Yes there should be provision for mental cruelty in the law but not the feminist misandric version. This is just another example of biased thinking being used allegedly to “defend” women and “defend” children but defacto criminalise all men, without evidence or due process, to allow women to do whatever they like and still not be held up to be responsible adults with equal propensity for violence and cruelty. Defending children is a noble aim but when it potentially ignores at least half the known aggressors, in yet another category of behaviour, it is a charter for mayhem and worse abuse.

  • “This is going to be a charter for mothers…”
    It will be a charter to kidnap the kids of any out-group you care to name: racial, religious, whatever. Even political. It’s a blank cheque for society’s enforcers. This is bigger than feminism, if you can imagine, and shows that the job of today’s feminism is simply to carry water for the establishment, because it is *part* of the establishment.