Pendulum Effect Ep18: The Shared Parenting Debate - Should Fathers Have a Default Right to their Child?
Friday, April 16, 2010 19:59
Pendulum Effect Episode 18: The Shared Parenting Debate - Should Fathers Have a Default Right to their Child?
From Bias to Balance. Gender and Equality from a new perspective.
We promise you edgy and controversial episodes that also raise critical points about gender. Please pass on the links to our itunes account and to our homepage to friends and colleagues who may be interested!
On today’s show:
Men’s rights activists drive Harper’s policies
Toronto Star: Fathers Now Get Custody in Half Cases Because Feminists Fought For Their Rights
The Shared Parenting Bill - House of Commons of Canada
Host Justin Trottier: A leading figure in the freethought movement, Justin is an outspoken advocate of church-state separation, freedom of expression and inquiry, equality rights for non-believers and science education. He’s had television appearances on CBC, TVO, CTS, OMNI, Global, the Space Channel, CH and CityTV, as well as dozens of radio appearances and coverage in campus, city and national newspapers.
News/Discussion Co-host Michael Payton News: A recent graduate of York University, Michael also worked as a research intern at Harvard and MIT. In 2008 he was ranked in the top ten debaters in Canada and the top 30 in North America. Michael is also an active public spokesperson - having appeared on numerous TV and radio stations like CBC Radio, the John Moore Show and CTS Television for various political organizations such as the Canadian Secular Alliance.
* Subscribing here for free with itunes
* Using this feedburner link in your browser.
Listen Now or Download: mp3 file
If you like the show, please leave us a review on itunes.
Loading ...
Jeff K says:
April 18th, 2010 at 11:16 pm
I just wanted you to know I think all people should be judged individually. My mother won custody of me in the 1960’s, she was mean to me, and my father was a great man. He got a very raw deal, and mine wasn’t much better because of this 1960s custody thing. It is however no longer the 1960s. I have read the court papers of my parents divorce and I have concluded that it was reluctance to prosecute a woman for perjury in the 60s after being coached by a slimy lawyer, not the system itself. I feel that your “logic” is failing you here as it does with the fallacy of atheism. The issues are more complex. You are already on record on the atheism issue as saying that children are not the possessions of their parents (1.5 years ago, atheistbus.ca) and did not debate me on my rights to my children’s epistemological illumination at that time. I can only conclude that you are only here to defend atheist fathers and not those that reject atheism, such as myself. In other words, the evidence suggests that you wish to have state-assigned parents upon divorce, not a defense of men. However since it is your expectation that men are often more educated, they are likely to win more often, thus successfully obscuring your hidden agenda.
To be fair, I don’t think you have the logical foundation to discover you’re actually part of a push for leftist “new atheism”, but I thought I’d give you the benefit of the doubt, since these are but my speculations about the “new atheist” movement, as detailed in “When Atheism Becomes Religion” by Chris Hedges (2008) [page 39]
koinosuke says:
April 20th, 2010 at 4:24 pm
Children are not possessions of their parents; they have lives of their own. Respect them.
Jeff K says:
April 30th, 2010 at 2:57 pm
@koinosuke Is that some anime character reference? Anyway, the use of the word “possession” originates with Justin Trottier. He already got a taste of school-aged skepticism of his logical methodology in Toronto. I hardly need to add to it.
Actually, to be fair, I’ have watched Justin’s behaviour on these talk shows. I believe people like him because it is obvious he is following an honest line of reasoning, but if you dig deeper, you see that he actually is not modelling the reaction to his words in a general manner as he speaks. It is true that liars are well equipped with this skill, but someone who is not trapped in atheism, when viewing these interviews comes to believe, quite unjustly, that his emotional state is blocking his reasoning, when in fact I think it arises largely from his convictions centered around absolutism.
He tries to promote this with students he talks to.
Incidentally, I have been trying to trace the roots of New Atheisms influence on the culture at UofT. There is something about the interactions of post-grads there that seems to perpetuate it. Perhaps it is the difficulty of getting out of the core and seeing the real world? I haven’t pinned it down yet. I’ll keep you posted.