How to paint the bias against fathers as unfair to mothers.

that quality enshrined in a man who, having killed his mother and father, throws himself on the mercy of the court because he is an orphan.

— Leo Rosten on the definition of Chutzpah

I found a link from Manboobz’ site to another SPLC page:  Leader’s Suicide Brings Attention to Men’s Rights Movement.  It is a pretty typical litany of these men are scary, these men are angry, these men are sexual losers, etc.  However, this one part made me chuckle (emphasis mine):

But Molly Dragiewicz, a criminologist at the University of Ontario Institute of Technology and the author of Equality With a Vengeance: Men’s Rights Groups, Battered Women, and Antifeminist Backlash, argues that cases in which fathers are badly treated by courts and other officials are not remotely the norm. The small percentage of divorces that end up in litigation are disproportionately those where abuse and other issues make joint custody a dubious proposition. Even when a woman can satisfactorily document her ex-husband’s abuse, Dragiewicz says, she is no more likely to receive full custody of her children than if she couldn’t.

I have to hand it to them, they took the fact that women nearly universally get custody whether or not the father is an abuser, and turned this into something for women to complain about.  The feminist capacity for martyrdom and self pity is truly one of the most powerful forces known to man.

As I’ve shared before:

Edit:  After reading Opus’ learned comment I realized that I had missed the good feminist using another bit of misdirection, which is to suggest that since the courts only decide a very small percentage of the cases the outcomes of the rest of them are somehow unrelated to the bias of the courts.

Double points to Ms. Dragiewicz and the SPLC for a rationalization twofer!