Feminists are not out to dominate over men

REFERRING to the letter “Uphill battle for fathers to gain custody of children” ( The Star, Jan 31), I think the writer has misinterpreted and twisted M. Indira Ghandi’s recent court victory to suit his own personal biases. These deserve to be called out because when speaking up for the rights of fathers, he has descended into a subtly misogynistic tone.

Yes, Muhammad Riduan fathered the children but is secretly converting them into his religion and separating a daughter from the family despite a court order considered loving and caring?

The writer seems to hate feminists by the way he uses the term and paints them as extreme.

There may have been a few radical ones but please, we do not hate men and we are not here to snatch your rights.

Some say “not all men” whenever a woman is violated in any way, so do not generalise feminists either. We want to be equal with you, and not dominating as some would assume.

Furthermore, it’s immature to think that showing women empowerment programmes implies that all men are villains. They are needed so that women do not remain submissive when abused.

Who regarded women as the “better caretakers”? The ones who thought women should stay at home instead of working or fighting in battle. That should answer how that bigoted view came about.

Kidnapping does not apply to strangers only, as some ignorant people would assume. Riduan may want to care for Prasana but apparently, it was so difficult to bargain with Indira and make some arrangements. After how he broke up the family, she has every right to refuse him.

Other fathers lose custody of their children but they respect the court decision. Playing the religion or gender card especially will not garner you favour with the judges.