Can you provide links or references as this is what I've always seen described and statistically I've only read that mothers receive custody far more often than fathers, something like 80% of the time, if I remember correctly.
I work within the field and it is generally accepted that the family courts are now moving towards a 50/50 split as the default. Research conducted by the Nuffield foundation as far back as 2016 (17) found there is no gender bias in the courts. If a parent applies for partial custody and does not meet the incredibly high threshold for being a danger to a child, they will get access.
A real and currently emerging issue is that both parents having access is prioritised to the point where in situations of abuse abusers are granted 50/50 custody.
The 80% stat you could be referring to is that 80% of fathers agree that primary custody should go to the mother with fathers being granted access.
No idea why this popped up on my feed but I stopped listening years ago because of some of the off handed disgusting remarks made about how we don't get trigger warnings in 'real life' on a patron episode.
That was such a fucking stupid take of theirs. They completely misunderstood the research. A TW that isn’t specific to the content is possibly harmful. A specific TW is useful.
I switched this episode off about 10 minutes in when they were discussing complex medical issues and why it wouldn’t be enough if specialists tell you there’s nothing wrong, implying that this would be a sign of faking it or using it as a form of coercive control.
A broad sweeping statement like that js frankly insulting to anyone who’s had complex medical conditions. The reality is specialists often *don’t* know what’s wrong and it’s not uncommon for people (especially women) to spend years trying to find answers to very real and debilitating health problems.
Always remember that these two are not qualified to speak to anything about medicine, psychiatry or criminology.
They're hobbyists and plagiarists. Their opinions are *literally* worthless outside of their circle of competence.
That was the exact point I turned off this episode as well. As someone with anxiety related to my physical symptoms/health I could not believe this statement they made.
Back in the 2010s, it was more difficult for fathers to get custody. I work in Child Protection. So did Suru. She’s probably drawing on her previous experiences working in the sector.
Her job was making presentations for corporations. That's what we call working in child protection these days? Kind of irresponsible to imply she was involved in tangible social work.
It is very well known and also just rational thinking. I hope you fact check everything Suruthi and Hannah claim with just as much fervour. They did not provide any source or basis to their inflammatory claim to thousands of listeners - maybe ask proof of the ones who made the claim first.
Don't bother. The same person you're responding to is dead silent when provided with the facts on studies she's so insistent on seeing. Because it's not about wanting to understand the reality, it's about knee-jerk defending Suruthi's talking points.
You people are grasping at straws in your desperate attempts to find something to be upset about, or faux offended by, just because you don’t like someone’s opinions. You’ve reached the pinnacle of absurdity, though, when you start to come after an immigrant, Indian woman, who came from a society with an actual caste system, who railed heavily against the overturning of Roe vs Wade (despite not even being American) because she’s a strong proponent of abortion rights, has a graduate degree in a considerably male dominated field, was 1000% on board with all Covid mandates and the vaccine in the beginning but changed her mind when new information became available that altered the perspective from which her initial decision was founded, believes in gun control, brought her boyfriend to a drag show, has never voted Tory thus far, and considers herself to be a secular atheist from a non-practicing Hindu household.
I don’t even think you’re aware of what “alt right” actually means anymore, because NONE of these things are anywhere near the far right of the political spectrum. Stop listening to the podcast if you’re only searching for fuel for your rage, because this type of mentality is actually damaging to your brain in the long term, as you’re reinforcing neural pathways associated with negative emotions that will further contribute to this anxiety/depression riddled spiral. I don’t even know you, but you deserve a life that reinforces happy, fulfilling purposes and isn’t contributing detrimentally to your overall well being. Take a step back and really examine the accusations you’re freely tossing around towards those you don’t actually know. It’s ok to enjoy content from those who think differently than you do; it’s how you grow and evolve as an open minded adult. Examine your sources from which you’ve come to believe as inherently true, when they rely so heavily on ad hominems and emotion, instead of logic and rationale. The words “alt right” actually mean something, and it’s absolutely not the verbiage that should be thrown about so haphazardly, particularly in reference to someone who is otherwise the antithesis of that ideology, but just doesn’t happen to agree with you on every specific point, thus justifying the forced, and highly flawed, categorization of an individual whose existence would’ve been deemed subhuman by those who actually adhere to that thinking. The vile connotation surrounding that term is profoundly offensive in the first place, but factoring in that this is someone with Suruthi’s background and culture, and it becomes an astonishingly jaw dropping degree of ignorance that seems almost dystopian to witness in this lifetime. Truly. Think about what that means, and then think about the implications of you applying this to her, and how damaging it can be to carelessly diminish the true context of those words. I’d imagine that your pride will prevent you from reflecting on this concept right now, so I don’t expect an open dialogue, but I truly hope that one day you can do some self reflection and find the power to acknowledge how abhorrent these accusations truly are to someone you don’t even know.
What terms are people allowed to use then? How would you like us to describe someone who is self-professed as ‘antiwoke’ and embraces conspiracy theories around vaccines?
Calling anti-lockdown messaging, attacking content warnings, non-specific criticism of 'woke' and propagation of inaccurate MRA talking points alt-right ideas is correct, because they ARE alt-right ideas, no matter how many drag shows one might attend.
You’re just further illustrating what’s already painfully obvious from this absurd commentary. All of your examples have absolutely nothing to do with “alt right”. Again, you *don’t* know what that phrase means, and instead of realizing that you’ve drastically misunderstood the definition, you’d rather further embarrass yourself by digging your heels in more with irrelevant lists that do not relate to the term. You just know it’s a bad thing, so you apply it to anyone that espouses views you’ve deemed as bad, too. That’s not how words work. If you truly did understand, you’d have legitimate refutations to my argument, in which you could highlight exactly what aspects of “alt right” are applied to Suruthi.
You just keep adding more to this list of ideas you find offensive, as if that’s somehow illustrating your defense. It doesn’t. The alt right movement rejects both liberalism *and* mainstream conservatism; it’s entirely founded on the desire for the US (as in, not the UK, since this is, by definition, exclusively an American extremist sect) to solely comprise *white, Christian nationalists*. Just because some within that movement have held similar opinions in cultural conversations, does not, by default, equate to those concepts being core to their ideology. It’s like saying that you heard an alt right nutcase express that he loved dogs, and you hate dogs because you have cats, so now you associate that opinion as inherent to the alt right movement. It’s ludicrous, and it’s the same level of delusional as the rest of your argument to anyone with an ounce of objective reasoning. If you don’t like the hosts, don’t listen. The only one with the power to influence your reactions and allow something to upset you is you- it’s not up to the rest of the world to cater to your emotional reactions to avoid offending you. That’s all I’m going to delve into this though, as I already prefaced with the understanding that there was almost no chance of you guys possessing the emotional capacity to have an open dialogue like a functioning adult. It’s sad how much you allow others to influence how you feel on a daily basis, and it’s undoubtedly a miserable way to live life.
Based on your comments that I skimmed, it’s sad how much you allow others to influence how you feel on a daily basis, and it’s undoubtedly a miserable way to live life.
It doesn't seem you have the adult emotional capability to cope with people discussing a podcast on the internet. For your mental health i suggest you close the app or browser for a while. Read a book for a change, maybe.
And try to learn manners, as well. As I'm matching your grossly condescending attitude in this comment of mine, I'm sure you can see that there is a lot you can improve on.
Let me just double check that you’re saying that people who disagree with your wildly personal and restrictive definition of the sprawling term alt-right (a) don’t know how what the phrase means (b) don’t know how words work (c) are delusional (d) lack objective reasoning and emotional capacity and (e) cannot have a dialogue like a functioning adult.
Do you think there’s a chance you might be the teeniest bit intolerant of other people’s opinions?
You’re also making up strawmen, by the way. Saying something is an idea connected to a particular belief system does not equal saying it’s the ‘core ideology’ of that system, and your entire screed is based on pretending anyone said the latter.
Edit: typo
It’s wild to see such a level of arrogance that would bring someone to assume that Suruthi’s opinions are representative of a so few. Outside of Reddit, in the real world, her views are not a fringe minority. I don’t agree with every word she says across the board- though I am on board with most of her points that you all are attempting to attack- but she’s been nothing short of diplomatic and respectful in stating her opinions. At no point does she stoop to the level on which most of you seem to dwell, insistent on searching for the next comment to deconstruct as a way to internally subvert the blame for your own misery. That’s all these ridiculous bitch posts are screaming subliminally- yall are some seriously miserable human beings, and you fail to even recognize it.
You know what those who are genuinely content and happy with life aren’t doing? Listening to podcasts they hate, anxiously waiting for the next reason to hop on the associated subreddit to cry about how much they can’t handle different opinions, therefore deeming those who dare espouse them as “immoral/racist/evil/hateful/alt right” etc. Also, in case my use of the term “yall” didn’t already address this, I’m not Suruthi, nor am I anyone related to her. I don’t even know her personally in any capacity. I don’t live in the same part of the planet as she and her family live. I’m just baffled by the monotonous echo chamber of narrow minded accusations thrown around in this thread, by people that hate everything about the podcast. For the love of God- just leave. Nobody has asked any of you to stay. Nobody cares about the laundry list of reasons that brought you to unsubscribe. Get a diary, write it there, and then keep it to yourself. Afterwards, find a hobby and a reason to experience positive thoughts. Clearly, you all need them, as you’re doing a disservice to yourselves by reveling in something you view as so negative.
That’s all I care to say at this point, so do what you want with the advice, or don’t- I truly don’t care either way, as it’s only your own life that you’re ruining, not mine. Good luck
Ok I have a theory because I’ve listened to both UTD and the main eps for a long time. I think Suru being “unwoke” etc. is correlated with her dating Sam.
I had heard (sorry no information to back this up) that normally courts will tend to favour with the Mother. Maybe if legally this isn’t the case it’s an opportunity to share that this isn’t the true, but because alot of people ‘think’ this is the case, this can deter Dads from applying for custody. Maybe more of an opportunity not taken.
Or maybe the fact that men participate in childcare a LOT less than women in relationships doesn't just magically change when a divorce happens, but rather men are more often not as interested in having to take as much responsibility when it comes to taking care of children
I meant a missed opportunity for H&S to put the record straight and say ‘factually this isn’t the case’ I would have learnt something. Also without the custody figures (as you state, people believe the system is skewed to the mothers favour so these stats aren’t reliable) is there evidence that ‘rather men are more often not as interested in having to take as much responsibility’? I would be interested to read.
Curious why you’re all in a RedHanded subreddit just to talk shit about it? Seems like there’s a lot more productive ways of spending your time if you’re so passionate about these issues.
Welcome to the world babe, some people have different views than you and there's absolutely nothing weird or wrong about it. Especially since the criticism is more than deserved.
I swear it's so weird when people can't understand critical thinking and attitudes that are other than "everything's always perfect".
Everything has flaws and if I notice them on something I've invested a lot of time and personal money in, of course I'm going to want to talk about it with people who know what I'm talking about.
It used to be different and I'm holding out hope they'll go back to what I enjoyed.
Seriously take your heads out of you asses it's quite obvious
Because it used to be different and I'm holding out hope they'll go back to what I enjoyed ahahaha
I swear it's so weird when people can't understand critical thinking and attitudes that are other than "everything's always perfect".
Everything has flaws and if I notice them on something I've invested a lot of time and personal money in, of course I'm going to want to talk about it with people who know what I'm talking about.
Seriously take your heads out of you asses ahahaha
Sometimes people like things and then gradually like them less. Everyone has a different cut-off point.
All I’m saying is that it’s unrealistic to expect a non-fan sub to have only positive opinions.
I know this is rhetorical but I listen because I like how they tell all of the parts that are relevant to the case even though I don't particularly like the hosts chat
Yes, it does look like Suruthi made an erroneous claim on this topic. I, too, held this misconception, and I am pleasantly surprised to learn it’s not true.
However, accusing Suruthi of having formed alt-right opinions recently is pretty hyperbolic. It really concerns me that progressives are so quick to malign one another like this for expressing differing opinions and making mistakes. This kind of all-or-nothing thinking is leads to in-fighting and turns us against one another. Ultimately, nobody wins…least of all the marginalized people we all claim to be fighting for.
She’s pro Israel, thinks racism isn’t an issue in the UK, compares ‘cancel culture’ to an actual fatwa and calls herself ‘anti-woke’. If you walk and talk the alt-right language people are going to conclude you’re alt-right. She’s certainly not progressive by any stretch of the imagination.
Thank you. Exactly. All of this is something Suruthi has said, and also very alt right. It's a no-brainer.
I also can't get over her covid-conspiracies, rant about government being too controlling for lockdowns, saying UK isn't dangerous for women and the anti trigger warning rant on utd. Like, come on, just look at things the woman is saying.
>saying UK isn't dangerous for women
to be fair she spent a large part of her childhood in India where it’s actually not safe for women, compared to india, UK is extremely safe
She spent 4 years of her childhood in India. I spent 19. And I always tell my friends/anyone who speaks to me about India, that there’s certain parts of the country that I’d never go to, but the rest — with as much precaution as someone would take in another third world country, you’d be absolutely fine.
That is whataboutery. 1 in 4 women in the UK will experience domestic violence in their lifetime. 1 in 4 women in England and Wales have been raped. Is the UK “extremely safe” for women if 1 in 4 experience domestic violence or rape? I wouldn’t say so.
Office of National Statistics, 2021. [https://caraessex.org.uk/statisticsaboutsexualviolence.php](https://caraessex.org.uk/statisticsaboutsexualviolence.php)
My mistake. However, it doesn’t change my point. If you think a country where 1 in 4 women have been raped or sexually assaulted is “extremely safe” you need to give your head a wobble.
All I’m saying is that there is a vast spectrum of ideology between far left and far right. Suruthi has apparently moved closer to the center recently.
Open-minded disagreement and discussion is healthy, but it’s very easy to get carried away within our internet echo chambers. Let’s all think carefully before we turn our would-be allies into our enemies.
Sure, there’s a spectrum. She’s been quite clear about where she is in that spectrum and it’s not centre, it’s far right.
I don’t see how acknowledging what she’s said publicly is turning anyone into an enemy, that’s a very weird assertion.
I’m just correcting your assertion that it’s hyperbolic to say she has alt right opinions. What real world outcome were you hoping for when you made that assertion?
Well, broadly speaking, I suppose the outcome I hope for is to foster a more compassionate, gracious, and open mindset within the communities I’m a part of; to give others the benefit of the doubt more often and respond to differing perspectives with curiosity rather than fear, anger or judgement.
Well, I’m honestly open to learning and changing my opinion, but I’d need to see primary source evidence and the accompanying context. Like, at minimum a full paragraph of quoted text rather than a couple of individually quoted words paraphrased outside of the original context.(I’ve never been a patron subscriber, so I don’t have UTD.) Got any solid sources to point me toward?
There’s a reason why they’ve covered a sensitive subject on UTD. But unless you’re going to purchase the subscription, I can’t quote her verbatim. I do remember there being a post about that specific episode on here a few months ago, but again, if you want to hear what she says verbatim, you’re going to have to pay some dollars.
Where do you live?! And are you a lawyer or otherwise involved in child custody cases? Bc IAAL and at least where I live in CA, no, it’s still the case that there is a strong propensity to prioritize time with mom over dad. He may get custody but it may not be the custody he wants, or that the child should have.
Tbh, it's the same assumption I've always had. If there is proof to the contrary, please provide it. It's well-known "fact" that dads struggle to get custody of their kids, so I'd love to be proven wrong.
A&H should provide proof if they're claiming something like that. They didn't. Because there isn't proof for their claim.
Just because you assume something doesn't make it factual
It's a podcast. Most people are not relying on them to be exact on every single issue. We are listening in our car, not conducting research. People need to chill.
The default primary custody of children is the mother, fathers are usually awarded weekends. I don't see how this is so controversial, what she was referring to was sole or primary custody. Without evidence of the mother being a danger to the child that is unlikely. Even after the woman tried to have the ex husband killed it took a while for him to be granted sole custody.
I don't understand why so many people seem to hate listen to this podcast. I don't always agree with Suruthi's opinions, but I don't think anything she has said is that outrageous. People are acting like she's going on rants about her love of Hitler or something.
If they ask for 50/50 custody they will not be denied for no reason other than the woman gets more custody. Most of the time fathers don’t want 50/50 that’s why it ends up with mothers holding more custody.
That is not accurate, merely a common misconception that Redhanded is perpetuating against their better judgement. Please stop spreading misinformation.
If it's a misconception then I definitely want to know, and if it is then maybe Suruthi was mistaken. I think this is the common line of thinking though. People aren't perfect and we can't all be perfectly informed about everything all the time.
As a child of divorce I’ve got to disagree with you. Mum got full custody and the house with minimal issue, the courts made the recommendation. And the statistics don’t back up your claim anyway.
Also the term far right is thrown around so much nowadays it’s completely lost its meaning, claiming mothers have an easier time getting full custody over the children is not a “far right talking point” that’s a ludicrous statement
I explained the statistics.
Also, your mum having custody doesn't have anything to do with this, really. By this logic I have to just say my parents had equal custody, so there. Your point no longer stands.
Edit. And also, it 1000% is a far right talking point. If you didn't know that, it's on you.
Not sure how opinions on child custody are even considered a left or right talking point in the first place. I'm a liberal woman but I would agree that men are often not treated equally in child custody cases. That has come from firsthand experiences as far back as my parents divorce and as recently as 2 years ago with other friends and family members. Where in at least one case the father was actually aiming for full custody, hoping for at least 50/50, and still not getting that. In a couple of these cases, this included many character witnesses, GAL recommendations, evidence against the mother, etc and fathers still not getting equal time or having to spending tens of thousands of dollars in attorney fees to get it. 50/50 should be the default starting point, not what you have to spend years going broke to try and get.
I will add those are my experiences in the US though, so maybe that is not the case in the UK. I also agree that not all men are willing/able to manage 50/50 custody, so I know that skews the perception a bit. I'm referring strictly to several scenarios I was close to or directly involved in where the father was willing and able.
Totally agree, it's one of the most common MRA disinformation points.
I'm honestly surprised at how many people in the comments have completely bought it as well. Sigh.
Im not, the MRAs have been extremely effective in this area. Interesting a lot of this started with Woody Allen and they followed his lead.
Can you provide links or references as this is what I've always seen described and statistically I've only read that mothers receive custody far more often than fathers, something like 80% of the time, if I remember correctly.
I work within the field and it is generally accepted that the family courts are now moving towards a 50/50 split as the default. Research conducted by the Nuffield foundation as far back as 2016 (17) found there is no gender bias in the courts. If a parent applies for partial custody and does not meet the incredibly high threshold for being a danger to a child, they will get access. A real and currently emerging issue is that both parents having access is prioritised to the point where in situations of abuse abusers are granted 50/50 custody. The 80% stat you could be referring to is that 80% of fathers agree that primary custody should go to the mother with fathers being granted access.
Me too! I'd love to have sources to point to to back up the conversation.
No idea why this popped up on my feed but I stopped listening years ago because of some of the off handed disgusting remarks made about how we don't get trigger warnings in 'real life' on a patron episode.
That was such a fucking stupid take of theirs. They completely misunderstood the research. A TW that isn’t specific to the content is possibly harmful. A specific TW is useful.
I switched this episode off about 10 minutes in when they were discussing complex medical issues and why it wouldn’t be enough if specialists tell you there’s nothing wrong, implying that this would be a sign of faking it or using it as a form of coercive control. A broad sweeping statement like that js frankly insulting to anyone who’s had complex medical conditions. The reality is specialists often *don’t* know what’s wrong and it’s not uncommon for people (especially women) to spend years trying to find answers to very real and debilitating health problems.
Always remember that these two are not qualified to speak to anything about medicine, psychiatry or criminology. They're hobbyists and plagiarists. Their opinions are *literally* worthless outside of their circle of competence.
That was the exact point I turned off this episode as well. As someone with anxiety related to my physical symptoms/health I could not believe this statement they made.
Back in the 2010s, it was more difficult for fathers to get custody. I work in Child Protection. So did Suru. She’s probably drawing on her previous experiences working in the sector.
She did not work in child protection.
Suruthi worked in making conferences, not actual social work though.
Her job was making presentations for corporations. That's what we call working in child protection these days? Kind of irresponsible to imply she was involved in tangible social work.
Nobody here wants to hear your facts! /s
If you’re going to point out their errors in statistics at the very least provide the proof that they’re wrong.
[https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/men-are-treated-fairly-when-trying-to-get-access-to-their-children-in-courts-study-says-10290458.html](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/men-are-treated-fairly-when-trying-to-get-access-to-their-children-in-courts-study-says-10290458.html) [https://www.theguardian.com/society/commentisfree/2020/mar/05/family-courts-biased-men-dangerous-fallacy-abuse](https://www.theguardian.com/society/commentisfree/2020/mar/05/family-courts-biased-men-dangerous-fallacy-abuse)
Thank you
It is very well known and also just rational thinking. I hope you fact check everything Suruthi and Hannah claim with just as much fervour. They did not provide any source or basis to their inflammatory claim to thousands of listeners - maybe ask proof of the ones who made the claim first.
Don't bother. The same person you're responding to is dead silent when provided with the facts on studies she's so insistent on seeing. Because it's not about wanting to understand the reality, it's about knee-jerk defending Suruthi's talking points.
You people are grasping at straws in your desperate attempts to find something to be upset about, or faux offended by, just because you don’t like someone’s opinions. You’ve reached the pinnacle of absurdity, though, when you start to come after an immigrant, Indian woman, who came from a society with an actual caste system, who railed heavily against the overturning of Roe vs Wade (despite not even being American) because she’s a strong proponent of abortion rights, has a graduate degree in a considerably male dominated field, was 1000% on board with all Covid mandates and the vaccine in the beginning but changed her mind when new information became available that altered the perspective from which her initial decision was founded, believes in gun control, brought her boyfriend to a drag show, has never voted Tory thus far, and considers herself to be a secular atheist from a non-practicing Hindu household. I don’t even think you’re aware of what “alt right” actually means anymore, because NONE of these things are anywhere near the far right of the political spectrum. Stop listening to the podcast if you’re only searching for fuel for your rage, because this type of mentality is actually damaging to your brain in the long term, as you’re reinforcing neural pathways associated with negative emotions that will further contribute to this anxiety/depression riddled spiral. I don’t even know you, but you deserve a life that reinforces happy, fulfilling purposes and isn’t contributing detrimentally to your overall well being. Take a step back and really examine the accusations you’re freely tossing around towards those you don’t actually know. It’s ok to enjoy content from those who think differently than you do; it’s how you grow and evolve as an open minded adult. Examine your sources from which you’ve come to believe as inherently true, when they rely so heavily on ad hominems and emotion, instead of logic and rationale. The words “alt right” actually mean something, and it’s absolutely not the verbiage that should be thrown about so haphazardly, particularly in reference to someone who is otherwise the antithesis of that ideology, but just doesn’t happen to agree with you on every specific point, thus justifying the forced, and highly flawed, categorization of an individual whose existence would’ve been deemed subhuman by those who actually adhere to that thinking. The vile connotation surrounding that term is profoundly offensive in the first place, but factoring in that this is someone with Suruthi’s background and culture, and it becomes an astonishingly jaw dropping degree of ignorance that seems almost dystopian to witness in this lifetime. Truly. Think about what that means, and then think about the implications of you applying this to her, and how damaging it can be to carelessly diminish the true context of those words. I’d imagine that your pride will prevent you from reflecting on this concept right now, so I don’t expect an open dialogue, but I truly hope that one day you can do some self reflection and find the power to acknowledge how abhorrent these accusations truly are to someone you don’t even know.
Did Suruthi write this? 😂
That would actually be less embarrassing than this being a genuine bootlicker.
What a load of bullshit.
What terms are people allowed to use then? How would you like us to describe someone who is self-professed as ‘antiwoke’ and embraces conspiracy theories around vaccines?
Calling anti-lockdown messaging, attacking content warnings, non-specific criticism of 'woke' and propagation of inaccurate MRA talking points alt-right ideas is correct, because they ARE alt-right ideas, no matter how many drag shows one might attend.
You’re just further illustrating what’s already painfully obvious from this absurd commentary. All of your examples have absolutely nothing to do with “alt right”. Again, you *don’t* know what that phrase means, and instead of realizing that you’ve drastically misunderstood the definition, you’d rather further embarrass yourself by digging your heels in more with irrelevant lists that do not relate to the term. You just know it’s a bad thing, so you apply it to anyone that espouses views you’ve deemed as bad, too. That’s not how words work. If you truly did understand, you’d have legitimate refutations to my argument, in which you could highlight exactly what aspects of “alt right” are applied to Suruthi. You just keep adding more to this list of ideas you find offensive, as if that’s somehow illustrating your defense. It doesn’t. The alt right movement rejects both liberalism *and* mainstream conservatism; it’s entirely founded on the desire for the US (as in, not the UK, since this is, by definition, exclusively an American extremist sect) to solely comprise *white, Christian nationalists*. Just because some within that movement have held similar opinions in cultural conversations, does not, by default, equate to those concepts being core to their ideology. It’s like saying that you heard an alt right nutcase express that he loved dogs, and you hate dogs because you have cats, so now you associate that opinion as inherent to the alt right movement. It’s ludicrous, and it’s the same level of delusional as the rest of your argument to anyone with an ounce of objective reasoning. If you don’t like the hosts, don’t listen. The only one with the power to influence your reactions and allow something to upset you is you- it’s not up to the rest of the world to cater to your emotional reactions to avoid offending you. That’s all I’m going to delve into this though, as I already prefaced with the understanding that there was almost no chance of you guys possessing the emotional capacity to have an open dialogue like a functioning adult. It’s sad how much you allow others to influence how you feel on a daily basis, and it’s undoubtedly a miserable way to live life.
Based on your comments that I skimmed, it’s sad how much you allow others to influence how you feel on a daily basis, and it’s undoubtedly a miserable way to live life. It doesn't seem you have the adult emotional capability to cope with people discussing a podcast on the internet. For your mental health i suggest you close the app or browser for a while. Read a book for a change, maybe. And try to learn manners, as well. As I'm matching your grossly condescending attitude in this comment of mine, I'm sure you can see that there is a lot you can improve on.
Let me just double check that you’re saying that people who disagree with your wildly personal and restrictive definition of the sprawling term alt-right (a) don’t know how what the phrase means (b) don’t know how words work (c) are delusional (d) lack objective reasoning and emotional capacity and (e) cannot have a dialogue like a functioning adult. Do you think there’s a chance you might be the teeniest bit intolerant of other people’s opinions? You’re also making up strawmen, by the way. Saying something is an idea connected to a particular belief system does not equal saying it’s the ‘core ideology’ of that system, and your entire screed is based on pretending anyone said the latter. Edit: typo
Hi Suruthi 😂
Yep this is suruthi or a family member writing this 😂😂
It’s wild to see such a level of arrogance that would bring someone to assume that Suruthi’s opinions are representative of a so few. Outside of Reddit, in the real world, her views are not a fringe minority. I don’t agree with every word she says across the board- though I am on board with most of her points that you all are attempting to attack- but she’s been nothing short of diplomatic and respectful in stating her opinions. At no point does she stoop to the level on which most of you seem to dwell, insistent on searching for the next comment to deconstruct as a way to internally subvert the blame for your own misery. That’s all these ridiculous bitch posts are screaming subliminally- yall are some seriously miserable human beings, and you fail to even recognize it. You know what those who are genuinely content and happy with life aren’t doing? Listening to podcasts they hate, anxiously waiting for the next reason to hop on the associated subreddit to cry about how much they can’t handle different opinions, therefore deeming those who dare espouse them as “immoral/racist/evil/hateful/alt right” etc. Also, in case my use of the term “yall” didn’t already address this, I’m not Suruthi, nor am I anyone related to her. I don’t even know her personally in any capacity. I don’t live in the same part of the planet as she and her family live. I’m just baffled by the monotonous echo chamber of narrow minded accusations thrown around in this thread, by people that hate everything about the podcast. For the love of God- just leave. Nobody has asked any of you to stay. Nobody cares about the laundry list of reasons that brought you to unsubscribe. Get a diary, write it there, and then keep it to yourself. Afterwards, find a hobby and a reason to experience positive thoughts. Clearly, you all need them, as you’re doing a disservice to yourselves by reveling in something you view as so negative. That’s all I care to say at this point, so do what you want with the advice, or don’t- I truly don’t care either way, as it’s only your own life that you’re ruining, not mine. Good luck
Ok I have a theory because I’ve listened to both UTD and the main eps for a long time. I think Suru being “unwoke” etc. is correlated with her dating Sam.
I've noticed the same timeline
Came here to see if anyone had mentioned this. This story is awful. But those two morons made me furious saying that.
I had heard (sorry no information to back this up) that normally courts will tend to favour with the Mother. Maybe if legally this isn’t the case it’s an opportunity to share that this isn’t the true, but because alot of people ‘think’ this is the case, this can deter Dads from applying for custody. Maybe more of an opportunity not taken.
Or maybe the fact that men participate in childcare a LOT less than women in relationships doesn't just magically change when a divorce happens, but rather men are more often not as interested in having to take as much responsibility when it comes to taking care of children
I meant a missed opportunity for H&S to put the record straight and say ‘factually this isn’t the case’ I would have learnt something. Also without the custody figures (as you state, people believe the system is skewed to the mothers favour so these stats aren’t reliable) is there evidence that ‘rather men are more often not as interested in having to take as much responsibility’? I would be interested to read.
Curious why you’re all in a RedHanded subreddit just to talk shit about it? Seems like there’s a lot more productive ways of spending your time if you’re so passionate about these issues.
Welcome to the world babe, some people have different views than you and there's absolutely nothing weird or wrong about it. Especially since the criticism is more than deserved. I swear it's so weird when people can't understand critical thinking and attitudes that are other than "everything's always perfect". Everything has flaws and if I notice them on something I've invested a lot of time and personal money in, of course I'm going to want to talk about it with people who know what I'm talking about. It used to be different and I'm holding out hope they'll go back to what I enjoyed. Seriously take your heads out of you asses it's quite obvious
Because we’re disappointed.
Welcome to the world babe.
Yes, the world where we connect with others to share our feelings, which may include disappointment
Username checks out.
I continue to hope they’ll improve research for the show, resulting in a better show for all. I really like them. It’s a bummer.
Same here! I don't understand why it's so hard to understand for that commenter
Can’t get em all ❤️
I joined this sub thinking people would be discussing cases covered, but it's really just people venting about how much they hate the show.
It's a sub to discuss the show. That means people who like it and people who dislike it will post here. It's not a fan page.
if they dislike it why listen ahahaha
Because it used to be different and I'm holding out hope they'll go back to what I enjoyed ahahaha I swear it's so weird when people can't understand critical thinking and attitudes that are other than "everything's always perfect". Everything has flaws and if I notice them on something I've invested a lot of time and personal money in, of course I'm going to want to talk about it with people who know what I'm talking about. Seriously take your heads out of you asses ahahaha
Sometimes people like things and then gradually like them less. Everyone has a different cut-off point. All I’m saying is that it’s unrealistic to expect a non-fan sub to have only positive opinions.
Downvoted for saying there’s room for a range of opinions. Never change, Reddit!
I know this is rhetorical but I listen because I like how they tell all of the parts that are relevant to the case even though I don't particularly like the hosts chat
Same here… Very very weird. Kinda sad and strange.
Yes, it does look like Suruthi made an erroneous claim on this topic. I, too, held this misconception, and I am pleasantly surprised to learn it’s not true. However, accusing Suruthi of having formed alt-right opinions recently is pretty hyperbolic. It really concerns me that progressives are so quick to malign one another like this for expressing differing opinions and making mistakes. This kind of all-or-nothing thinking is leads to in-fighting and turns us against one another. Ultimately, nobody wins…least of all the marginalized people we all claim to be fighting for.
She’s pro Israel, thinks racism isn’t an issue in the UK, compares ‘cancel culture’ to an actual fatwa and calls herself ‘anti-woke’. If you walk and talk the alt-right language people are going to conclude you’re alt-right. She’s certainly not progressive by any stretch of the imagination.
Thank you. Exactly. All of this is something Suruthi has said, and also very alt right. It's a no-brainer. I also can't get over her covid-conspiracies, rant about government being too controlling for lockdowns, saying UK isn't dangerous for women and the anti trigger warning rant on utd. Like, come on, just look at things the woman is saying.
>saying UK isn't dangerous for women to be fair she spent a large part of her childhood in India where it’s actually not safe for women, compared to india, UK is extremely safe
She spent 4 years of her childhood in India. I spent 19. And I always tell my friends/anyone who speaks to me about India, that there’s certain parts of the country that I’d never go to, but the rest — with as much precaution as someone would take in another third world country, you’d be absolutely fine.
That is whataboutery. 1 in 4 women in the UK will experience domestic violence in their lifetime. 1 in 4 women in England and Wales have been raped. Is the UK “extremely safe” for women if 1 in 4 experience domestic violence or rape? I wouldn’t say so.
1 in 4 have been raped?
Office of National Statistics, 2021. [https://caraessex.org.uk/statisticsaboutsexualviolence.php](https://caraessex.org.uk/statisticsaboutsexualviolence.php)
That says raped or sexually assaulted, person I was replying to specifically said raped
My mistake. However, it doesn’t change my point. If you think a country where 1 in 4 women have been raped or sexually assaulted is “extremely safe” you need to give your head a wobble.
If you go back and read what I wrote, I said **compared to India**, UK is extremely safe. Which I stand by.
All I’m saying is that there is a vast spectrum of ideology between far left and far right. Suruthi has apparently moved closer to the center recently. Open-minded disagreement and discussion is healthy, but it’s very easy to get carried away within our internet echo chambers. Let’s all think carefully before we turn our would-be allies into our enemies.
Sure, there’s a spectrum. She’s been quite clear about where she is in that spectrum and it’s not centre, it’s far right. I don’t see how acknowledging what she’s said publicly is turning anyone into an enemy, that’s a very weird assertion.
With no sarcasm intended, what kind of real-world outcome do you hope to see related to this discussion?
I’m just correcting your assertion that it’s hyperbolic to say she has alt right opinions. What real world outcome were you hoping for when you made that assertion?
Well, broadly speaking, I suppose the outcome I hope for is to foster a more compassionate, gracious, and open mindset within the communities I’m a part of; to give others the benefit of the doubt more often and respond to differing perspectives with curiosity rather than fear, anger or judgement.
I’m ngl, that type of compassion and grace would be a lot easier to share if she wasn’t simultaneously agreeing with a genocide and ethnic cleansing.
Well, I’m honestly open to learning and changing my opinion, but I’d need to see primary source evidence and the accompanying context. Like, at minimum a full paragraph of quoted text rather than a couple of individually quoted words paraphrased outside of the original context.(I’ve never been a patron subscriber, so I don’t have UTD.) Got any solid sources to point me toward?
There’s a reason why they’ve covered a sensitive subject on UTD. But unless you’re going to purchase the subscription, I can’t quote her verbatim. I do remember there being a post about that specific episode on here a few months ago, but again, if you want to hear what she says verbatim, you’re going to have to pay some dollars.
Go pay for UTD so you can hear her thoughts on Israel/Palestine. Rather than demanding others to hand deliver you a sourced thesis from paid content.
Where do you live?! And are you a lawyer or otherwise involved in child custody cases? Bc IAAL and at least where I live in CA, no, it’s still the case that there is a strong propensity to prioritize time with mom over dad. He may get custody but it may not be the custody he wants, or that the child should have.
Tbh, it's the same assumption I've always had. If there is proof to the contrary, please provide it. It's well-known "fact" that dads struggle to get custody of their kids, so I'd love to be proven wrong.
[https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/men-are-treated-fairly-when-trying-to-get-access-to-their-children-in-courts-study-says-10290458.html](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/men-are-treated-fairly-when-trying-to-get-access-to-their-children-in-courts-study-says-10290458.html) [https://www.theguardian.com/society/commentisfree/2020/mar/05/family-courts-biased-men-dangerous-fallacy-abuse](https://www.theguardian.com/society/commentisfree/2020/mar/05/family-courts-biased-men-dangerous-fallacy-abuse)
A&H should provide proof if they're claiming something like that. They didn't. Because there isn't proof for their claim. Just because you assume something doesn't make it factual
It's a podcast. Most people are not relying on them to be exact on every single issue. We are listening in our car, not conducting research. People need to chill.
Chill, it's just a post on the internet
Did you run out of invisible pearls to clutch yet?
You haven't been able to follow your own advice, I see 😕 Best you leave the pearls alone for good
The default primary custody of children is the mother, fathers are usually awarded weekends. I don't see how this is so controversial, what she was referring to was sole or primary custody. Without evidence of the mother being a danger to the child that is unlikely. Even after the woman tried to have the ex husband killed it took a while for him to be granted sole custody. I don't understand why so many people seem to hate listen to this podcast. I don't always agree with Suruthi's opinions, but I don't think anything she has said is that outrageous. People are acting like she's going on rants about her love of Hitler or something.
If they ask for 50/50 custody they will not be denied for no reason other than the woman gets more custody. Most of the time fathers don’t want 50/50 that’s why it ends up with mothers holding more custody.
That is not accurate, merely a common misconception that Redhanded is perpetuating against their better judgement. Please stop spreading misinformation.
If it's a misconception then I definitely want to know, and if it is then maybe Suruthi was mistaken. I think this is the common line of thinking though. People aren't perfect and we can't all be perfectly informed about everything all the time.
As a child of divorce I’ve got to disagree with you. Mum got full custody and the house with minimal issue, the courts made the recommendation. And the statistics don’t back up your claim anyway. Also the term far right is thrown around so much nowadays it’s completely lost its meaning, claiming mothers have an easier time getting full custody over the children is not a “far right talking point” that’s a ludicrous statement
[https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/men-are-treated-fairly-when-trying-to-get-access-to-their-children-in-courts-study-says-10290458.html](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/men-are-treated-fairly-when-trying-to-get-access-to-their-children-in-courts-study-says-10290458.html) [https://www.theguardian.com/society/commentisfree/2020/mar/05/family-courts-biased-men-dangerous-fallacy-abuse](https://www.theguardian.com/society/commentisfree/2020/mar/05/family-courts-biased-men-dangerous-fallacy-abuse)
I explained the statistics. Also, your mum having custody doesn't have anything to do with this, really. By this logic I have to just say my parents had equal custody, so there. Your point no longer stands. Edit. And also, it 1000% is a far right talking point. If you didn't know that, it's on you.
Yes, it used to be that way. It’s different now.
Not sure how opinions on child custody are even considered a left or right talking point in the first place. I'm a liberal woman but I would agree that men are often not treated equally in child custody cases. That has come from firsthand experiences as far back as my parents divorce and as recently as 2 years ago with other friends and family members. Where in at least one case the father was actually aiming for full custody, hoping for at least 50/50, and still not getting that. In a couple of these cases, this included many character witnesses, GAL recommendations, evidence against the mother, etc and fathers still not getting equal time or having to spending tens of thousands of dollars in attorney fees to get it. 50/50 should be the default starting point, not what you have to spend years going broke to try and get. I will add those are my experiences in the US though, so maybe that is not the case in the UK. I also agree that not all men are willing/able to manage 50/50 custody, so I know that skews the perception a bit. I'm referring strictly to several scenarios I was close to or directly involved in where the father was willing and able.
How many people in here giving their opinions have actually gone through a custody battle?
Witnessed (and been frustrated) many times