"There is not a single extant study that supports all the arguments against men being with their children. It's absolute bollocks"
About this Quote
Geldof goes for the throat, not the footnotes. “Not a single extant study” borrows the cadence of an academic takedown, then he detonates it with “absolute bollocks,” a pub-ready verdict that refuses to pretend the debate is genteel. The intent is blunt: to delegitimize, in one swing, the supposedly evidence-based case for limiting fathers’ time with their kids. He’s not arguing the margins; he’s declaring the whole file corrupt.
The subtext is about power dressed up as procedure. “Arguments against men being with their children” points to the ways custody norms, courtroom habits, and cultural scripts can treat fathers as optional accessories rather than primary caregivers. By invoking “study” and “arguments,” he signals that bias often hides behind expert language: policies and opinions marketed as child-centered, while quietly preserving older assumptions about gender, competence, and domestic labor.
Context matters here: Geldof’s public identity isn’t just “actor,” but a high-profile father who fought a very public custody battle in the late 1990s and early 2000s. That experience turns the line into more than a generic men’s-rights talking point; it reads like a grievance with receipts, delivered in the idiom of someone who has watched institutions translate family life into paperwork.
The rhetorical move works because it’s a clash of registers: scholarly certainty smashed into working-class profanity. It invites the audience to stop treating the status quo as neutral, and to hear how “reasonable concerns” can be a polite wrapper for exclusion.
The subtext is about power dressed up as procedure. “Arguments against men being with their children” points to the ways custody norms, courtroom habits, and cultural scripts can treat fathers as optional accessories rather than primary caregivers. By invoking “study” and “arguments,” he signals that bias often hides behind expert language: policies and opinions marketed as child-centered, while quietly preserving older assumptions about gender, competence, and domestic labor.
Context matters here: Geldof’s public identity isn’t just “actor,” but a high-profile father who fought a very public custody battle in the late 1990s and early 2000s. That experience turns the line into more than a generic men’s-rights talking point; it reads like a grievance with receipts, delivered in the idiom of someone who has watched institutions translate family life into paperwork.
The rhetorical move works because it’s a clash of registers: scholarly certainty smashed into working-class profanity. It invites the audience to stop treating the status quo as neutral, and to hear how “reasonable concerns” can be a polite wrapper for exclusion.
Quote Details
| Topic | Father |
|---|
More Quotes by Bob
Add to List
