Let's imagine the pre-Christmas scene at Fathers 4 Justice HQ. The festive season can be a particularly painful period for separated fathers, a time when ongoing, complex (sometimes unfair) access issues are thrown into sharp focus and many people would spare a thought for a father struggling to see his children. How does F4J respond? Basically by saying: "Let's have a go at Kate Winslet, Katie Holmes, Halle Berry and Kim Basinger. Let's put them on posters in a 'Crummy Mummy' campaign."

In my opinion, the F4J Christmas campaign was so ill-conceived as to be counterproductive to fathers' rights. Disingenuous too. Famous females, and their family situations, were used, regardless of whether this was fair, or even logical. Winslet (who has sent the group a legal letter) had been quoted as saying that her children from past relationships lived with her, "no back and forth". She was stating her preference for the stability of one full-time home; at no point did she deride the fathers of her children as unnecessary to their wellbeing.

While Winslet's first husband, Jim Threapleton, once spoke of access issues, this seemed specific to when she was filming overseas. Another of Winslet's former husbands, Sam Mendes, criticised the F4J poster and defended Winslet.

What about the other Crummy Mummies? Berry's ex, Gabriel Aubry, objected to her wanting to relocate to France, but they have since amicably agreed access. How does this translate to the F4J poster tag line: "Halle, fathers are not just for conception"? Holmes had well-documented concerns about her former husband Tom Cruise's close ties with Scientology, and Basinger's ex-husband, Alec Baldwin, left that infamous phone message, calling his 11-year-old daughter "a rude thoughtless little pig", later saying that he was stressed about access issues, as if this gave him permission.

Four famous women, four complicated family situations – how does this culminate in a "Crummy Mummies" campaign? The effect is cheap and bullying; not one of these mothers sought to downgrade fatherhood, they were merely dealing with tricky post-split arrangements, as many people have to do.

You have to wonder what F4J was hoping to achieve. Leaving aside for a moment those superhero costumes, surely these days its goal is for mainstream respectability and coherence – getting its views across to the general public – not turning both sexes off with a misogynistic poster campaign? This is a ludicrous misreading of public mood. I would once have rolled my eyes at the thought of separated fathers being given short shrift – I'd still say that the problem for many women is getting men to take on responsibility. However, I've also heard enough sad stories to realise that things are not always so simple.

Fathers' rights is a huge complicated issue that is gaining traction – few would argue that a genuinely strong, loving, consistent paternal presence isn't crucial to a child's development. This doesn't explain or condone the grim intimidation of "Crummy Mummy". It seems odd that F4J (established in 2003) should still be on the fringes of public opinion, especially as the group is centred on the paternal rights of heterosexuals. Look at gay adoptive parents and the public acceptance mountain they've had to climb, but they've more or less managed it, and without resorting to "Crummy Heteros" campaigns.

If this is the best that F4J can do, maybe it should get out the Batman costumes and start scaling Buckingham Palace again. Alternatively, F4J could concentrate its efforts on mature, civilised debate that doesn't focus on trashing women, famous or otherwise. F4J has been around long enough – it's high time it proved it can be pro-father without being anti-mother.

Totally foxed by the hunt still blowing its horn

Interesting that Ukip's Nigel Farage joined hunting folk for the Boxing Day fox hunts – no doubt grubbing around for some disaffected Conservative voters who are furious with David Cameron for thus far failing to hold a public vote on repealing the hunting ban. And even though a recent Ipsos Mori poll (sponsored by the League Against Cruel Sports) revealed that 80% of people would vote in favour of retaining the ban anyway.

The cynical interpretation would be that – regardless of the outcome of a public vote – a determined minority of fox hunters would carry on arrogantly hunting the animals in the old style, with the feeble official excuse that there is too much of it going on for the law to be enforced.

This, "sorry, there are too many of them" line continues to bemuse me – you will never have heard it applied to drunk driving or football hooliganism.

It's almost as if certain areas of the "countryside" have been allowed to behave like parts of a rogue state, obeying laws only when it suits them.

Perhaps in 2014, the "countryside" could finally be persuaded to consider itself part of the country – to the point of observing the same laws as the rest of us.

Why damn Dunham for speaking up?

How did Girls creator Lena Dunham become burdened with the perceived baggage of R Kelly and Terry Richardson? When Dunham commented on Kelly's underage sex allegations, she was attacked because she'd had her photo taken in a leotard by Richardson, the photographer mired in accusations of sexually exploiting young models. Richardson's former girlfriend, Audrey Gelman (also Dunham's best friend), has since defended Dunham, saying that Dunham only posed for Richardson because he was her boyfriend and now they both have regrets.

How wearisome that two male predators feature in this story, but all the focus and hostility is directed at a female. Both Kelly and Richardson have serious accusations levelled at them, so why is it Dunham whose integrity and behaviour are being questioned? It seems that all she did was make a bad decision, based on the bad decision of a friend, both of whom came to regret it. Arguably, Dunham could have been better informed, but perhaps she was convinced at the time that Richardson had been misrepresented and was just trying to support her friend.

None of this makes Dunham a hypocrite for bringing attention to the R Kelly allegations. It cannot be that one fleeting misjudgment obliterates a person's entire mindset, casting them out into some kind of muted feminist wilderness, never allowed to pass comment again. What kind of glass houses-style edict would that be for young women: "Don't dare speak up unless you've spent your entire life being 100% perfect?"

Back in the real world, where things are not so simple, there's a lady muzzle if ever I saw one. As Dunham says: "You don't learn to say no overnight." Quite, Lena. Now it's time to stop apologising, lest we all have to start.