# Mumsnet Vs Fathers4Justice



## Grandma Death (Mar 19, 2012)

Anyone seen whats happening with this bunfight? My partner uses Mumsnet and Ive read it a few times. F4J have started a campaaign to boycott M&S who advertise on Mumsnet because, they say-it promotes gender hatred against 'men and boys'. Theyve released a poster for their campaign.

I have a degree of sympathy with some of the issues raised by F4J but they are barking up the wrong tree with this one. I posted something on their FB group about their suggestion that mumsnet promotes gender hatred-and it was deleted within 30 seconds and Ive been banned from posting on their FB page.

You can read mumsnet response here:

http://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/site_stuff/1430417-Fathers-4-Justice-and-their-recent-attacks-on-Mumsnet

I just think they arent going to get their message across by prancing around M&S naked.


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 19, 2012)

My main impression of F4J is of a group of woman haters who have probably been stopped from seeing their kids for very good reasons.

I'm aware this impression may be wrong though.


----------



## Grandma Death (Mar 19, 2012)

Ive just read a few comments on the Mumsnet official response thread. It would appear they delete comments that dont agree with them and also block the posters.


----------



## barney_pig (Mar 19, 2012)

Less "barking up the wrong tree", more simply barking.


----------



## smmudge (Mar 19, 2012)

internet drama lol

I like that someone who commented on the official mumsnet response is called "BoysAreLikeDogs"


----------



## laptop (Mar 19, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> My main impression of F4J is of a group of woman haters who have probably been stopped from seeing their kids for very good reasons.


 
I share this impression.

They need to get better PR, or acquittals, as appropriate.


----------



## Grandma Death (Mar 19, 2012)

F4J response:

FATHERS4JUSTICE RESPONSE TO MUMSNET CEO JUSTINE ROBERTS​
Monday 19th March 2012​
Justine Roberts​CEO Mumsnet​Mumsnet Limited​Studio 6​Deane House Studios​Greenwood Place​Highgate Road​London NW5 1LB​
CC: Mr Simon Hoskins​Executive Office​Marks and Spencer​Waterside House​35 North Wharf Road​London W2 1NW ​
Ref: Mumsnet 10 Point Statement about Fathers4Justice​
Dear Justine,​
The following is our response to your 10 point statement about Fathers4Justice and gender hatred on Mumsnet. We are disappointed that this dispute has escalated over the last week and that Mumsnet has chosen not to resolve this matter.​
As soon as we were made aware of the offensive anti-male discrimination on the Mumsnet website, we brought this matter to your attention in the appropriate manner.​
We asked you to remove the offending content and commit to a zero-tolerance policy on gender hatred. We also offered to write a piece for Mumsnet outlining what Fathers4Justice actually campaigns and stands for, rather than the misrepresentation of F4J often portrayed on Mumsnet as well as to highlight the fact that F4J is run by a woman.​
Instead of responding in a respectful and professional manner, you made flippant and derisory comments about me (a mother of two), failed to respond to my emails and went online in an attempt to appease the very people who had written this content by making derogatory remarks about our campaign.​
Further, you have unhelpfully and deliberately set out to misrepresent the facts in this case, casting Fathers4Justice as the villains, and Mumsnet as helpless victims, disingenuously claiming no knowledge of the offence committed. A case of gender stereotyping if ever there was one.​
This is not the mature response we had hoped for from a respected CEO. It should hardly be a surprise then that given your antagonistic and belligerent response, the situation has escalated. Not because we wanted to engage in an online conflict with Mumsnet, but simply because you would not remove much of the content we complained of nor make a commitment to a policy of zero-tolerance on gender hatred.​
This is a situation which could and should have been avoided. Instead the situation has been badly mishandled by Mumsnet.​
Far from F4J saying ‘unpleasant things’ about Mumsnet, this dispute started with the following disgraceful and inciteful attacks on men on the Mumsnet forum. We have reported this content to the Police. The following is a summary for the purpose of the letter.​
Describing all men as ‘needle dicks’ ​Describing fathers as ‘fascists’ and being akin to the Klu Klux Klan.​Describing fathers ‘alcoholics, wife-beaters, women-haters, abusers, paedophiles’. ​Attacking the children of fathers as being indoctrinated and ‘brainwashed’. ​Describing men as ‘fuckwits’, ‘scum’, ‘go fuck themselves with a shitty stick’. ​Describing Fathers4Justice content as ‘porn involving children’ ​Describing female supporters of Fathers4Justice are ‘Handmaidens’ (Female sex slave). ​Abusive personal attacks on men and women in Fathers4Justice . ​
This is just a tiny sample of the content we have recorded from your site. By your own admission, Mumsnet removed over 60 comments after F4J brought the matter to your attention.​
This is not an isolated incident and cannot be written off as such. It indicates a systemic hatred of men and boys by some users of Mumsnet who are using your organisation as cover for extremist views. It is exactly this type of extremism and discrimination which has led to the separation of children from their fathers in the family courts and contributed to a fatherless Britain.​
Mumsnet needs to decide if it is a forum for reasonable discussion funded by advertising, or a forum of hate funded by nobody and run by apologists for gender hated. As a woman and mother, it is profoundly disappointing to see an organisation like Mumsnet allow itself to be hijacked by an extremist element whose sole objective is to unleash a hateful stream of bigotry and abuse against men and boys.​
Your failure to address this situation professionally and reasonably is illustrated by your flippant ‘irritating like toddler’ comments about F4J, even when you must be aware that you risk damaging the reputation of Mumsnet in the eyes of advertisers and the public. ​
Because you failed to enter into a discussion about the situation, the matter escalated. With Mumsnet failing to respond, we felt we had no other option than to bring this matter to the attention of your advertisers.​
We are running our second Mumsnet/M&S advert on Tuesday 20th March, reproducing content direct from the Mumsnet site. It is a shocking advert, linking screen grabs taken directly from Mumsnet with your advertisers logos. Until Mumsnet undertake to address this issue seriously and commit to a zero tolerance approach to gender hatred, then regrettably, our campaign will continue to escalate.​
We wrote to Marks and Spencer’s lawyers on Friday stating that our campaign will continue until they suspend all advertising on Mumsnet and investigate our claims. We are now writing to other advertisers asking them to do the same.​
We will be announcing full details of the next stage of our campaign later today. I have addressed each of the points made in your statement beneath.​
Your sincerely​


Nadine O’Connor​Campaign Director, Fathers4Justice​


----------



## Garek (Mar 19, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> My main impression of F4J is of a group of woman haters who have probably been stopped from seeing their kids for very good reasons.
> 
> *I'm aware this impression may be wrong though.*


 
It may be but I personally have never seen anything to disabuse me of it.

EDIT: Just seen the letter. What a bunch of sado cunts


----------



## _angel_ (Mar 19, 2012)

Isn't that a bit like holding editor personally responsible for the views expressed on this site?


----------



## weepiper (Mar 19, 2012)

F4J are bonkers.


----------



## Grandma Death (Mar 19, 2012)

_angel_ said:


> Isn't that a bit like holding editor personally responsible for the views expressed on this site?


 

Urban75 promotes hatred of Thatcher!


----------



## Ranbay (Mar 19, 2012)

£200 on mumsnet please.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Mar 19, 2012)

I bet M&S are proper shitting themselves at the idea of a boycott by F4J.


----------



## London_Calling (Mar 19, 2012)

*switches on Loose Women*


----------



## JimW (Mar 19, 2012)

"inciteful" isn't really a word, is it? Just a typo for 'insightful'. Thick sods.


----------



## Ranbay (Mar 19, 2012)

FridgeMagnet said:


> I bet M&S are proper shitting themselves at the idea of a boycott by F4J.


 
Do they do a meal for one with a bottle of wine?


----------



## Teaboy (Mar 19, 2012)

Bunch of ejits on both sides by the looks of it.


----------



## purenarcotic (Mar 19, 2012)

Somebody at F4J has clearly never heard of a troll.


----------



## Ax^ (Mar 19, 2012)

F4j starting on mothers
do F4J have a Pr department 
 
this is going to end well


----------



## Grandma Death (Mar 19, 2012)

I think F4J has no idea how open internet forums work. Maybe someone should try explaining how they run on a degree of self moderation as well as it being impossible to monitor every post made-especially on a forum the size of mumsnet.


----------



## JHE (Mar 19, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> My main impression of F4J is of a group of woman haters who have probably been stopped from seeing their kids for very good reasons.
> 
> I'm aware this impression may be wrong though.


 
Yes, it may well be wrong.

Hopefully, we can agree on one thing:  the passion that fuels F4J is that of fathers who have been deprived of their children.

Perhaps all the men in that situation that you've met have been wrong 'uns - indeed such wrong 'uns that they should not have access to their children, but that's certainly not my impression of the men I've met in that situation.


----------



## Santino (Mar 19, 2012)

Grandma Death said:


> I think F4J has no idea how open internet forums work. Maybe someone should try explaining how they run on a degree of self moderation as well as it being impossible to monitor every post made-especially on a forum the size of mumsnet.


Plenty of forums operate strict policies on discriminatory language. If the moderators are seen to uphold standards then posters will soon get the idea. It's just a question of what kind of language the management wants to allow.


----------



## Ted Striker (Mar 19, 2012)

Not defending them, but I can think of very few things that would leave me embittered and act irrational than a perceived unjustified lack of access to my children.

They so really need more people detached from their cause to run their PR though.

Or maybe it's too late? Did anyone read that statement as if it _wasn't_ made from a megeaphone on top of a crane dressed head to toe in spandex? Will they ever really have a fair point to make in anyone's eyes?


----------



## JHE (Mar 19, 2012)

Ted Striker said:


> Did anyone read that statement as if it _wasn't_ made from a megeaphone on top of a crane dressed head to toe in spandex? Will they ever really have a fair point to make in anyone's eyes?


 
I don't have any strong feelings about their stunts, but it's obvious what F4J stunters would say in response:  'Would people have even heard of the campaign if they had not gone in for media-friendly stunts?'


----------



## London_Calling (Mar 19, 2012)

Proper Urban thread: 20 pages by tomorrow?


----------



## joustmaster (Mar 19, 2012)

I'm quite torn between mumsenet and f4j.
Its really tricky to work out which groups opinions i think the least of.


----------



## DRINK? (Mar 19, 2012)

I used to catch the bus with the leader of f4j.....bit of a penis, had to be the centre of attention sort of guy....couldn't do anything without the whole world knowing about it


----------



## JHE (Mar 19, 2012)

DRINK? said:


> I used to catch the bus with the leader of f4j.....bit of a penis, had to be the centre of attention sort of guy....couldn't do anything without the whole world knowing about it


 
Was he your dad?


----------



## magneze (Mar 19, 2012)

This is a good reason why not to have advertising on a discussion site. I don't fancy my posts being CCed to the CEO of M&S because I described someone as a fuckwit.


----------



## _angel_ (Mar 19, 2012)

Ted Striker said:


> Not defending them, but I can think of very few things that would leave me embittered and act irrational than a perceived unjustified lack of access to my children.
> 
> They so really need more people detached from their cause to run their PR though.
> 
> Or maybe it's too late? Did anyone read that statement as if it _wasn't_ made from a megeaphone on top of a crane dressed head to toe in spandex? Will they ever really have a fair point to make in anyone's eyes?


There are other, less mad dads organisations.
That said mumsnet also have a reputation for being a bit bonkers sometimes, don't they?


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 19, 2012)

JHE said:


> Yes, it may well be wrong.
> 
> Hopefully, we can agree on one thing:  the passion that fuels F4J is that of fathers who have been deprived of their children.
> 
> Perhaps all the men in that situation that you've met have been wrong 'uns - indeed such wrong 'uns that they should not have access to their children, but that's certainly not my impression of the men I've met in that situation.


I would wonder why a court would refuse a father access to their kids.


----------



## Grandma Death (Mar 19, 2012)

_angel_ said:


> There are other, less mad dads organisations.
> That said mumsnet also have a reputation for being a bit bonkers sometimes, don't they?


 

I think mumsnet like any other forum will have users with extreme views.


----------



## London_Calling (Mar 19, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> I would wonder why a court would refuse a father access to their kids.


Or put another way, kids access to their father.


----------



## Santino (Mar 19, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> I would wonder why a court would refuse a father access to their kids.


As long as they do it with all the fairness and objectivity that we have come to expect from the state.


----------



## Teaboy (Mar 19, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> I would wonder why a court would refuse a father access to their kids.


 
I thought it was as much about those fathers who did have visitation rights but couldnt get to see their children through the actions of the mother and how the legal system does nothing in those circumstances.  Not saying it is the case, just thats what I thought their beef was.  The CSA chase the money but no one enforces visitation, probably bollocks but there you go.


----------



## Jackobi (Mar 19, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> I would wonder why a court would refuse a father access to their kids.


 
A big part of the problem is that contact orders are not enforced. The court has granted access to a child through a contact order, but the parent with care constantly breaks the order with no consequence.

Parents who have been granted access by the court are still deprived of contact with their children by the other parent.


----------



## Grandma Death (Mar 19, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> I would wonder why a court would refuse a father access to their kids.


 

As I understand this (and I could be wrong) courts would only do this for extreme cases? I think its more the case there are mothers out there that, for a number of reasons (rightly or wrongly) withhold access to fathers and fathers then have to seek legal redress to gain access to their children. That in itself is costly and very daunting if they dont understand how the courts work.


----------



## Santino (Mar 19, 2012)

It's almost as if the real account of these issues is a very complex one, with many subtleties and grey areas.


----------



## weltweit (Mar 19, 2012)

I suppose there is the possibility that legal fees might bankrupt both of them!

At least that would be a positive outcome!!


----------



## Frances Lengel (Mar 19, 2012)

Dunno about fathers for justice, but I fuckin hate mumsnet though. Even the name of it sounds all smug - Fuckin _mumsnet?_ Jesus. If they're so proud to be mothers, they should stay off the internet for ten minutes and spend some time with their kids.


----------



## purenarcotic (Mar 19, 2012)

Teaboy said:


> I thought it was as much about those fathers who did have visitation rights but couldnt get to see their children through the actions of the mother and how the legal system does nothing in those circumstances. Not saying it is the case, just thats what I thought their beef was. The CSA chase the money but no one enforces visitation, probably bollocks but there you go.


 
We don't throw people into prison for failing to see their children, so although if one parent fails to meet the visitation demands, the other can go back to court, it doesn't often resolve much tbh. All the court can do is make a lot of angry noise in the direction of the parent who isn't bothering to do what they should be doing, and threaten to cut access altogether.  Which isn't much of a threat if parent A can't be bothered to see little Jonny the twice a week they've been told they can.


----------



## London_Calling (Mar 19, 2012)

Santino said:


> It's almost as if the real account of these issues is a very complex one, with many subtleties and grey areas.


.. or even that access is determined on the back of what is commonly a very messy and emotionally charged break up.


----------



## Ranbay (Mar 19, 2012)

http://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/1124684-Ok-I-admit-it-I-AM-angry-with-men


Dittany is my all time fave man hater on mumsnet...


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 19, 2012)

As I said, its just an impression I get. Not helped by their bonkers reaction to mumsnet.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Mar 19, 2012)

This is likely to lead to an alliance between F4J and Gina Ford, isn't it? That'll be problematic when they scale shopping centres dressed as Batman to whine about access rights over megaphones, but have to climb down for their nap at 15:00 sharp.


----------



## coley (Mar 19, 2012)

F4J may be a bit OTT with their stunts but its a shame fathers even have to go to these lengths, a bit of balance in the divorce courts wouldnt go amiss, too many fathers have the custody issue hung over their heads, in some case it amounts to nothing more than blackmail.
As for mumsnet...............mebbes 'the mums' there should try spending a bit more times with their offsping and a bit less time on the keyboard.


----------



## fen_boy (Mar 19, 2012)

Now, I like Mumsnet... and I like Fathers for Justice, but which one is best? 

There's only one way to find out..........


----------



## purenarcotic (Mar 19, 2012)

Yeah, how dare somebody post on an internet forum when they have kids.


----------



## QueenOfGoths (Mar 19, 2012)

coley said:


> F4J may be a bit OTT with their stunts but its a shame fathers even have to go to these lengths, a bit of balance in the divorce courts wouldnt go amiss, too many fathers have the custody issue hung over their heads, in some case it amounts to nothing more than blackmail.
> *As for mumsnet...............mebbes 'the mums' there should try spending a bit more times with their offsping and a bit less time on the keyboard.*


You _are_ Frances Lengel and I claim my £5.00 (see post 40)

eta. And it wasn't really that amusing when FL said it first


----------



## weepiper (Mar 19, 2012)

oh piss off with your 'get back in the kitchen and spend some time with your children instead of being on the internet' misogynist nonsense. Unbelievably, sometimes small children are asleep, or quite happy playing by themselves in the same room while you have a half-hour sit down with a cup of tea. And, you know, you can even talk to them at the same time. It's this amazing thing called multi-tasking.


----------



## Belushi (Mar 19, 2012)

Mumsnet is ace, living proof that being a nasty cunt on the internet isn't a male preserve.


----------



## Grandma Death (Mar 19, 2012)

purenarcotic said:


> Yeah, how dare somebody post on an internet forum when they have kids.


 

Yeah two comments on this thread along the lines of spending time with their kids instead of mumsnet..my thoughts were


----------



## xes (Mar 19, 2012)

I wish F4J all the very best. Maybe if fathers had as many rights as mothers when it comes to parenthood, then I'd have seen my dad more often, instead of the once a month constrants my mother put on my visits to him, when i was younger. I'd love to have seen him more, and I know he would have loved to see me more. (and he tried, god love him, but the courts always side with the mother)


----------



## weltweit (Mar 19, 2012)

xes said:


> I wish F4J all the very best. Maybe if fathers had as many rights as mothers when it comes to parenthood, then I'd have seen my dad more often, instead of the once a month constrants my mother put on my visits to him, when i was younger. I'd love to have seen him more, and I know he would have loved to see me more. (and he tried, god love him, but the courts always side with the mother)


 
That is very sad.


----------



## JHE (Mar 19, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> I would wonder why a court would refuse a father access to their kids.


 
Do all New Anarchists share your trust in the wisdom of the judiciary?

Anyway... personally, I think the courts have a very difficult (but necessary) job to perform and the unhappy fathers have not necessarily been forbidden all access by the courts.

If the courts are involved in deciding custody and access etc, it is because the relationship between the parents is so bad that they can't sort these things out amicably.

Apparently, when custody is disputed, courts usually award it to the mother. Understandably, fathers who want custody are disgruntled.

Where the father doesn't get custody but does get access of some sort, there can be all sorts of further disputes, with each parent claiming that the other is being unreasonable or uncooperative etc.  The courts can then be presented with an even more difficult problem and cannot be sure who is lying and who (if anyone) is telling the truth.

I have no solution to problems of this sort, but it takes only a modicum of decency and understanding to see why some parents (usually fathers) feel upset and aggrieved.


----------



## Belushi (Mar 19, 2012)

coley said:


> As for mumsnet...............mebbes 'the mums' there should try spending a bit more times with their offsping and a bit less time on the keyboard.


 
Do you have kids? If so what are you doing on the net when you should be busy being a Dad


----------



## fen_boy (Mar 19, 2012)

It would be funny if Mumsnet was like the opposite of the stoning scene in The Life Of Brian and was populated by plasterers called Dave putting on a high pitched voice and wearing a twinset.


----------



## coley (Mar 19, 2012)

i


weepiper said:


> oh piss off with your 'get back in the kitchen and spend some time with your children instead of being on the internet' misogynist nonsense. Unbelievably, sometimes small children are asleep, or quite happy playing by themselves in the same room while you have a half-hour sit down with a cup of tea. And, you know, you can even talk to them at the same time. It's this amazing thing called multi-tasking.


I know, such a shame us mere men cant seem to get the hang of it, nowt wrong with a bit of relaxation on the net but some are obsessed by it including my (thankfully) ex daughter in law.


----------



## weepiper (Mar 19, 2012)

coley said:


> i know, such a shame us mere men cant seem to get the hang of it


 
You can dish it but not take it, huh?


----------



## xes (Mar 19, 2012)

weltweit said:


> That is very sad.


Tell me about it. It's sad that parents play eachpther to score points. (and I'm sure that both of my parents are guilty of this, as are many others) The ammount of times I had as a young child, with them slagging eachother off to me, I couldn't even begin to count. It's a cunts game, and it has fuck all to do with the wealfare of the child/children. and more to do with arsehole adults trying to out do eachother. A mate is in a simular position, he;s not allowed to see his daughter, becasue his ex made up a load of shit about him to the courts. But luckily, he's saving all of the money he would havegiven her from gifts and stuff (not including maintenance,which he is ofcourse paying) and he's going to give it all to her on her 16th birthday. It stands at about 10 grand so far  (Craig, you're a top bloke, and I love you)


----------



## coley (Mar 19, 2012)

Belushi said:


> Do you have kids? If so what are you doing on the net when you should be busy being a Dad


 

Yes, they are both at work  helluva granda though and an ace uncle, if the fact the little buggers send every free minute here is anything to go by


----------



## 1927 (Mar 19, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> My main impression of F4J is of a group of woman haters who have probably been stopped from seeing their kids for very good reasons.
> 
> I'm aware this impression may be wrong though.


 
Totally wrong.


----------



## coley (Mar 19, 2012)

weepiper said:


> You can dish it but not take it, huh?


Involves multitasking, sorry


----------



## Frances Lengel (Mar 19, 2012)

B0B2oo9 said:


> http://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/1124684-Ok-I-admit-it-I-AM-angry-with-men
> 
> 
> Dittany is my all time fave man hater on mumsnet...


 
Dittany seems alright. I feel a bit mean for having slagged off mumsnet now.


----------



## Grandma Death (Mar 19, 2012)

xes said:


> I wish F4J all the very best. Maybe if fathers had as many rights as mothers when it comes to parenthood, then I'd have seen my dad more often, instead of the once a month constrants my mother put on my visits to him, when i was younger. I'd love to have seen him more, and I know he would have loved to see me more. (and he tried, god love him, but the courts always side with the mother)


 

Where is your statistical evidence that the courts always side with the mother?


----------



## xes (Mar 19, 2012)

Grandma Death said:


> Where is your statistical evidence that the courts always side with the mother?


up me bum


----------



## Grandma Death (Mar 19, 2012)

xes said:


> up me bum


 

Im not looking for them.


----------



## coley (Mar 19, 2012)

QueenOfGoths said:


> You _are_ Frances Lengel and I claim my £5.00 (see post 40)
> 
> eta. And it wasn't really that amusing when FL said it first


Nope, so no coconut


----------



## Ax^ (Mar 19, 2012)

*likes the way this thread is headed*


My sister just joined mumsnet might have to bug her for a viewpoint for shite and giggles


----------



## 1927 (Mar 19, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> I would wonder why a court would refuse a father access to their kids.


 
How lomng have you got to go into the Family Injustice system in this country?


----------



## xes (Mar 19, 2012)

Grandma Death said:


> Im not looking for them.


your job in the TSA has just been taken up by someone who will


----------



## 1927 (Mar 19, 2012)

Jackobi said:


> A big part of the problem is that contact orders are not enforced. The court has granted access to a child through a contact order, but the parent with care constantly breaks the order with no consequence.
> 
> Parents who have been granted access by the court are still deprived of contact with their children by the other parent.


 
This.


----------



## Garek (Mar 19, 2012)

The guy who set up F4J also at one point was going to stand as an English Democrat. Says it all really.


----------



## JHE (Mar 19, 2012)

Garek said:


> The guy who set up F4J also at one point was going to stand as an English Democrat. Says it all really.


It says he wants an English Parliament.  Is he wrong?


----------



## Mikey77 (Mar 19, 2012)

xes said:


> I wish F4J all the very best. Maybe if fathers had as many rights as mothers when it comes to parenthood, then I'd have seen my dad more often, instead of the once a month constrants my mother put on my visits to him, when i was younger. I'd love to have seen him more, and I know he would have loved to see me more. (and he tried, god love him, but the courts always side with the mother)


 
I empathise with this. Although I never had the courts involved when I was a kid I did have a mother who went through a period of jealousy and men hating targeted against my dad. This even included serious violence against him, and trying to vilify him in my mind despite the fact he had done nothing wrong.

The last thing women with this mindset need is a forum full of similar women who are doing a bad job of bringing up young boys, while receiving encouragement from women with similar issues. The cruel irony of it all is that the very women who have this negative view of men will probably have more chance of bringing up boys who have no positive role models, and possibly find it difficult to be confident enough to communicate with women thus creating more chance of that person growing up to fulfill the negative stereotypes of men.

Some of the comments posted on Mumsnet are sickening. The CEO does indeed seem like a belligerent person.


----------



## Pingu (Mar 19, 2012)

DRINK? said:


> I used to catch the bus with the leader of f4j.....bit of a penis, had to be the centre of attention sort of guy....couldn't do anything without the whole world knowing about it


 

its run by a woman according to that letter


----------



## Grandma Death (Mar 19, 2012)

Lets be clear here. There are dickhead parents-and some of those dickhead parents use access to their kids as a way to gain revenge against each other. F4J to me appears to be an organisation driven to expose weaknesses in the family courts because of the actions of a minority of dickhead parents. I think personally on the face of it-that seems reasonable. The real issue for me here is the way organisations like F4J get too angry and shouty about issues where there is no need to get angry. I mean to suggest mumsnet are promoting gender hatred and prancing around M&S naked is facepalm central.


----------



## 1927 (Mar 19, 2012)

I think what F4J are trying to do, and I may be wrong, is having failed to carck the system they are going after all the organisations that support the myth that kids are better of with mum and should always stay with her if possible. Thos who know my story over the last 12 months will know that my battle to see my son was harrowing, denied contact with him for no reason. had to sit in court and listen to his mum tell lie upon lie about me inflciting all sorts of abuse on her, had to endure regular visits from the police following false allegations of harassment. Being labelled a vixatious ex partner by child services for daring to tell them of my concersn for my son's safety, threatened with having him taken into care if I persisted. Eventually i won the day and now have full custody and he is fluorishing, but what makes it all worse is not only was I not beleived by agencies who are there to protect my son, but my ex was supported in court and even encouraged to make her false allegations by Womens Aid and other feminist organisations.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Mar 19, 2012)

why is this news?

The think of the children gender haters on MN are attacking the poor oppressed white man klan at F4J....

Really, this is what urbans become a window into irrelevant right wing whingers website tiffs...  

It's like saying the star and the sun don't agree...

it' misses entirely the point they are both surplus, vaccious publications with no validity to any comment they make....


----------



## xes (Mar 19, 2012)

Grandma Death said:


> The real issue for me here is the way organisations like F4J get too angry and shouty about issues where there is no need to get angry.


 Somethings are worth getting angry and shouty about. As it is a very emotive subject, being refused accsess to your own children. But I agree that the shouty bit, doesn't do them much credit, but how else are they to go about, if nobody will listen to the points you're trying to make? You can write a million letters, loads of petitians and stuff like that, but when it all goes down thr drain, then it's a waisted effort. And that just fuels the anger and the shoutyness. It's a loose loose situation that fathers find themselves in, and I have nothing but sympathy for them over that.


----------



## 1927 (Mar 19, 2012)

Grandma Death said:


> Lets be clear here. There are dickhead parents-and some of those dickhead parents use access to their kids as a way to gain revenge against each other. F4J to me appears to be an organisation driven to expose weaknesses in the family courts because of the actions of a minority of dickhead parents. I think personally on the face of it-that seems reasonable. The real issue for me here is the way organisations like F4J get too angry and shouty about issues where there is no need to get angry. I mean to suggest mumsnet are promoting gender hatred and prancing around M&S naked is facepalm central.


 
before i had a kid I used to think that F4J and their ilk were sad the way they dress up as superheroes and chain themselves to buildings. When I went thru 3 months of not seeing my son i thought about him every second of every minute of every day and at times was verging on suicidal. I can understand why men in that situation might get a bit angry and shouty now.


----------



## Grandma Death (Mar 19, 2012)

1927 said:


> Eventually i won the day and now have full custody and he is fluorishing, but what makes it all worse is not only was I not beleived by agencies who are there to protect my son, but my ex was supported in court and even encouraged to make her false allegations by Womens Aid and other feminist organisations.


 
Are you suggesting womens aid is a feminist organistion? Also who are these other feminist organisations you speak of?


----------



## 1927 (Mar 19, 2012)

xes said:


> Somethings are worth getting angry and shouty about. As it is a very emotive subject, being refused accsess to your own children. But I agree that the shouty bit, doesn't do them much credit, but how else are they to go about, if nobody will listen to the points you're trying to make? You can write a million letters, loads of petitians and stuff like that, but when it all goes down thr drain, then it's a waisted effort. And that just fuels the anger and the shoutyness. It's a loose loose situation that fathers find themselves in, and I have nothing but sympathy for them over that.


 
thank you, you actually seem to be one of the few on here that can grasp what this is about!


----------



## trashpony (Mar 19, 2012)

Mikey77 said:


> I empathise with this. Although I never had the courts involved when I was a kid I did have a mother who went through a period of jealousy and men hating targeted against my dad. This even included serious violence against him, and trying to vilify him in my mind despite the fact he had done nothing wrong.
> 
> The last thing women with this mindset need is a forum full of similar women who are doing a bad job of bringing up young boys, while receiving encouragement from women with similar issues. The cruel irony of it all is that the very women who have this negative view of men will probably have more chance of bringing up boys who have no positive role models, and possibly find it difficult to be confident enough to communicate with women thus creating more chance of that person growing up to fulfill the negative stereotypes of men.
> 
> Some of the comments posted on Mumsnet are sickening. The CEO does indeed seem like a belligerent person.


Women that try to keep their children's father from having contact with the kids for no good reason are given very short shrift on Mumsnet.

However, if a woman makes allegations of abuse against him and says that is the reason she wants to curtail contact, then she will be supported. Like here, most posters are supported and believed.

Incidentally, the only people I've ever heard use the term 'needledick' are some of my male friends who got pulled up massively for it


----------



## 1927 (Mar 19, 2012)

Grandma Death said:


> Are you suggesting womens aid is a feminist organistion? Also who are these other feminist organisations you speak of?


 
I absolutely believe Womens Aid is a feminist organisation.


----------



## 1927 (Mar 19, 2012)

trashpony said:


> Women that try to keep their children's father from having contact with the kids for no good reason are given very short shrift on Mumsnet.
> 
> However, if a woman makes allegations of abuse against him and says that is the reason she wants to curtail contact, then she will be supported *unconditionally and without any evidence whatsoever of any form of abuse*. Like here, most posters are supported and believed.
> 
> Incidentally, the only people I've ever heard use the term 'needledick' are some of my male friends who got pulled up massively for it


 
Corrected for you.


----------



## coley (Mar 19, 2012)

1927 said:


> I think what F4J are trying to do, and I may be wrong, is having failed to carck the system they are going after all the organisations that support the myth that kids are better of with mum and should always stay with her if possible. Thos who know my story over the last 12 months will know that my battle to see my son was harrowing, denied contact with him for no reason. had to sit in court and listen to his mum tell lie upon lie about me inflciting all sorts of abuse on her, had to endure regular visits from the police following false allegations of harassment. Being labelled a vixatious ex partner by child services for daring to tell them of my concersn for my son's safety, threatened with having him taken into care if I persisted. Eventually i won the day and now have full custody and he is fluorishing, but what makes it all worse is not only was I not beleived by agencies who are there to protect my son, but my ex was supported in court and even encouraged to make her false allegations by Womens Aid and other feminist organisations.


Sadly a far too common story.


----------



## _angel_ (Mar 19, 2012)

I think if I was a Dad with access to my children problem, probably the last people I'd want representing me would be F4J. There are plenty of other Dads groups out there.


----------



## Grandma Death (Mar 19, 2012)

1927 said:


> before i had a kid I used to think that F4J and their ilk were sad the way they dress up as superheroes and chain themselves to buildings. When I went thru 3 months of not seeing my son i thought about him every second of every minute of every day and at times was verging on suicidal. I can understand why men in that situation might get a bit angry and shouty now.


 

Lets be clear-when I say shouty and angry about issues when there is no need to get angry I was referring to this current campaign of pressure on M&S and describing mumsnet as gender hating. The core issues that F4J raise are up for debate-and should be discussed. If I lost access to my kids I'd do everything possible to get custody-but I would ensure my anger was channelled into fighting for custody not running around naked in M&S. No matter how angry I got-I would never allow that anger to be misguided and channelled into walking into brick walls as F4J appear to be doing here.


----------



## trashpony (Mar 19, 2012)

1927 said:


> Corrected for you.


As are such allegations on here aren't they?  I have no way of knowing if weeps is telling the truth about her situation, I have no way of knowing if you're telling the truth about yours. But I believe both of you.


----------



## Grandma Death (Mar 19, 2012)

1927 said:


> I absolutely believe Womens Aid is a feminist organisation.


 

Why?? And who are the other feminist organisations you talk of?


----------



## xes (Mar 19, 2012)

1927 said:


> thank you, you actually seem to be one of the few on here that can grasp what this is about!


I guess I'm the "end product" of all of this bullshit. One who has lived through the vitrol that parents have against eachother when they split. I love both my parents equally, but wish I had seen my dad more often, and wish that my mum hadn't tried to get in the way. That hurt me more than I can ever type. I also wish that I (still) didn't have to listen to the reasons why they hate eachother so much. I don't care about that, never did. I just love my folks.


----------



## Ted Striker (Mar 19, 2012)

_angel_ said:


> I think if I was a Dad with access to my children problem, probably the last people I'd want representing me would be F4J. There are plenty of other Dads groups out there.


 
Who?

That fact no one knows of them (without looking) speaks volumes, no?


----------



## Mikey77 (Mar 19, 2012)

GarfieldLeChat said:


> why is this news?
> 
> The think of the children gender haters on MN are attacking the poor oppressed white man klan at F4J....
> 
> ...


 
Even if that were true it is a good reason for major brands not to advertise with them. Do Topman, and BHS advertise on men's websites where posters are misogynistic, or forums where posters are allowed to make racist remarks?

Maybe M&S should look for racist remarks on twitter then try and advertise there. After all, young boys don't choose to be boys or grow up to be men. They have no choice in the matter.


----------



## DRINK? (Mar 19, 2012)

Pingu said:


> its run by a woman according to that letter


 
could be his new wife...dunno..when I used to see him was prob 3 years ago


is campaign director and surname would suggest it is his wife


----------



## _angel_ (Mar 19, 2012)

I'm surprised there isn't a shouty and angry single mum group out there tbh - not because it would be anti male, but because it would be anti all the crap that is constantly pedalled about single mums being slags who do it to get council houses etc.
But the single parent organisations are just that, for parents of both genders, which is probably as it should be. Dividing people on gender lines is just that divisive. There must also be some mothers also deprived access to their kids, too, for whatever reasons. 
What I find sad is there's no way to make a parent who refuses to have contact with their kid do as they say they will do.


----------



## Grandma Death (Mar 19, 2012)

Ted Striker said:


> Who?
> 
> That fact no one knows of them (without looking) speaks volumes, no?


 

It just means they are the gobbiest and just because they are the loudest doesnt mean they are the most effective. Anyone with a computer can seek out other organisations that support fathers in this situation.


----------



## Ted Striker (Mar 19, 2012)

DRINK? said:


> could be his new wife...dunno..when I used to see him was prob 3 years ago


 
How did you know it was him and not the actual Spider Man?


----------



## _angel_ (Mar 19, 2012)

Ted Striker said:


> Who?
> 
> That fact no one knows of them (without looking) speaks volumes, no?


Fathers direct springs to mind, families need fathers; I'm not too sure exactly what they're like but it's worth checking out other groups.


----------



## rover07 (Mar 19, 2012)

Mikey77 said:


> Even if that were true it is a good reason for major brands not to advertise with them. Do Topman, and BHS advertise on men's websites where posters are misogynistic, or forums where posters are allowed to make racist remarks?
> 
> Maybe M&S should look for racist remarks on twitter then try and advertise there. After all, young boys don't choose to be boys or grow up to be men. They have no choice in the matter.



You sound like one of the F4J loons.


----------



## Ted Striker (Mar 19, 2012)

Grandma Death said:


> It just means they are the gobbiest and just because they are the loudest doesnt mean they are the most effective. Anyone with a computer can seek out other organisations that support fathers in this situation.


 
Yet still I, not many people, have never heard of them (F4J is by no means perfect ofc).


----------



## Grandma Death (Mar 19, 2012)

Ted Striker said:


> Yet still I, not many people, have never heard of them (F4J is by no means perfect ofc).


 

Unless you are aware of fathers groups, work in the field of family law or need support gaining access to your kids you'll have only ever heard of F4J because they are the ones that clearly have the highest profile.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Mar 19, 2012)

1927 said:


> Corrected for you.


can you explain why anyone who is alleging proof needs on first askance to provide proof of the abuse?

that's not a healthy world view to have really is it... can you think as someone with children why not believing someone regarding abuse until they have absolute proof of it might be a bad idea... as a father perhaps... 

That doesn't excuse anyone who uses such an explanation when it is patently false to justify their poor behaviour... 

however if the choice as a man I'm faced with is being accused falsely of abuse or allowing abuse to continue for fear of wrongly pointing the finger can you guess which one of these I'm going to back... every time... as all rational people do....

Far better to be accused and be able to say nope that's not true than for a person suffering abuse to be refused help because they failed to meet the burden of proof...


----------



## Mikey77 (Mar 19, 2012)

trashpony said:


> Women that try to keep their children's father from having contact with the kids for no good reason are given very short shrift on Mumsnet.
> 
> However, if a woman makes allegations of abuse against him and says that is the reason she wants to curtail contact, then she will be supported. Like here, most posters are supported and believed.


 
It's easy to slightly twist things in your story to make yourself the victim and justify some of the hateful remarks that were quoted on Mumsnet by fathers4 justice (I'm talking in general here - not about you). My mother done the same for years. The truth is she was jealous that my dad had met someone else, and she was stuck (as she saw it) with two kids.

If Mumsnet seems to be a platform for women to engage in these hateful comments then that is a matter of concern given that they are parents. It would be bad enough is these were teenage girls talking in a chat room, but nothing can justify these kind of warped views form parents. Could you imagine single male parents in an internet forum making misogynistic comments?? How disturbing would that be?

Fathers 4 Justice are a group I've only really seen on TV in the past, but they seem to ave a very good point here. Of course there are much wider issues about parenting and bring up boys, but what I have seen above is disturbing. It's people indulging themselves and showing off their warped views as parents.


----------



## fen_boy (Mar 19, 2012)

xes said:


> I also wish that I (still) didn't have to listen to the reasons why they hate eachother so much. I don't care about that, never did. I just love my folks.


 
I feel exactly the same about my folks, I'm now trying to avoid them feeding the same lines about each other to my kids, it never ends.


----------



## wemakeyousoundb (Mar 19, 2012)

JimW said:


> "inciteful" isn't really a word, is it? Just a typo for 'insightful'. Thick sods.


not a typo this


_angel_ said:


> There are other, less mad dads organisations.
> That said mumsnet also have a reputation for being a bit bonkers sometimes, don't they?


bonkers would probably be a compliments. Dangerous lunatics on both side is my opinion.


----------



## xes (Mar 19, 2012)

fen_boy said:


> I feel exactly the same about my folks, I'm now trying to avoid them feeding the same lines about each other to my kids, it never ends.


If we do not learn from our past mistakes, we are doomed to repeat them. I hope you can bring what you have leant from your experiences growing up, and learn from them so that your kids don't have to go through it too.


----------



## Thora (Mar 19, 2012)

trashpony said:


> Women that try to keep their children's father from having contact with the kids for no good reason are given very short shrift on Mumsnet.
> 
> However, if a woman makes allegations of abuse against him and says that is the reason she wants to curtail contact, then she will be supported. Like here, most posters are supported and believed.
> 
> Incidentally, the only people I've ever heard use the term 'needledick' are some of my male friends who got pulled up massively for it


Exactly.

When there is a thread occasionally suggesting men shouldn't work in nurseries or some bloke in the park looked at them funny and is therefore a peeedo, 99% of posters pile in to tell them they're wrong.


----------



## Thora (Mar 19, 2012)

1927 said:


> Corrected for you.


So, if a woman posts saying she's worried about her abusive ex having access to the kids, Mumsnet should make her prove it or fuck off?

And if a woman asks Woman's Aid for support to escape an abusive man, again they should only help if she can prove it?


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Mar 19, 2012)

wemakeyousoundb said:


> not a typo this
> 
> bonkers would probably be a compliments. Dangerous lunatics on both side is my opinion.


Look, look the puppet on the left hand is arguing with the puppet on the right hand... but wait why does no one notice the evil puppet master....


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Mar 19, 2012)

Thora said:


> So, if a woman posts saying she's worried about her abusive ex having access to the kids, Mumsnet should make her prove it or fuck off?
> 
> And if a woman asks Woman's Aid for support to escape an abusive man, again they should only help if she can prove it?


that appears to be the logical extension of what they are saying...


----------



## wemakeyousoundb (Mar 19, 2012)

GarfieldLeChat said:


> Look, look the puppet on the left hand is arguing with the puppet on the right hand... but wait why does no one notice the evil puppet master....


kids, what's happened to them


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 19, 2012)

Jeebus! A fair few dinosaurs roaring on this thread!


----------



## JimW (Mar 19, 2012)

wemakeyousoundb said:


> not a typo this
> 
> <snip>


Oh aye, I know it's not a typo in their article; I meant it's not actually a word, you only usually see it when someone meant to write 'insightful'. Not exactly the biggest issue here of course, just leapt out on a skim read.


----------



## 1927 (Mar 19, 2012)

Thora said:


> So, if a woman posts saying she's worried about her abusive ex having access to the kids, Mumsnet should make her prove it or fuck off?
> 
> And if a woman asks Woman's Aid for support to escape an abusive man, again they should only help if she can prove it?


 
Thats not what I'm saying, but when in a court room for these organisations to continue to support women unconditionally when the rights of a child are being abused then I think a little evidence wouldnt go amiss.


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 19, 2012)

1927 said:


> I absolutely believe Womens Aid is a feminist organisation.


This is exactly the sort of comment that reinforces my initial impression.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 19, 2012)

1927 said:


> Totally wrong.


 
The word "totally" implies that not a single member of F4J were prevented access to their children for good reason.

I'm certain that *you* are "totally wrong" in this regard, and that some, perhaps only a tiny minority, were.


----------



## Thora (Mar 19, 2012)

1927 said:


> Thats not what I'm saying, but when in a court room for these organisations to continue to support women unconditionally when the rights of a child are being abused then I think a little evidence wouldnt go amiss.


Firstly, mumsnet isn't in any courtrooms so it's a bit irrelevant to this thread.

Secondly, Woman's Aid is there to support women. Something not being proved in court doesn't always mean it didn't happen. Putting some kind of burden of proof on women fleeing domestic violence is ridiculous.


----------



## revol68 (Mar 19, 2012)

They need to start getting all King Solomon on this custody shit.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Mar 19, 2012)

1927 said:


> Thats not what I'm saying, but when in a court room for these organisations to continue to support women unconditionally when the rights of a child are being abused then I think a little evidence wouldnt go amiss.


who are these organisations.

Name names man, be specific.  You are making some serious allegations of known groups which are supposed to support the process of child care provision for broken down marriages and partnerships and saying they are actually encouraging child abuse.

In order to establish whether this is now the rantings of a madman or has some validity you cannot continue to be vague about those direct accusations or else you risk looking and sounding like some kind of extremist intolerant loony... 

Name names or retract what cannot be defended with generalised comment...


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 19, 2012)

xes said:


> up me bum


 
The evidence is always up your bum, isn't it?
Anyone would think that you're hoping for some handsome young chap to come along and demand to be allowed to go prospecting for this "evidence"!


----------



## 1927 (Mar 19, 2012)

Thora said:


> Firstly, mumsnet isn't in any courtrooms so it's a bit irrelevant to this thread.
> 
> Secondly, Woman's Aid is there to support women. Something not being proved in court doesn't always mean it didn't happen. Putting some kind of burden of proof on women fleeing domestic violence is ridiculous.


 
So do you believe that women who have not been abused should be able to use the abuse card in family court as a means to prevent fathers seeing their children without offering any evidence at all? Because that is what happens everyday of the week.


----------



## stethoscope (Mar 19, 2012)

Mikey77 said:


> Could you imagine single male parents in an internet forum making misogynistic comments?? How disturbing would that be?



Excluding the single parents bit, as I don't think its helpful criticising single parents of either gender, there are plenty of MRA (Mens Rights Activists) forums just like this.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Mar 19, 2012)

1927 said:


> So do you believe that women who have not been abused should be able to use the abuse card in family court as a means to prevent fathers seeing their children without offering any evidence at all? Because that is what happens everyday of the week.


I beleive that anyone may say anything in court and will be subject to the penalties and consequences of their actions.

If the abuse can be proved to have happened then tough it's proven... if it can't then it will be thrown out... it's perfectly reasonable at the first instance of their being abuse alleged for the accused and the potential victim to be separated until the FACTS are established, as is the case for all crimes within the UK.  or are you saying that family courts shouldn't adhere to due process...


----------



## Thora (Mar 19, 2012)

1927 said:


> So do you believe that women who have not been abused should be able to use the abuse card in family court as a means to prevent fathers seeing their children without offering any evidence at all? Because that is what happens everyday of the week.


Often there isn't evidence of domestic abuse - women are often attacked many, many times before reporting anything to the police or leaving the relationship.  Emotional abuse is even harder to prove.  Most abusers are aware of this and have the power of telling their victims that no one will believe them.

So yes, if a woman says she has been abused and is afraid for her children then I would believe her unless there is evidence otherwise.


----------



## Grandma Death (Mar 19, 2012)

1927 said:


> So do you believe that women who have not been abused should be able to use the abuse card in family court as a means to prevent fathers seeing their children without offering any evidence at all? Because that is what happens everyday of the week.





1927 said:


> So do you believe that women who have not been abused should be able to use the abuse card in family court as a means to prevent fathers seeing their children without offering any evidence at all? Because that is what happens everyday of the week.



You keep making these claims without evidence.  Where is your evidence that false claims happen everyday?  Also who were the other feminist organisations you spoke of in your case.  Finally why do you believe Women's Aid is a feminist organisation?


----------



## Mikey77 (Mar 19, 2012)

I





stephj said:


> Excluding the single parents bit, as I don't think its helpful criticising single parents of either gender, there are plenty of MRA (Mens Rights Activists) forums just like this.


 
Again, the issue is that these women are on a parents forum. It is definitely right to criticise people who are bringing up kids and have warped views. But if we go with your example we could take the example of a man on a parenting forum who is still with his partner posting similar views to those on Mumsnet and it would be equally disturbing. These forums might exist, but big companies should not be endorsing them by rewarding them financially with advertising - unless they clean up their act.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Mar 19, 2012)

Mikey77 said:


> I
> 
> Again, the issue is that these women are on a parents forum. It is definitely right to criticise people who are bringing up kids and have warped views. But if we go with your example we could take the example of a man on a parenting forum who is still with his partner posting similar views to those on Mumsnet and it would be equally disturbing. These forums might exist, but big companies should not be endorsing them by rewarding them financially with advertising - unless they clean up their act.


 
Can you actually link to some 'disturbing' anti-men stuff on mumsnet, that hasn't been acted on by the site? TBH I don't find anything F4J claim to be much more than a bit out of order, and that's before they apparently deleted a lot of comments anyway.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Mar 19, 2012)

Mikey77 said:


> I
> 
> Again, the issue is that these women are on a parents forum. It is definitely right to criticise people who are bringing up kids and have warped views. But if we go with your example we could take the example of a man on a parenting forum who is still with his partner posting similar views to those on Mumsnet and it would be equally disturbing. These forums might exist, but big companies should not be endorsing them by rewarding them financially with advertising - unless they clean up their act.


isn't that rather limiting the finances of the sites?

we need to vet everything said before hand in case it causes issues with our sponsors...


----------



## wemakeyousoundb (Mar 19, 2012)

JimW said:


> Oh aye, I know it's not a typo in their article; I meant it's not actually a word, you only usually see it when someone meant to write 'insightful'. Not exactly the biggest issue here of course, just leapt out on a skim read.


didn't realise it wasn't a word, apparently it's in the Oxford dictionary, typos and homophones have this bad habit of jumping at me while I read spoiling the enjoyment and increasing my blood pressure to dangerous levels.
let's let the thread get back on track now.


----------



## sweetcheeks (Mar 19, 2012)

What Mumsnet are you reading? It must be a totally different one to the one I read! It seems to me that F4J have targeted Mumsnet because they are called MumsNet and not ParentsNet. Have they targeted NetMums in a similar fashion? Or any of the other forums out there which cater for mums? Or could it be that F4J are just targeting the biggest Parent forum on the internet to gain maximum publicity?

Mumsnet is a very funny, supportive and relevant site and the forums there are so useful for many parents (including fathers) in good times or bad. If F4J were to properly engage with the site, rather than using it to drum up extra publicity, then I am sure they would see that it is not full of men hating women.

It looks to me like F4J are engaging in quite a lot of intimidation tactics with individual posters (they said one poster should be put up against a wall and shot) and also deleting posts made on their facebook by mumsnetters despite members complaining that they themselves were deleted from the Gingerbread page where they posted some fairly foul stuff.

It's really annoying too, as a regular mumsnet user, to have so many people from F4J trolling the site with pretty offensive stuff - it's so childish and doesn't do their cause any good. Sad too is the amount of justification of Domestic Abuse and violence towards women that they seem to post. It's offensive to all the decent men out there who are not rape apologists and who don't think there is ever any good reason to be violent towards women or men.


----------



## London_Calling (Mar 19, 2012)

I don't know much about the F4J organisation. From the news, I assumed it was a single issue campaigning group - campaigning for change in the law. Is that wide of the mark?


----------



## tommers (Mar 19, 2012)

It's all a bit depressing really.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Mar 19, 2012)

1927 why is it whenever you are called on your generalisations and seemingly misogynistic shite by being asked for specifics you duck out of the conversation with out providing anything concrete... only to pop up a few days later and once again start with your particular brand of regurgitated crap facts... 


I find it odd you'd insist on actual evidence of abuse being produced before this is considered a worthwhile point to make in court but when questioned yourself about the evidence to support your own claims there's nothing forthcoming....

that's a bit of a double standard isn't it...

not least it harms your argument to be unable when asked to give concrete examples of when the system has behaved in the manner in which you claim it has...

all in all it makes you look like someone prattling on with an warped agenda rather than because you're someone with a valid point worth addressing....


----------



## Mikey77 (Mar 19, 2012)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> Can you actually link to some 'disturbing' anti-men stuff on mumsnet, that hasn't been acted on by the site? TBH I don't find anything F4J claim to be much more than a bit out of order, and that's before they apparently deleted a lot of comments anyway.


 
If you read my post I said it was "disturbing" given that these women posting the kind of vile comments fathers 4 justice quoted are parents. It would be bad enough if these were on some other internet forum but people who are bringing up kids going online to share their warped views of men is different.

As to being acted on by the site I don't trust for a moment that these comments would have been deleted without them having been reported to the site by people who might have gone on the site with their own agenda. Given the apparent belligerence and point scoring of the owner of the site in her statement I have my doubts about her.

I am sure they will start to clean up now given the financial incentive, but nonetheless my original point stands. Parents with twisted views of the world should not be able to meet like minded morons on a parenting forum. Especially where big companies are happy for their names to be seen there.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Mar 19, 2012)

Mikey77 said:


> If you read my post I said it was "disturbing" given that these women posting the kind of vile comments fathers 4 justice quoted are parents. It would be bad enough if these were on some other internet forum but people who are bringing up kids going online to share their warped views of men is different.


 
Yes I can see that. I was asking though if you could provide any links, not to repeat the F4J ones. Because they look about as clear an example of a tiny number of cherry-picked quotes taken out of context as you can see IMO. Starting to go on about 'vile comments' and 'warped views' based solely on that is laughable tbh. Anyone would think you already had an agenda.


----------



## sim667 (Mar 19, 2012)

they should all just meet up, and have a massive fuckfight. Thatll sort it.


----------



## sweetcheeks (Mar 19, 2012)

"Parents with twisted views of the world should not be able to meet like minded morons on a parenting forum"

maybe they could all meet up on the F4J facebook page or something, oh... hang on.


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 19, 2012)

weepiper said:


> F4J are bonkers.



Careful now. They might contact urban's advertisers.


----------



## Mikey77 (Mar 19, 2012)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> Yes I can see that. I was asking though if you could provide any links, not to repeat the F4J ones. Because they look about as clear an example of a tiny number of cherry-picked quotes taken out of context as you can see IMO. Starting to go on about 'vile comments' and 'warped views' based solely on that is laughable tbh. Anyone would think you already had an agenda.


 
There is nothing laughable about finding these comments to be warped especially when coming from parents. The comments have been removed. If they were reasonable and if it was all "laughable" I can only assume the owner of mumsnet would have left them on the forum. As for comments being taken out of context I think that is going to be John Terry's defense isn't it??

As for my "agenda". Read my posts in this thread. I grew up with a mother who was violent towards my dad and probably unhealthy for me to be around as a young boy. That isn't exactly an agenda. People pay the price for that kind of parenting in their adult lives. There is nothing laughable about this kind of stuff. Such generalisations and comments should be as acceptable as misogynist comments or racist comments  - especially from women who are parents and are talking to other parents. There is no excuse for it.


----------



## bluestreak (Mar 19, 2012)

Anyone who cries "But What About The MENS?????" is not my friend.  You're already living in the patriarchy, fuckface.

*calls for a WWWWWWWWWWWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAmbulance*


----------



## London_Calling (Mar 19, 2012)

No one has 

Best I can make out, a campaign group asked a website to tone down the abuse a bit.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Mar 19, 2012)

Mikey77 said:


> There is nothing laughable about finding these comments to be warped especially when coming from parents. The comments have been removed. If they were reasonable and if it was all "laughable" I can only assume the owner of mumsnet would have left them on the forum. As for comments being taken out of context I think that is going to be John Terry's defense isn't it??


 
So you've started off going on about a forum full of this sort of stuff, and permitted, and now it's a few things that the site has acted on and deleted?


----------



## sweetcheeks (Mar 19, 2012)

" The comments have been removed. If they were reasonable and if it was all "laughable" I can only assume the owner of mumsnet would have left them on the forum"

they were removed because f4j were threatening legal action weren't they?


----------



## Mikey77 (Mar 19, 2012)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> So you've started off going on about a forum full of this sort of stuff, and permitted, and now it's a few things that the site has acted on and deleted?


 
I said nothing of the sort in any of my posts. You are choosing to argue just for the sake of it, which is pointless.


----------



## Mikey77 (Mar 19, 2012)

sweetcheeks said:


> " The comments have been removed. If they were reasonable and if it was all "laughable" I can only assume the owner of mumsnet would have left them on the forum"
> 
> they were removed because f4j were threatening legal action weren't they?


 
Again, if they were reasonable they would still be there.


----------



## 1927 (Mar 19, 2012)

GarfieldLeChat said:


> I beleive that anyone may say anything in court and will be subject to the penalties and consequences of their actions.
> 
> If the abuse can be proved to have happened then tough it's proven... if it can't then it will be thrown out... it's perfectly reasonable at the first instance of their being abuse alleged for the accused and the potential victim to be separated until the FACTS are established, as is the case for all crimes within the UK. or are you saying that family courts shouldn't adhere to due process...


 
You obviously have no experience of the secret family courts in this country. And you miss my point. I am not saying that in cases of actual abuse that women do not have the right, and should be expected to protect their children, but having sat in a court room and listened to lie upon lie from my ex, to be faced with the real threat of a visit from the police everytime something she didnt like occurred or she had a bad day in court, to be told by the police that it was one or other of the womens groups that were supporting her that had encouraged her to make the false allegations, then I think I have every right to feel just a little pissed off wouldnt you say?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Mar 19, 2012)

The name 'mumsnet' just fills me with rage tbh.

Not to say I have any sympathy with F4J or their methods.

I just fucking hate the name 'mumsnet'. If you're creating a resource for parents of both genders, don't pick a divisive name like mumsnet. If you're a bunch of retrograde anti-feminist idiots who want to perpetuate gender stereotypes then you should by all means call your website mumsnet.


----------



## London_Calling (Mar 19, 2012)

SpookyFrank said:


> The name 'mumsnet' just fills me with rage tbh.
> 
> Not to say I have any sympathy with F4J or their methods.
> 
> I just fucking hate the name 'mumsnet'. If you're creating a resource for parents of both genders, don't pick a divisive name like mumsnet. If you're a bunch of retrograde anti-feminist idiots who want to perpetuate gender stereotypes then you should by all means call your website mumsnet.


LOL. What do you make of their main rivals, netmums?

http://www.netmums.com/

Anyone got the domain name netmumsnet, yet? How about multitaskingnetmums.. net?


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Mar 19, 2012)

1927 said:


> You obviously have no experience of the secret family courts in this country. And you miss my point. I am not saying that in cases of actual abuse that women do not have the right, and should be expected to protect their children, but having sat in a court room and listened to lie upon lie from my ex, to be faced with the real threat of a visit from the police everytime something she didnt like occurred or she had a bad day in court, to be told by the police that it was one or other of the womens groups that were supporting her that had encouraged her to make the false allegations, then I think I have every right to feel just a little pissed off wouldnt you say?


sorry this wriggling aside you're being asked clearly for evidence of such and are still failing to provide it.

your experience in this is irrelevant and not evidence.  

as for my experience it's copious and really not a matter for debate as I'm not making fact free assertations about cabalistic womens groups with no evidence... 

so when you're ready some evidence if you please.

It is after all only the standard you've applied to abuse cases ....


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Mar 19, 2012)

Mikey77 said:


> I said nothing of the sort in any of my posts. You are choosing to argue just for the sake of it, which is pointless.


 


> The last thing women with this mindset need is a forum full of similar women who are doing a bad job of bringing up young boys, while receiving encouragement from women with similar issues.


 
So here it's a forum 'full of similar women'. Not just a few who've overstepped the mark and had their posts deleted.



> Even if that were true it is a good reason for major brands not to advertise with them. Do Topman, and BHS advertise on men's websites where posters are misogynistic, or forums where posters are allowed to make racist remarks


 
Clear implication here isn't it? You're clearly trying to say these posts are permitted.



> If Mumsnet seems to be a platform for women to engage in these hateful comments then that is a matter of concern given that they are parents.


 
Is it a 'platform' if those posts are then deleted?


I didn't really forsee having to argue though. I just asked you for some evidence that mumsnet is what you were saying it is. Shouldn't be too hard.


----------



## 1927 (Mar 19, 2012)

GarfieldLeChat said:


> 1927 why is it whenever you are called on your generalisations and seemingly misogynistic shite by being asked for specifics you duck out of the conversation with out providing anything concrete... only to pop up a few days later and once again start with your particular brand of regurgitated crap facts...
> 
> 
> I find it odd you'd insist on actual evidence of abuse being produced before this is considered a worthwhile point to make in court but when questioned yourself about the evidence to support your own claims there's nothing forthcoming....
> ...


 
I dont wish to get into an argument, but I would just point out that I have lived through this for the last 14 months. The point you make about evidence is a very pertinent one, and tho you probably dont know it, you have hit the nail very firmly on the head. One of the big issues which you may or may not be aware of is that the Family Courts in this country are giverned by a different set of rules. Firstly they are a civil court rather than a criminal one, and secondly reporting of proceedings in Fmaily court is illegal, unlike a criminal court where proceedings can be reported once the case is over. This veil of secrecy is used as a means of hiding certain things that go on that should not be allowed and I, and many others believe, that certain organisations use this as a means to lie and cheat the system knowing full well that those who have been wronged cannot go to the press with their complaints as to do so would mean they were in contempt of court and may well result in imprisonment. That may sound fanciful to you, you may well hold Uk justice in high regard, but as someone who has gone thru it I can assure you that it is the case.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Mar 19, 2012)

1927 said:


> <snip />


 
not interested in your politicising my points....

you've made specific claims.

Evidence them or retract that's how debate works...


----------



## tufty79 (Mar 19, 2012)

1927, i'm not sure if i'm misunderstanding you - are you saying she was actually told to make stuff up/that whichever organisations knew she was making false allegations and then, knowing they were false, encouraged her to follow them up?
or was it a case of them believing her allegations  and giving suitable support advice?


----------



## 1927 (Mar 19, 2012)

GarfieldLeChat said:


> not interested in your politicising my points....
> 
> you've made specific claims.
> 
> Evidence them or retract that's how debate works...


 
And I;ve explained to you that I cannot do that as I would be contempt of court.

But then I am starting to realise now that you probably knew that already.


----------



## purenarcotic (Mar 19, 2012)

1927 said:


> You obviously have no experience of the secret family courts in this country. And you miss my point. I am not saying that in cases of actual abuse that women do not have the right, and should be expected to protect their children, but having sat in a court room and listened to lie upon lie from my ex, to be faced with the real threat of a visit from the police everytime something she didnt like occurred or she had a bad day in court, to be told by the police that it was one or other of the womens groups that were supporting her that had encouraged her to make the false allegations, then I think I have every right to feel just a little pissed off wouldnt you say?


 
You're then assuming that these women's groups knew the allegations were false and were encouraging her to make these false claims regardless.   I expect the reality is they believed her, because that is their job, and told her to make these allegations as a consequence of believing her.  Why would these organisations doubt her?  They don't ask for proof; proof in DV cases is often very difficult to get a hold of, so if somebody comes to them telling them a story of abuse, they are going to believe her and advise her on the best course of action. 

I really don't understand your issue with the women's organisations in this case.  They were doing what they would do in any other case.  The fact your ex made false allegations is sickening, but not the fault of those women's groups.


----------



## sweetcheeks (Mar 19, 2012)

so what do you think they said?

I saw many of the comments that were removed and was there when the discussions were taking place between mumsnetters about why they had been removed (not everyone agreed they should be) and posters were told that they were removed because they broke talk guidelines, mostly because they were abusive in a 'fuck off F4J you bunch of cunts' kind of way rather than being anti-father or anti kids having a relationship with their father.

It is easy for you, in hindsight, to say they were removed for other reasons but that would not be true. Personal attacks are not allowed on mumsnet and so they are deleted. Unfortunately some mumsnetters were a bit annoyed by some posters who had joined up just to stir up trouble and so they called a couple of new posters, who were deliberately trolling, 'cunts' and so on.

Some of them may have suggested that F4J is an organisation which attracts cunts, unfortunate perhaps and maybe not true but is it any wonder people might think this given the way they behave?


----------



## Grandma Death (Mar 19, 2012)

1927 said:


> You obviously have no experience of the secret family courts in this country. And you miss my point. I am not saying that in cases of actual abuse that women do not have the right, and should be expected to protect their children, but having sat in a court room and listened to lie upon lie from my ex, to be faced with the real threat of a visit from the police everytime something she didnt like occurred or she had a bad day in court, to be told by the police that it was one or other of the womens groups that were supporting her that had encouraged her to make the false allegations, then I think I have every right to feel just a little pissed off wouldnt you say?





1927 said:


> You obviously have no experience of the secret family courts in this country. And you miss my point. I am not saying that in cases of actual abuse that women do not have the right, and should be expected to protect their children, but having sat in a court room and listened to lie upon lie from my ex, to be faced with the real threat of a visit from the police everytime something she didnt like occurred or she had a bad day in court, to be told by the police that it was one or other of the womens groups that were supporting her that had encouraged her to make the false allegations, then I think I have every right to feel just a little pissed off wouldnt you say?




Course you have every right to be pissed off.  Your experiences however don't give you the right to make specific claims you cannot substantiate.


----------



## 1927 (Mar 19, 2012)

tufty79 said:


> 1927, i'm not sure if i'm misunderstanding you - are you saying she was actually told to make stuff up/that whichever organisations knew she was making false allegations and then, knowing they were encouraging her to follow them up?
> or was it a case of them believing her allegations and giving suitable support advice?


 
The former. I was atually advised by my legal guy that I should expect allegations of a certain type and when the allegations came it was word for word what he said she would allege, the alleagtions were even in the order he said they would be made. I have other evidence too of a serving social worker within the department dealing with my case, writing letters for her to write in her own hand and submit to court making false allegations.


----------



## Teaboy (Mar 19, 2012)

I don't like the way this thread is heading at all. Contempt and / or slander potential. I'd let it go tbh.

The row is spilling over onto urban.


----------



## coley (Mar 19, 2012)

Grandma Death said:


> Course you have every right to be pissed off. Your experiences however don't give you the right to make specific claims you cannot substantiate.


 
Once you have been the victim of a malicious allegation and the allegation has been proved totally unfounded yet the authorities refuse to take action against the person making the allegation or even agree that they should not be regarded as credible in the future, then yes, you do tend to get a wee bit 'pissed off'


----------



## sweetcheeks (Mar 19, 2012)

The last thing women with this mindset need is a forum full of similar women who are doing a bad job of bringing up young boys, while receiving encouragement from women with similar issues.​Can you elaborate on how mumsnetters are doing a bad job of bringing up boys?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Mar 19, 2012)

London_Calling said:


> LOL. What do you make of their main rivals, netmums?
> 
> http://www.netmums.com/
> 
> Anyone got the domain name netmumsnet, yet? How about multitaskingnetmums.. net?


 
I was thinking of www.inabilitytousecontraceptiondoesnotmakeyouanexpertonanything.com


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 19, 2012)

SpookyFrank said:


> I just fucking hate the name 'mumsnet'. If you're creating a resource for parents of both genders, don't pick a divisive name like mumsnet. If you're a bunch of retrograde anti-feminist idiots who want to perpetuate gender stereotypes then you should by all means call your website mumsnet.



What about fathers for justice? Surely parents for justice is less divisive also?


----------



## rover07 (Mar 19, 2012)

coley said:


> Once you have been the victim of a malicious allegation and the allegation has been proved totally unfounded yet the authorities refuse to take action against the person making the allegation or even agree that they should not be regarded as credible in the future, then yes, you do tend to get a wee bit 'pissed off'



Just because the allegations can't be proved doesn't mean they aren't true.

I think its right that courts side with the women and children, given how common domestic abuse is.

Even the founder of F4J has admitted that he was an alcoholic and that the Courts were right to restrict access to his children.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Mar 19, 2012)

Citizen66 said:


> What about fathers for justice? Surely parents for justice is less divisive also?


 
I don't like them either. And yes, if f4j were actually interested in equality rather than simply belittling women then p4j would be a better name. 

If their cause and their grievances were just I can't help but think that some of their supporters would be women...


----------



## Mikey77 (Mar 19, 2012)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> So here it's a forum 'full of similar women'. Not just a few who've overstepped the mark and had their posts deleted.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 


sweetcheeks said:


> The last thing women with this mindset need is a forum full of similar women who are doing a bad job of bringing up young boys, while receiving encouragement from women with similar issues.​Can you elaborate on how mumsnetters are doing a bad job of bringing up boys?


 
Sharing views with likeminded people is the last thing people like that need. I can post in this thread and think and talk in general. I have never read a single post on mumsnet, and don't intend to - its owner sounds quite nasty in any case. If she is any reflection of the people on there it is quite worrying.

If such posts are only removed if someone complains or threatens legal action then they are permitted. It's a platform as long as such posts are allowed, and not deleted. By your own admission you think such hateful comments can be made "in context" so you are not exactly against them. I hope M&S stop advertising with them.


----------



## 1927 (Mar 19, 2012)

SpookyFrank said:


> I don't like them either. And yes, if f4j were actually interested in equality rather than simply belittling women then p4j would be a better name.
> 
> If their cause and their grievances were just I can't help but think that some of their supporters would be women...


 
Some of their supporters are women, and a lot of grandparents too.

Families need fathers (FNF) I think are now called FNF Both Parents Matter, which seems a more appropriate name.


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 19, 2012)

SpookyFrank said:


> I don't like them either. And yes, if f4j were actually interested in equality rather than simply belittling women then p4j would be a better name.
> 
> If their cause and their grievances were just I can't help but think that some of their supporters would be women...



Some of their supporters will be women. The men concerned will have mothers, sisters, new female partners. They don't exist in a vacuum.


----------



## toggle (Mar 19, 2012)

coley said:


> Once you have been the victim of a malicious allegation and the allegation has been proved totally unfounded yet the authorities refuse to take action against the person making the allegation or even agree that they should not be regarded as credible in the future, then yes, you do tend to get a wee bit 'pissed off'


 
this experience is hardly unique to women making allegations against men in family court. I had similar expereinces of the allegations my ex made against me, his allegations were believed, even after he had prooven himself a liar on repeated occasions.


----------



## 1927 (Mar 19, 2012)

rover07 said:


> Just because the allegations can't be proved doesn't mean they aren't true.
> 
> I think its right that courts side with the women and children, given how common domestic abuse is.
> 
> Even the founder of F4J has admitted that he was an alcoholic and that the Courts were right to restrict access to his children.


 
So do you believe that courts should side with mothers just in case there was abuse? Thing is that is sort of the sitaution we have now and why mothers use the abuse card, because they know the judge will then side with her. So a father who has done nothing wrong will not have any contact with his kids because of a false allegation. Hardly justice wouldnt you say?


----------



## toggle (Mar 19, 2012)

Mikey77 said:


> Sharing views with likeminded people is the last thing people like that need. I can post in this thread and think and talk in general. I have never read a single post on mumsnet, and don't intend to - its owner sounds quite nasty in any case. If she is any reflection of the people on there it is quite worrying.
> 
> If such posts are only removed if someone complains or threatens legal action then they are permitted. It's a platform as long as such posts are allowed, and not deleted. By your own admission you think such hateful comments can be made "in context" so you are not exactly against them. I hope M&S stop advertising with them.


 
removal of posts does not necessarily mean that the posts were wrong. The editor has removed posts on this site after threats of legal action, because he can't afford the potential legal bills.


----------



## quimcunx (Mar 19, 2012)

rover07 said:


> Just because the allegations can't be proved doesn't mean they aren't true.
> 
> *I think its right that courts side with the women and children, given how common domestic abuse is.*
> 
> Even the founder of F4J has admitted that he was an alcoholic and that the Courts were right to restrict access to his children.


 
You know that women abuse men too, yes?  Both emotionally _and_ physically.  It's not women and children on one side and men on the other either.  Or at least it shouldn't be.


----------



## coley (Mar 19, 2012)

rover07 said:


> Just because the allegations can't be proved doesn't mean they aren't true.
> 
> *I think its right that courts side with the women and children, given how common domestic abuse is.*
> 
> Even the founder of F4J has admitted that he was an alcoholic and that the Courts were right to restrict access to his children.


Even without proof?

In many cases the allegations can be proved to be untrue but no action is taken against those making what turns out to be malicious or vextatious allegations


----------



## Grandma Death (Mar 19, 2012)

coley said:


> Once you have been the victim of a malicious allegation and the allegation has been proved totally unfounded yet the authorities refuse to take action against the person making the allegation or even agree that they should not be regarded as credible in the future, then yes, you do tend to get a wee bit 'pissed off'



I've defender his right to be annoyed.  Did you miss that?


----------



## 1927 (Mar 19, 2012)

quimcunx said:


> You know that women abuse men too, yes? Both emotionally _and_ physically. It's not women and children on one side and men on the other either. Or at least it shouldn't be.


 
I found a list online the other day of behaviours that women's groups, or atleast one group or otehr , used to determine if there had been abuse. In the list of 450 behaviours, all written from a man on woman perspective, if i reversed the genders I could fing in excess of 50 which I had been subject to. I didnt consider that I had been in an abusive relationship, i just thought we had the odd difficulty. I now realise that I was subject to abuse for 6 years!


----------



## rover07 (Mar 19, 2012)

quimcunx said:


> You know that women abuse men too, yes?  Both emotionally _and_ physically.  It's not women and children on one side and men on the other either.  Or at least it shouldn't be.



It usually is though.

Its very rare for a man to be denied any access to his child and when they are its for a damn good reason.

I know there are men who get an unfair deal but then no justice system is perfect.


----------



## 1927 (Mar 19, 2012)

rover07 said:


> It usually is though.
> 
> Its very rare for a man to be denied any access to his child and *when they are its for a damn good reason.*
> 
> I know there are men who get an unfair deal but then no justice system is perfect.


 
No its not! I was denied any contact with my son based on a false allegation which I could prove to be untrue with independent witnesses and statements from her own mother. I submitted them to her solicitor and was told that if I wrote to them again I would be reported for harrassment!


----------



## Grandma Death (Mar 19, 2012)

Mikey77 said:


> If such posts are only removed if someone complains or threatens legal action then they are permitted. It's a platform as long as such posts are allowed, and not deleted. By your own admission you think such hateful comments can be made "in context" so you are not exactly against them. I hope M&S stop advertising with them.



That's flawed logic.  Mumsnet has approx 2million posts a month iirc.  There's no way an open Internet forum can be policed to prevent posts that break forum rules.  Urban 75 doesn't tolerate racism or sexism but posts that are deemed racist/or sexist are posted here. Sometimes they are challenged,  sometimes binned.  It doesn't mean those views are tolerated or permitted by urban 75.


----------



## quimcunx (Mar 19, 2012)

rover07 said:


> It usually is though.
> 
> Its very rare for a man to be denied any access to his child and when they are its for a damn good reason.
> 
> I know there are men who get an unfair deal but then no justice system is perfect.


 
It's not easy to measure.  This article says 40% of domestic violence is on men.  

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/sep/05/men-victims-domestic-violence

Domestic abuse does not have to include physical violence at all.


----------



## London_Calling (Mar 19, 2012)

And violence isn't just physical, most is emotional.


----------



## weepiper (Mar 19, 2012)

1927, with respect, your ex is a fairly dangerous fruitloop and I think it's unfair to extrapolate her behaviour into 'how it is for everyone'.


----------



## 1927 (Mar 19, 2012)

quimcunx said:


> It's not easy to measure. This article says 40% of domestic violence is on men.
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/sep/05/men-victims-domestic-violence
> 
> Domestic abuse does not have to include physical violence at all.


 



			
				Welsh Women's Aid said:
			
		

> *What is domestic abuse?*
> Welsh Women’s Aid define domestic abuse as _*"the actual or threatened physical, emotional, psychological, sexual or financial abuse of a woman by a partner, family member or someone with whom there is, or has been, a close relationship. This abuse also relates to the perpetrator allowing or causing a child to witness, or be at risk of witnessing, domestic abuse."*_
> Domestic abuse essentially involves the misuse of power and exercise of control by one person over another with whom there is or has been a close relationship.
> 
> ...


 
WWA definition of abuse specificlly states that it is on a woman , hardly a neutral position. they go on to state that 97% of absue is by men, hardly a factual statement according to the crime figures!


----------



## 1927 (Mar 19, 2012)

weepiper said:


> 1927, with respect, your ex is a fairly dangerous fruitloop and I think it's unfair to extrapolate her behaviour into 'how it is for everyone'.


 
I agree, but I think the way my case was regarded by various agencies is sadly typical.


----------



## Belushi (Mar 19, 2012)

1927 said:


> they go on to state that 97% of absue is by men, hardly a factual statement according to the crime figures!


 
Reported abuse, that's factually correct.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Mar 19, 2012)

1927 said:


> WWA definition of abuse specificlly states that it is on a woman , hardly a neutral position. they go on to state that 97% of absue is by men, hardly a factual statement according to the crime figures!


 
It says that 97% of reported abuse is by men. I don't know how accurate that is either but I'd guess men might well be less likely to report it.


----------



## Mikey77 (Mar 19, 2012)

Grandma Death said:


> That's flawed logic. Mumsnet has approx 2million posts a month iirc. There's no way an open Internet forum can be policed to prevent posts that break forum rules. Urban 75 doesn't tolerate racism or sexism but posts that are deemed racist/or sexist are posted here. Sometimes they are challenged, sometimes binned. It doesn't mean those views are tolerated or permitted by urban 75.


 
You can make your excuses. It is pretty sick that women with those views who are also parents can go on an internet forum and post that kind of stuff. But defend the website if you must.


----------



## _angel_ (Mar 19, 2012)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> It says that 97% of reported abuse is by men. I don't know how accurate that is either but I'd guess men might well be less likely to report it.


I've seen different stats in different places. Maybe they are using different definitions of 'abuse'.


----------



## tufty79 (Mar 19, 2012)

1927 said:


> WWA definition of abuse specificlly states that it is on a woman , hardly a neutral position. they go on to state that 97% of absue is by men, hardly a factual statement according to the crime figures!






			
				WWA said:
			
		

> Domestic abuse occurs irrespective of gender



e2a 






			
				WWA said:
			
		

> Research has shown that 22% of lesbian and bisexual women have experienced domestic abuse, but that it is even less likely to be reported from this group.


----------



## coley (Mar 19, 2012)

Grandma Death said:


> I've defender his right to be annoyed. Did you miss that?


No, it was just a general observation that the dice seems to be loaded against fathers in court


----------



## weepiper (Mar 19, 2012)

Mikey77 said:


> You can make your excuses. It is pretty sick that women with those views who are also parents can go on an internet forum and post that kind of stuff. But defend the website if you must.


 
seeing as you've 'never read a single post on mumsnet and don't intend to', what gives you the right to sound off about it?


----------



## Thora (Mar 19, 2012)

1927 said:


> WWA definition of abuse specificlly states that it is on a woman , hardly a neutral position. they go on to state that 97% of absue is by men, hardly a factual statement according to the crime figures!


The clue is in the name - WOMEN'S Aid.  They are only concerned with supporting women.

Nothing is stopping men from setting up their own groups.


----------



## 1927 (Mar 19, 2012)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> It says that 97% of reported abuse is by men. I don't know how accurate that is either but I'd guess men might well be less likely to report it.


 
Maybe I'm being stupid, but how does that reconcile with the extract from that linked report that states..

Data from Home Office statistical bulletins and the British Crime Survey show that men made up about 40% of domestic violence victims each year between 2004-05 and 2008-09, the last year for which figures are available. In 2006-07 men made up 43.4% of all those who had suffered partner abuse in the previous year, which rose to 45.5% in 2007-08 but fell to 37.7% in 2008-09.
Similar or slightly larger numbers of men were subjected to severe force in an incident with their partner, according to the same documents. The figure stood at 48.6% in 2006-07, 48.3% the next year and 37.5% in 2008-09, Home Office statistics show.


----------



## sweetcheeks (Mar 19, 2012)

Mikey

As I said in my previous posts. Many posts were removed because they broke the talk guidlines which state that no personal attacks be made. What I mean is that some F4J people were posting on there and some people might have called them Cunts or told them to fuck off. You say you don't read any posts on there so you don't seem to be informed enough to comment about the whole affair.

It's also a little odd that, if you haven't ever read anything on there, you care so much.

What kind of stuff have you heard about them posting? I assume it's something you have heard about rather than actually read.


----------



## purenarcotic (Mar 19, 2012)

Actually, it specifically states that '_Domestic abuse occurs irrespective of gender, race, class, age, religion, sexuality, mental ability, physical ability, income, lifestyle or geographical area of residence.'_

And yes, Monkeygrinder's, part of the problem regarding knowing how much abuse occurs where men are the victim relates to a lot of social stereotypes where men should be able to stand up to their women / this doesn't happen to men / men who are victims are somehow less of a man as a consequence.  There is certainly much to be said about the work that should be being undertaken to raise the point that absolutely anybody can be the victim of DV.


----------



## coley (Mar 19, 2012)

rover07 said:


> It usually is though.
> 
> Its very rare for a man to be denied any access to his child and when they are its for a damn good reason.
> 
> I know there are men who get an unfair deal but then no justice system is perfect.


 
You are given a fixed time and date you turn up on said time and date to find your ex has had to attend a sudden appointment, this happens a few times, when you finally catch up with ex, you 'remonstrate' with them, next thing is your access is suspended following your recent 'unreasonable behaviour'
With variations, a well known scenario for many fathers.


----------



## Belushi (Mar 19, 2012)

1927 said:


> Maybe I'm being stupid, but how does that reconcile with the extract from that linked report that states..
> 
> Data from Home Office statistical bulletins and the British Crime Survey show that men made up about 40% of domestic violence victims each year between 2004-05 and 2008-09, the last year for which figures are available. In 2006-07 men made up 43.4% of all those who had suffered partner abuse in the previous year, which rose to 45.5% in 2007-08 but fell to 37.7% in 2008-09.
> Similar or slightly larger numbers of men were subjected to severe force in an incident with their partner, according to the same documents. The figure stood at 48.6% in 2006-07, 48.3% the next year and 37.5% in 2008-09, Home Office statistics show.


 
British Crime Survey, it's different to the reported figures. Both statements are accurate - they are reporting different things.


----------



## Thora (Mar 19, 2012)

Also of course, male perpetrators of abuse may claim to be victims in order to control their partner further.


----------



## London_Calling (Mar 19, 2012)

Yeah! Bloody men.


----------



## weepiper (Mar 19, 2012)

London_Calling said:


> Yeah! Bloody men.


----------



## _angel_ (Mar 19, 2012)

Mothers certainly don't have a monopoly on playing the phoney 'abuse' card. Also, try being a step father in the midst of malicious allegations. Anyone can play this game.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Mar 19, 2012)

1927 said:


> And I;ve explained to you that I cannot do that as I would be contempt of court.
> 
> But then I am starting to realise now that you probably knew that already.


in what way is it contempt of court to name other organisations which are gender biased and reinforce your opinion.

Don't talk tosh man, name names, or retract the statement...

if you genuinely believe you'd be in contempt then you need to retract the statement in any case as you cannot further the point without recourse to evidence which cannot be presented... 

Points need to be valid and sustainable, if they are not then they need retraction.

again this is how debate works...

Equally if this matter is a court issue then it would be wise to cease discussing it at any level to avoid a situation where you have to say something which would incriminate you...


----------



## rover07 (Mar 19, 2012)

coley said:


> You are given a fixed time and date you turn up on said time and date to find your ex has had to attend a sudden appointment, this happens a few times, when you finally catch up with ex, you 'remonstrate' with them, next thing is your access is suspended following your recent 'unreasonable behaviour'
> With variations, a well known scenario for many fathers.



I like how you put 'remonstrate' in quotes.

Do you mean shout abuse in their face in order to intimidate them?

Yes its a well-known scenario.


----------



## miss.w (Mar 19, 2012)

i seem to recall F4Jtrying this crap on with Netmums  a while back. 

TBF on both Mumsnet and Netmums theres equal amounts ofanti- mother postings as there are anti-father postings. 

They (F4J), with their stupid campaigns like this just prove the reasons further why they do not have appropriate access to their children in the first place. Bloody idiots, giving all decent fathers wanting access a bad name.


----------



## Grandma Death (Mar 19, 2012)

1927 said:


> I agree, but I think the way my case was regarded by various agencies is sadly typical.




I be those unnamed feminist agencies you quoted would disagree.  But what would they or women's aid know eh.


----------



## 1927 (Mar 19, 2012)

rover07 said:


> I like how you put 'remonstrate' in quotes.
> 
> Do you mean shout abuse in their face in order to intimidate them?
> 
> Yes its a well-known scenario.


 
Dont you think that a father who had turned up to see his child only to find them not available for some spurious reason might juist have some justifcation in being angry and shouty when they managed at some point in the future to face the mother who had witheld contact?


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Mar 19, 2012)

1927 said:


> Dont you think that a father who had turned up to see his child only to find them not available for some spurious reason might juist have some justifcation in being angry and shouty when they managed at some point in the future to face the mother who had witheld contact?


I think it doesn't serve the needs of the child no....


----------



## miss.w (Mar 19, 2012)

1927 said:


> Dont you think that a father who had turned up to see his child only to find them not available for some spurious reason might juist have some justifcation in being angry and shouty when they managed at some point in the future to face the mother who had witheld contact?


Nope, no reason at all. You lose all control when you shout and get angry and it *will and is* used  against people in court


----------



## quimcunx (Mar 19, 2012)

1927 said:


> Dont you think that a father who had turned up to see his child only to find them not available for some spurious reason might juist have some justifcation in being angry and shouty when they managed at some point in the future to face the mother who had witheld contact?


 
They are justified in being angry but, while people do of course lose their tempers and shout sometimes, it's not ok or advisable to do so just because the other has done something which is also not ok.


----------



## rover07 (Mar 19, 2012)

1927 said:


> Dont you think that a father who had turned up to see his child only to find them not available for some spurious reason might juist have some justifcation in being angry and shouty when they managed at some point in the future to face the mother who had witheld contact?



No.

The father should withold his anger for the sake of his child and future amicable contact with the mother.

Why should she put up with constant abuse every time she drops off her child. No wonder she is finding spurious reasons to withold contact.


----------



## xes (Mar 19, 2012)

1927 said:


> Dont you think that a father who had turned up to see his child only to find them not available for some spurious reason might juist have some justifcation in being angry and shouty when they managed at some point in the future to face the mother who had witheld contact?


so, basically, according to the posts above (baring 2, Quimmys and Garfs post) No, you are not allowed to show anything other than pure love to the one who is fucking with you in every way that she can, just to hurt you, just to be vindictive. To do anything else means that it's all your fault and you're an unfit parent. Sorry, but urbanz has spoken.


----------



## quimcunx (Mar 19, 2012)

rover07 said:


> No.
> 
> The father should withold his anger for the sake of his child and future amicable contact with the mother.
> 
> Why should she put up with constant abuse every time she drops off her child. No wonder she is finding spurious reasons to withold contact.


 
This is exactly the sort of stuff that seems to go on in peoples heads in bitter splits even though the split itself was nothing to do with abusive behaviour on either part. Both see themselves as the one who's been wronged and just reacting to that. Tit for tat, back and forth, into the sunset they skip.


----------



## trashpony (Mar 19, 2012)

xes said:


> so, basically, according to the posts above (baring 2, Quimmys and Garfs post) No, you are not allowed to show anything other than pure love to the one who is fucking with you in every way that she can, just to hurt you, just to be vindictive. To do anything else means that it's all your fault and you're an unfit parent. Sorry, but urbanz has spoken.


 
No one has said that have they? What they have said is that it's probably not conducive and really unfair *on the children. *
Given you were the one who said how distressing you found it when your parents used you a pawn in their power games, I'd think you'd appreciate that.

No one should scream and shout in front of their kids if they can help it, and certainly not around issues of access, however frustrating it is. It's a great way to make kids feel really fucking shit about themselves.


----------



## fractionMan (Mar 19, 2012)

rover07 said:


> No.
> 
> The father should withold his anger for the sake of his child and future amicable contact with the mother.
> 
> Why should she put up with constant abuse every time she drops off her child. No wonder she is finding spurious reasons to withold contact.


 

And likewise the other way around.

My experience has been to receive a bunch of abuse when collecting or dropping off the lil one. Although it's got an awful lot better with time. It can be hard to keep calm but you have to, for the sake of the kid.

Both parents should just be civil and get on with it, but I live in la la land on that one.


----------



## xes (Mar 19, 2012)

trashpony said:


> No one has said that have they? What they have said is that it's probably not conducive and really unfair *on the children. *
> Given you were the one who said how distressing you found it when your parents used you a pawn in their power games, I'd think you'd appreciate that.
> 
> No one should scream and shout in front of their kids if they can help it, and certainly not around issues of access, however frustrating it is. It's a great way to make kids feel really fucking shit about themselves.


 1927 hasn't said anything about getting angry infront of his kid/s. That's been added by people here. They've basically said "no, you have no right to be angry" which is fucking bullshit. He has every right to be angry, he's been lied about in court, and his kid is being used as a pawn against him. I'd say that those saying that it's all his fault, and no wonder she doesn't want to drop the kids off to him, are talking out of their arses with no experience of what he's going through.


----------



## Belushi (Mar 19, 2012)

xes said:


> 1927 hasn't said anything about getting angry infront of his kid/s. That's been added by people here. They've basically said "no, you have no right to be angry" which is fucking bullshit. He has every right to be angry, he's been lied about in court, and his kid is being used as a pawn against him. I'd say that those saying that it's all his fault, and no wonder she doesn't want to drop the kids off to him, are talking out of their arses with no experience of what he's going through.


 
None of that is actually true. Are you reading a different thread to the rest of us?


----------



## xes (Mar 19, 2012)

"Nope, no reason at all"

"Why should she put up with constant abuse every time she drops off her child. No wonder she is finding spurious reasons to withold contact."

looks like this is in the same thread.


----------



## Grandma Death (Mar 19, 2012)

xes said:


> 1927 hasn't said anything about getting angry infront of his kid/s. That's been added by people here. They've basically said "no, you have no right to be angry" which is fucking bullshit. He has every right to be angry, he's been lied about in court, and his kid is being used as a pawn against him. I'd say that those saying that it's all his fault, and no wonder she doesn't want to drop the kids off to him, are talking out of their arses with no experience of what he's going through.



Sorry have I missed something?  Who exactly had said this?


----------



## Ted Striker (Mar 19, 2012)

Belushi said:


> None of that is actually true. Are you reading a different thread to the rest of us?


 
This was a bit cunty, tbf.



rover07 said:


> Why should she put up with constant abuse every time she drops off her child. No wonder she is finding spurious reasons to withold contact.


----------



## Belushi (Mar 19, 2012)

xes said:


> "Nope, no reason at all"
> 
> "Why should she put up with constant abuse every time she drops off her child. No wonder she is finding spurious reasons to withold contact."
> 
> looks like this is in the same thread.


 
Do you have a problem with comprehension?


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 19, 2012)

1927 said:


> The former. I was atually advised by my legal guy that I should expect allegations of a certain type and when the allegations came it was word for word what he said she would allege, the alleagtions were even in the order he said they would be made. I have other evidence too of a serving social worker within the department dealing with my case, writing letters for her to write in her own hand and submit to court making false allegations.



If you have evidence of a social worker doing that, you need to make a complaint. That is serious malpractice and would constitute gross misconduct.


----------



## xes (Mar 19, 2012)

Belushi said:


> Do you have a problem with comprehension?


none what so ever. How have I got any of those 2 quotes wrong?

What rover said is bang out of order. Basically blaming 1927 for having feelings, saying that it's all his fault. And another poster saying that he has no reason to be angry. How else am I to comprehend it?


----------



## trashpony (Mar 19, 2012)

I think you must be reading a different thread

I haven't seen anyone saying he has no right to be angry and that it's all his fault 

I think pretty much every urbanite has been 100% behing 1927 and the shit he's gone through over the last year or so.


----------



## Belushi (Mar 19, 2012)

xes said:


> none what so ever. How have I got any of those 2 quotes wrong?
> 
> What rover said is bang out of order. Basically blaming 1927 for having feelings, saying that it's all his fault. And another poster saying that he has no reason to be angry. How else am I to comprehend it?


 
No he didnt. Go and read those posts again, in context.


----------



## weepiper (Mar 19, 2012)

xes said:


> none what so ever. How have I got any of those 2 quotes wrong?
> 
> What rover said is bang out of order. Basically blaming 1927 for having feelings, saying that it's all his fault. And another poster saying that he has no reason to be angry. How else am I to comprehend it?


 
woah! AFAIK 1927 was using a hypothetical father as an example, not himself, and the posters you quoted were responding in kind!


----------



## Grandma Death (Mar 19, 2012)

1927 has every right to feel angry about his experiences but with the greatest of respect his experiences aren't everybody's and neither should his experiences give him the right to make very specific claims without substantiating them.  He can expect some degree of call out on an Internet forum regardless of his experiences.


----------



## Ted Striker (Mar 19, 2012)

Grandma Death said:


> 1927 has every right to feel angry about his experiences but with the greatest of respect his experiences aren't everybody's and neither should his experiences give him the right to make very specific claims without substantiating them. He can expect some degree of call out on an Internet forum regardless of his experiences.


 
It's a bit odd though, that people with experiences are treated with "well, they're just your experiences, not everyones".

Of course they are, but people seem rather quick to discount then owing to their lack of correlation to their own _viewpoint_. What drives your _viewpoint_?

Have you all undergone work experience with the necessary authorities and/or performed subjective analysis of the situations?

Just seems logically daft to me.

I don't think 1927 et al is in any way suggesting it's the sole MO of every social authority in the land to poison women against the male parent, though in his experience it looks like it happened. Worth mentioning, no?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 19, 2012)

Three out of the five craziest people I've ever had a prolonged conversation with were father's rights activists. I can safely say that these people at least were their own worst enemies. They were quite convinced that there was some feminist conspiracy amongst the (late middle aged, male, largely appointed by Fianna Fail) Irish judiciary to undermine The Traditional Family and advance a sinister women's rights agenda.

An unusually large number of them over here also insist on representing themselves in family law hearings, because they think that the various barristers and solicitors are in on the womanish agenda. Representing yourself in relatively simple proceedings is one thing, but doing it in prolonged family law proceedings is at the very least a potential indicator of madness in my view.


----------



## Grandma Death (Mar 19, 2012)

Ted Striker said:


> It's a bit odd though, that people with experiences are treated with "well, they're just your experiences, not everyones".
> 
> Of course they are, but people seem rather quick to discount then owing to their lack of correlation to their own _viewpoint_. What drives your _viewpoint_?
> 
> ...



His experiences which he has shared previously with urban are worth a mention.  I'm also not disregarding those experiences.  But it's spurious to suggest his ex partner benefitted from the support of feminist agencies (agencies which he still doesn't want to name)  and to suggest women fabricating claims against their partners happens every day-again without providing evidence of that.  That's a call out... Not a disregard for his emotions or what he went through.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 19, 2012)

1927 said:


> No its not! I was denied any contact with my son based on a false allegation which I could prove to be untrue with independent witnesses and statements from her own mother. I submitted them to her solicitor and was told that if I wrote to them again I would be reported for harrassment!


 
Look, in all seriousness, you shouldn't be sending stuff directly to your ex or even to her solicitor. That's your own solicitor's job.

What were you hoping to achieve by sending those documents to her? You aren't going to convince her of your point of view. You need to convince whatever the relevant authority making whatever decision you are contesting is, not the person on the other side.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Mar 19, 2012)

Ted Striker said:


> It's a bit odd though, that people with experiences are treated with "well, they're just your experiences, not everyones".
> 
> Of course they are, but people seem rather quick to discount then owing to their lack of correlation to their own _viewpoint_. What drives your _viewpoint_?
> 
> ...


Ted this anecdotal evidence isn't primary evidence it's nothing more than here say really we've got no way of proving that 1927 is telling the truth or not...

What can be used as proof is FACTS accompanied by EVIDENCE which support the claims that thousands of women every day claim they are abused by their partners entirely to influence custody battles or that there are a series of militant un-named feminist groups who encourage this process to happen.

I think his anecdotal evidence for this is entirely spurious, without merit and can be entirely dismissed.  His experience isn't worth a jot to the outrageous and patently ridiculous statement they have made.

They need to back it up or retract it as the misogynistic bollocks it is... it might also do them the world of good if they adjusted their attitude to women which would allow them to utter such a nonsensical statement in the first place... 

So no not at all worth mentioning... unless he can provide evidence...

that's what debates about point and counter point....

how can you counter something if it's entirely unverifiable or made the fuck up???

you can't... 

1927 needs to put up or shut up really...


----------



## CRI (Mar 19, 2012)

Grandma Death said:


> You keep making these claims without evidence. Where is your evidence that false claims happen everyday? Also who were the other feminist organisations you spoke of in your case. Finally why do you believe Women's Aid is a feminist organisation?


From what I know about Women's Aid, they are guided by feminist principles - i.e. they recognise that domestic abuse is predominately something carried out by men against their current or female partners and it happens in the context of a patriarchal society that values men more than women.  

That doesn't mean they or any other organisation that follows feminist principles, or any organisation that works predominately for or with women is motivated by hatred of men or the idea that all males are abusive.  It's also a serious accusation to suggest that they would encourage or coerce women who use their service to make up false allegations against men.

You could easily transplant this to the context of an organisation that follows anti-racist principles.  Just because they work primarily for and with Black, Asian or Minority Ethnic People who suffer racist abuse and recognise that racist abuse happens within a wider context of a society that's institutionally racist doesn't mean they are doing anything ethically wrong.  It doesn't mean they advise service-users to make up false allegations against white people.

All reliable data from police figures to the British Crime Survey show that domestic abuse shows that in at least 90% of cases, the  perpetrator is male and the victim female.  That doesn't mean that there aren't men who suffer abuse from female partners or indeed male partners nor that the organisations set up to support and protect female victims think abuse of men is tickity boo.  Same goes for the issue of racist abuse, or abuse related to sexual orientation.

What I've never "got" is why those who try to raise awareness of domestic abuse against men, racially motivated attacks on white people or abuse/marginalisation of straight people don't take the line of, "All abuse is wrong, we accept that most often it's carried out by men/white people/straight people, but it's still wrong when it happens to men/white people/straight people, and they also deserve our sympathy and support."  Instead, what you tend to get is alot of bleating about too much resource going into services for women/people of colour/gay men and Lesbians, about women/people of colour/gay men and Lesbians making too big a deal of things, even making false allegations.  Surely they should be arguing for more resources for and understanding of ALL victims of abuse rather than turning it into some competition for who suffers most.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Mar 19, 2012)

CRI can we clarify those figures please that should be 90% of reported cases.  

the real number of domestic violence cases is likely to be significantly higher and there's (anecdotal) evidence that cases of male abuse are massively under reported still...


----------



## CRI (Mar 19, 2012)

Garfield, there's anecdotal evidence to suggest that BOTH men and women under-report relationship abuse. We could debate until the cows come home about who's the most hard done by, but I can't see the point of it. What we DO know is that women and men suffering abuse, and indeed gay men and Lesbians experiencing relationship abuse don't all need the same kinds of support BUT we do know that there ain't enough of it as it stands, so that's why the arguments about too much going to one group and not another don't wash with me.

British Crime Survey, btw, isn't just based on reported domestic abuse/sexual assault/racist abuse, etc. incidents, but on anonymous self-reporting, so seen to be more reliable. Have a look at this recent one. On page 87, it shows that twice as many women as men reported having been victims of abuse from a partner since age 16 with women 9.5 times as likely to say they've experienced sexual abuse from a partner since age 16. And, on page 19 it states, "Female victims were more likely than male victims to be killed by a partner or ex-partner (47% and 5% respectively)" which is a level that's stayed pretty consistent for years. http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/public.../crime-research/hosb0212/hosb0212?view=Binary

I'm actually more interested in what we do to prevent shit happening in the future, you know, stuff with kids about self-respect, not buying into all the bullshit sexist, racist, classist, homophobic, etc. stereotypes, busting the crap the media feed kids about what they should and shouldn't do, and give them half a chance of having healthy, happy relationships and having the chance to achieve their potential. Maybe I'm a cock-eyed optimist, but . . .


----------



## quimcunx (Mar 19, 2012)

Where is the argument about women getting too many resources?


----------



## coley (Mar 19, 2012)

rover07 said:


> I like how you put 'remonstrate' in quotes.
> 
> Do you mean shout abuse in their face in order to intimidate them?
> 
> Yes its a well-known scenario.


 
I put in quotes because whatever form the remonstration takes the bloke always ends up the loser, blokes have only two faults, everything they say or do.


----------



## coley (Mar 19, 2012)

miss.w said:


> Nope, no reason at all. You lose all control when you shout and get angry and it *will and is* used against people in court


 
Aye, it a pain being human, more spocks needed.


----------



## coley (Mar 19, 2012)

rover07 said:


> No.
> 
> The father should withold his anger for the sake of his child and future amicable contact with the mother.
> 
> Why should she put up with constant abuse every time she drops off her child. No wonder she is finding spurious reasons to withold contact.


 
A neat reversal that


----------



## CRI (Mar 19, 2012)

quimcunx said:


> Where is the argument about women getting too many resources?


I've seen it on lots of discussion boards, CiF on the Guardian, for example.  For example, after an article about cuts in funding for Women's Aid or Rape Crisis, instead of condemning the cuts and arguing there should be MORE for all victims, you get a boatload of comments about the "domestic violence industry" creaming off public funds and why aren't there the same services for men, yadda yadda yadda.  I've seen exactly the same sort of crap related to organisations that deal with racism - remember all the guff recently when the two guys finally got done for killing Stephen Lawrence, all the peeps moaning about all the money spent on tackling racism?


----------



## Das Uberdog (Mar 19, 2012)

i know of two cases where a seemingly erratic mother has been able to restrict and withdraw access despite court rulings. i've also heard similar claims in those instances to those listed on here by 1927 and xes, about the informal power which the primary caregiver (almost always the mother) has over access; ability to change appointments at a moments notice, ability to deny access with little or no accountability, ability to register accusations of serious abuse and criminal behaviour which even when discounted by a court never put the prosecution at any risk of perjury, etc. in one case the mother moved halfway across the country without warning and the Dad, an acquaintance of mine, was left forced to forego his visitation hours. he believed at the time that this 'absence' would further feed back into the case against him being allowed access... i couldn't comment upon the legal implications personally.

in both cases i've only heard one side of the story, but what was said i've heard resonated in many different instances. what is clear, however, is that fathers *are* severely legally disadvantaged when it comes to both childcare rights and custody agreements. personally, i see no reason why the legalities of having children (paternity/maternity rights as much as custody agreements) should not be completely equal between mothers and fathers. if they were then perhaps we could sit back and presume that the different injustices on all sides balanced eachother out somehow, as seems to be the general consensus on this thread. but when even the most basic question of equal legislative rights isn't the same, that's frankly an absurd position.

ETA in both above cases i believe the courts did resolve in favour of shared access btw, though this didn't stop the problems


----------



## CRI (Mar 19, 2012)

Das, I don't have the data to hand, so no reason for you to believe me, but I've read that in countries where child care responsibilities are shared more equally in relationships (e.g. Norway,) and government agencies are hotter on ensuring absent parents pay towards their child's upbringing, that there is MORE likelihood of achieving an amicable arrangement between the parents after a break up, and that arrangement more often is closer to a 50/50 split. Some of that is down to a culture of collaboration over confrontation and a society that puts decent resources into the welfare of children. But, some of it has to be down to the care of the child after a split reflecting most closely what has "worked" for the child before the split, and maintaining as much continuity as possible for them.

Just a thought, but maybe if fathers pushed harder to have more paternity leave and flexible working, voted with their feet and hands by taking on a bigger share of child-rearing responsibilities, then if a relationship splits, there would be a stronger case to argue that shared care WAS in the best interests of the child. Ultimately folks, it's got to come down to what's right for the child, full stop. Thing is, if 90% of their care has been delivered by one parent, then shifting that suddenly after a relationship split could do a helluva lot of harm to the kid. Parents and their righteous indignation can just go hang if what they want conflicts with what the children need. That applies to male and female parents.

But, and it's a bit but, something like 95% of parents are able to come to an amicable arrangement for the care and support of their children after a break up. We all know of hard nut cases where the courts have got it wrong, but also ones where they've got it as right as is possible, when there actually ARE no perfect solutions.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Mar 19, 2012)

it wouldn't surprise me and as i say, i don't distinguish between the importance of general parenting rights such as maternity/paternity leave and the importance of legislative reform specifically in the case of the courts. but, stating the reality, the case currently is that neither are equal and it is currently legislatively impossible for men to play as much a role in the life of their kids as the mother - unless they're incredibly wealthy or unemployed

ETA or if the mother, of her own volition, decides to be the primary breadwinner


----------



## CRI (Mar 19, 2012)

Well, it becomes a big chicken and eggy then. If legislation, traditions and social expectations mean that female parents play a larger role in childrearing than male parents do, then it follows that the courts will reflect this in deciding access and residency. But, that's not specifically because the courts always take the mother's "side" against the father's, but that they have to come up with a solution that represents the best interests of the child. If the mother has been the primary care-giver, the decision may be to continue that arrangement.  If the balance of which parent is the main care giver shifts, you'll get more cases where post-split arrangements aren't so often skewed towards female parents.  It's not all about mothers being man-hating meanies or courts being dominated by feminists!

I think this is probably a pretty good example of why an institutionally sexist society is shit for men and for women.


----------



## Grandma Death (Mar 19, 2012)

CRI said:


> Das, I don't have the data to hand, so no reason for you to believe me, but I've read that in countries where child care responsibilities are shared more equally in relationships (e.g. Norway,) and government agencies are hotter on ensuring absent parents pay towards their child's upbringing, that there is MORE likelihood of achieving an amicable arrangement between the parents after a break up, and that arrangement more often is closer to a 50/50 split. Some of that is down to a culture of collaboration over confrontation and a society that puts decent resources into the welfare of children. But, some of it has to be down to the care of the child after a split reflecting most closely what has "worked" for the child before the split, and maintaining as much continuity as possible for them.
> 
> Just a thought, but maybe if fathers pushed harder to have more paternity leave and flexible working, voted with their feet and hands by taking on a bigger share of child-rearing responsibilities, then if a relationship splits, there would be a stronger case to argue that shared care WAS in the best interests of the child. Ultimately folks, it's got to come down to what's right for the child, full stop. Thing is, if 90% of their care has been delivered by one parent, then shifting that suddenly after a relationship split could do a helluva lot of harm to the kid. Parents and their righteous indignation can just go hang if what they want conflicts with what the children need. That applies to male and female parents.
> 
> But, and it's a bit but, something like 95% of parents are able to come to an amicable arrangement for the care and support of their children after a break up. We all know of hard nut cases where the courts have got it wrong, but also ones where they've got it as right as is possible, when there actually ARE no perfect solutions.



Brilliant post.


----------



## _angel_ (Mar 19, 2012)

Das Uberdog said:


> it wouldn't surprise me and as i say, i don't distinguish between the importance of general parenting rights such as maternity/paternity leave and the importance of legislative reform specifically in the case of the courts. but, stating the reality, the case currently is that neither are equal and it is currently legislatively impossible for men to play as much a role in the life of their kids as the mother - unless they're incredibly wealthy or unemployed
> 
> ETA or if the mother, of her own volition, decides to be the primary breadwinner


Could be self employed and work from home too!
Current maternity rights are better than they were when I had number one (16 weeks and remember this includes before having the baby) but they come at the expense of no employer wanting to take on a pregnant employee, or even in some cases, just a woman of child bearing age. Men don't tend to experience that discrimination if they become parents.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 19, 2012)

Das Uberdog said:


> in both cases i've only heard one side of the story, but what was said i've heard resonated in many different instances. what is clear, however, is that fathers *are* severely legally disadvantaged when it comes to both childcare rights and custody agreements. personally, i see no reason why the legalities of having children (paternity/maternity rights as much as custody agreements) should not be completely equal between mothers and fathers. if they were then perhaps we could sit back and presume that the different injustices on all sides balanced eachother out somehow, as seems to be the general consensus on this thread. but when even the most basic question of equal legislative rights isn't the same, that's frankly an absurd position.


 
Firstly, and this is important to remember, the single biggest "non compliance" problem faced by the Family Courts is not primary carers screwing with access rights, but father's avoiding paying maintenance.

Secondly, it's worth noting that fathers rarely seek to be the primary carer of the children after break up except in occasional cases where they were the primary carer before the break up. In fact, they rarely seek "joint custody" in the sense of becoming the primary carer for half of the time either, instead if they seek "joint custody" at all they tend to look for it in the sense of having an equal say rather than equal responsibility. There are, of course, exceptions to this.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Mar 19, 2012)

ETA @ angel

that's true, but i also think that the likelihood of the woman becoming the primary caregiver in the case of pregnancy is partly behind that discrimination - a situation which is reinforced by the law which makes any alternative very unlikely.

not saying that it's the case that Dads out there are all clamouring at the gates and only the law is holding them back, just that the law is the primary stumbling block atm and without it changing you can't expect anything better


----------



## Das Uberdog (Mar 19, 2012)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Firstly, and this is important to remember, the single biggest "non compliance" problem faced by the Family Courts is not primary carers screwing with access rights, but father's avoiding paying maintenance.
> 
> Secondly, it's worth noting that fathers rarely seek to be the primary carer of the children after break up except in occasional cases where they were the primary carer before the break up. In fact, they rarely seek "joint custody" in the sense of becoming the primary carer for half of the time either, instead if they seek "joint custody" at all they tend to look for it in the sense of having an equal say rather than equal responsibility. There are, of course, exceptions to this.


 
that's true but of course it would be, after you'd built up a whole life around yourself normalised to certain habits and dependent upon income streams etc. of course the primary caregiver will be the one to apply for full custody, and because of legislative and cultural norms the primary caregiver is almost always the woman


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 19, 2012)

Das Uberdog said:


> not saying that it's the case that Dads out there are all clamouring at the gates and only the law is holding them back, just that the law is the primary stumbling block atm and without it changing you can't expect anything better


 
The law on paternity leave should certainly be changed, but I sincerely doubt that it's the primary driver behind the continued existence of traditional gender roles in the family!


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 19, 2012)

Das Uberdog said:


> that's true but of course it would be, after you'd built up a whole life around yourself normalised to certain habits and dependent upon income streams etc. of course the primary caregiver will be the one to apply for full custody, and because of legislative and cultural norms the primary caregiver is almost always the woman


 
I suspect that the "cultural norms" (ie we live in a sexist society) part is rather more important than the "legislative norms" part. Legislation doesn't prevent father's from becoming primary carers while the relationship is ongoing - social norms, social expectations and sexist employment practices do.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Mar 19, 2012)

but as i say, in most cases it's literally impossible for the roles to be otherwise. how can we realistically assess the depth of those cultural factors whilst the stats are so blatantly perverted by a really quite fundamental fact?


----------



## _angel_ (Mar 19, 2012)

Nigel Irritable said:


> The law on paternity leave should certainly be changed, but I sincerely doubt that it's the primary driver behind the continued existence of traditional gender roles in the family!


also men would have to not feel pressured into waiving their rights....


----------



## Grandma Death (Mar 19, 2012)

Das Uberdog said:


> it wouldn't surprise me and as i say, i don't distinguish between the importance of general parenting rights such as maternity/paternity leave and the importance of legislative reform specifically in the case of the courts. but, stating the reality, the case currently is that neither are equal and it is currently legislatively impossible for men to play as much a role in the life of their kids as the mother - unless they're incredibly wealthy or unemployed
> 
> ETA or if the mother, of her own volition, decides to be the primary breadwinner



I'm currently in every case.  I work part time my partner full time.  I'm the primary carer for our two kids.  More and more women are becoming the highest earners in the household so my situation isn't rare. Personally we found it hard when she went on mat leave because she earns triple what I earn.  Societal attitudes to childcare need overhauling in some cases and mat leave should be one area looked at.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 19, 2012)

Das Uberdog said:


> but as i say, in most cases it's literally impossible for the roles to be otherwise. how can we realistically assess the depth of those cultural factors whilst the stats are so blatantly perverted by a really quite fundamental fact?


 
Hang on, how exactly is it "literally impossible for the roles to be otherwise" in most cases? There are strong cultural pressures towards the woman becoming the primary caregiver within the family and there are also pay gap issues adding to that pressure, but it is not "literally impossible" for the roles to be otherwise.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Mar 19, 2012)

ok, if not absolutely impossible in general it's usually impossible for the man to make a decision to be the primary caregiver. that choice ultimately comes down to the mother, as at the end of the day she has the legal rights


----------



## Miss-Shelf (Mar 19, 2012)

fathers legal rights have increased during the last few years - may take longer to catch up other institutions to this - for instance, the nurseries and schools I work with have varying policies around parental responsibility - some make a point of contact all those with parental responsibility and won't act against a parent with parental responsibility unless there is evidence, others don't enquire about who has parental responsibility and will take one parents word against anothers which is not a legal position they should take (and I've seen it go to both mums and dads - but more against dads has to be said)


----------



## trashpony (Mar 19, 2012)

Grandma Death said:


> I'm currently in every case. I work part time my partner full time. I'm the primary carer for our two kids. More and more women are becoming the highest earners in the household so my situation isn't rare. Personally we found it hard when she went on mat leave because she earns triple what I earn. Societal attitudes to childcare need overhauling in some cases and mat leave should be one area looked at.


But where are the men's organisations lobbying for greater paternity leave? I don't see F4J doing it. It's absolutely something that needs to be looked at - it should be about parental leave after the first six months (assuming we support exclusive breastfeeding for the first six months) but men's rights groups are not terribly vocal on the subject which is really mind-boggling to me. If you want to look after your children should your relationship break up, look after them when you're still together. 

I have no doubt in your situation GD, that were you and your partner to split up, you would probably be given 50/50 custody. But a lot of men aren't interested in doing all the grunt work of the early years (which is considerable) and then have a hissy fit when their partner gets awarded custody. The courts should definitely be more transparent - I think our family court system represents a travesty of justice in a lot of cases - and because we are never told, we have no idea of the scale of it. But what is important is *what's best for the child.* And I suspect that, even if there were a good deal more transparency, the courts would still award primary care to mothers in the majority of cases because they have been the ones doing all the early years care.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 19, 2012)

Das Uberdog said:


> ok, if not absolutely impossible in general it's usually impossible for the man to make a decision to be the primary caregiver. that choice ultimately comes down to the mother, as at the end of the day she has the legal rights


 
What on earth are you talking about?

The law pushes women to be the primary caregiver for the first six months to a year. There is nothing in the legal framework which distinguishes between fathers and mothers within the family after that. It's not about women having "the choice" and "the legal rights" - families, wrongly, have an incentive for the mother rather the father to be the primary caregiver for the first six months to a year. After that it's up to the parents concerned. And the fact that many families "choose" to have the woman stay at home or work part time after that reflects not the powerful legal position of women but the sexist nature of society.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 19, 2012)

trashpony said:


> I have no doubt in your situation GD, that were you and your partner to split up, you would probably be given 50/50 custody.


 
Actually, he'd most likely find himself as the primary caregiver after a break up. The mother might be awarded "joint custody" in the equal right to a say sense but would be unlikely to be awarded "joint custody" in the joint caregiver sense.

The basic rule of thumb, at least in Ireland and I strongly suspect in England too, is that whoever is primary caregiver before the break up generally ends up as primary caregiver after the break up unless the Courts think that they have a very good reason to mess with that.


----------



## trashpony (Mar 19, 2012)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Actually, he'd most likely find himself as the primary caregiver after a break up. The mother might be awarded "joint custody" in the equal right to a say sense but would be unlikely to be awarded "joint custody" in the joint caregiver sense.


Yes, you're probably right


----------



## Das Uberdog (Mar 19, 2012)

Nigel Irritable said:


> What on earth are you talking about?
> 
> *The law pushes women to be the primary caregiver for the first six months to a year. There is nothing in the legal framework which distinguishes between fathers and mothers within the family after that*. It's not about women having "the choice" and "the legal rights" - families, wrongly, have an incentive for the mother rather the father to be the primary caregiver for the first six months to a year. After that it's up to the parents concerned. And the fact that many families "choose" to have the woman stay at home or work part time after that reflects not the powerful legal position of women but the sexist nature of society.


other than the massive reconfiguration of your life which occurs in that 6 months which creates a completely different ball park of possibilities. really don't understand what you're finding difficult to understand in this.


----------



## Miss-Shelf (Mar 19, 2012)

not just paternity leave either but different notions of work/family balance

my BIL is a consultant (dr) and is always at work - he has 2 children - he never says no to work or lobbies for a change to the way that the NHS expects its clinicians to accept this patriarchal way of working - ie that there's a wife at home who has dumped her job/career to totally support his by meeting all the childrens needs (which is what my sister has done )


----------



## trashpony (Mar 19, 2012)

Das Uberdog said:


> other than the massive reconfiguration of your life which occurs in that 6 months which creates a completely different ball park of possibilities. really don't understand what you're finding difficult to understand in this.


It's difficult to understand because it's not true. Women get more maternity leave than men get paternity. Other than that, there's no 'legal right' for a woman to look after children than a man


----------



## coley (Mar 19, 2012)

trashpony said:


> But where are the men's organisations lobbying for greater paternity leave? I don't see F4J doing it. It's absolutely something that needs to be looked at - it should be about parental leave after the first six months (assuming we support exclusive breastfeeding for the first six months) but men's rights groups are not terribly vocal on the subject which is really mind-boggling to me. If you want to look after your children should your relationship break up, look after them when you're still together.
> 
> I have no doubt in your situation GD, that were you and your partner to split up, you would probably be given 50/50 custody.* But a lot of men aren't interested in doing all the grunt work of the early years (which is considerable) and then have a hissy fit when their partner gets awarded custody.* The courts should definitely be more transparent - I think our family court system represents a travesty of justice in a lot of cases - and because we are never told, we have no idea of the scale of it. But what is important is *what's best for the child.* And I suspect that, even if there were a good deal more transparency, the courts would still award primary care to mothers in the majority of cases because they have been the ones doing all the early years care.


 
Aye because the bloke is usually out to work and as for paternity leave its often down to economics PL is not well paid and having both parents on leave would be economically impractable and as for early years care, I would have gladly taken over the role as primary carer but the wife at the time refused point blank to gan doon thi pit


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 19, 2012)

Das Uberdog said:


> other than the massive reconfiguration of your life which occurs in that 6 months which creates a completely different ball park of possibilities. really don't understand what you're finding difficult to understand in this.


 
What exactly do you mean here?

Say the woman in a relationship takes maternity leave for six months. Then she goes back to her job full time. While the man in the relationship looks for part time work or stays at home. How exactly is this massively and insurmountably more difficult than the man staying in his job while the woman looks for part time work or stays at home?

The absence of real paternity leave does play a role, however social pressures and expectations are overall a much bigger issue. And these pressures reflect themselves in women "choosing" to stay at home (or work part time) and men "choosing" to continue in full time employment. But choices are conditioned and constrained, less by the law and more by sexist norms.


----------



## trashpony (Mar 19, 2012)

Miss-Shelf said:


> not just paternity leave either but different notions of work/family balance
> 
> my BIL is a consultant (dr) and is always at work - he has 2 children - he never says no to work or lobbies for a change to the way that the NHS expects its clinicians to accept this patriarchal way of working - ie that there's a wife at home who has dumped her job/career to totally support his by meeting all the childrens needs (which is what my sister has done )


Well exactly. As some of the early posts on this thread showed 'why are women posting on mumsnet when they should be looking after their children?'. Heaven forbid women have children and then go back to work


----------



## Das Uberdog (Mar 19, 2012)

so in the first 6 months of the child's life (presuming at least one of the parents wants to be a part of its development and they aren't just going to pay for childcare which is out of the reach of most people) one has to take 6 months to a year out of work. only one parent has the right to do this with pay or partial pay. at the end of this period you think it's just easy to switch back around?


----------



## Das Uberdog (Mar 19, 2012)

paternity/maternity rights also feed into the legal possibilities for part-time work too, which is far harder to get if you're a bloke


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 19, 2012)

Das Uberdog said:


> at the end of this period you think it's just easy to switch back around?


 
No, it not necessarily easy to switch back around. But it isn't logistically vastly more difficult if both parents actually want to switch. The core issue isn't the "impossibility" of switching, but the lack of desire to switch, on the part of both parents but men in particular.

Look at it from another angle: Say equal paternity leave rights were brought in tomorrow (something I suspect everyone on this thread would support). Do you think that from that moment on equal number of men would be the primary carer in all new families? And if not, what does that say about the factors which constrain choice?


----------



## Miss-Shelf (Mar 19, 2012)

Das Uberdog said:


> paternity/maternity rights also feed into the legal possibilities for part-time work too, which is far harder to get if you're a bloke


men are employed in many different jobs and industries - I can't believe they are all opposed to part time work - it's also about men lobbying their work to change practice and modelling this


----------



## Das Uberdog (Mar 19, 2012)

sort of agree on both of the above posts, but again we're talking about an institutional set-up which significantly pushes the relationship in one direction. wrt the workplace, it is about lobbying them but also maternity rights protect women from demotion and victimisation for voluntarily reducing their hours, a protection which isn't present for guys


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Mar 19, 2012)

CRI said:


> Garfield, there's anecdotal evidence to suggest that BOTH men and women under-report relationship abuse. We could debate until the cows come home about who's the most hard done by, but I can't see the point of it. What we DO know is that women and men suffering abuse, and indeed gay men and Lesbians experiencing relationship abuse don't all need the same kinds of support BUT we do know that there ain't enough of it as it stands, so that's why the arguments about too much going to one group and not another don't wash with me.
> 
> British Crime Survey, btw, isn't just based on reported domestic abuse/sexual assault/racist abuse, etc. incidents, but on anonymous self-reporting, so seen to be more reliable. Have a look at this recent one. On page 87, it shows that twice as many women as men reported having been victims of abuse from a partner since age 16 with women 9.5 times as likely to say they've experienced sexual abuse from a partner since age 16. And, on page 19 it states, "Female victims were more likely than male victims to be killed by a partner or ex-partner (47% and 5% respectively)" which is a level that's stayed pretty consistent for years. http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/public.../crime-research/hosb0212/hosb0212?view=Binary
> 
> I'm actually more interested in what we do to prevent shit happening in the future, you know, stuff with kids about self-respect, not buying into all the bullshit sexist, racist, classist, homophobic, etc. stereotypes, busting the crap the media feed kids about what they should and shouldn't do, and give them half a chance of having healthy, happy relationships and having the chance to achieve their potential. Maybe I'm a cock-eyed optimist, but . . .



Just clarifying not disputing


----------



## Thora (Mar 19, 2012)

Das Uberdog said:


> so in the first 6 months of the child's life (presuming at least one of the parents wants to be a part of its development and they aren't just going to pay for childcare which is out of the reach of most people) one has to take 6 months to a year out of work. only one parent has the right to do this with pay or partial pay. at the end of this period you think it's just easy to switch back around?


Yes, why wouldn't it be?  Why would it be harder than one person going back to work?

After a year off I went back to work part time, and my partner worked almost full time but quite flexibly from home.  At some point this year I will go fulltime and he will take on more of the childcare responsibilities.  None of this has been impossible to do.

Obviously there is an issue that due to the society we live in, women are more likely to be paid less.  But this isn't a given.


----------



## Thora (Mar 19, 2012)

Das Uberdog said:


> sort of agree on both of the above posts, but again we're talking about an institutional set-up which significantly pushes the relationship in one direction. wrt the workplace, it is about lobbying them but also maternity rights protect women from demotion and victimisation for voluntarily reducing their hours, a protection which isn't present for guys


Actually fathers have the same rights to flexible working (and parental leave) as mothers.


----------



## Thora (Mar 19, 2012)

And fathers can take the second half of maternity leave now too.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Mar 19, 2012)

Thora said:


> Yes, why wouldn't it be? Why would it be harder than one person going back to work?
> 
> After a year off I went back to work part time, and my partner worked almost full time but quite flexibly from home. At some point this year I will go fulltime and he will take on more of the childcare responsibilities. None of this has been impossible to do.
> 
> Obviously there is an issue that due to the society we live in, women are more likely to be paid less. But this isn't a given.


I think that in most cases things are infinitely more complicated than that, and would also say that ultimately you - as the mother - are the one with the veto on any decisions made around the primary carer. if, on the basis of your initial maternity leave, you decided you wanted to continue there would really be very little your partner could do about it. what if your partner wasn't able to get flexible hours or work from home? what if he worked in a factory or a shop or a conventional workplace, as most do?

in practice the cultural attitudes of both sides does play a significant role, undoubtedly - but as i've said there are all kinds of issues which sprout from the issue of maternity rights/pay which institutionalise our present division


----------



## Das Uberdog (Mar 19, 2012)

Thora said:


> And fathers can take the second half of maternity leave now too.


 a very recent development made in the last few years, and a positive one.

but the laws around flexi-time are not equal. your employer has the right to refuse it, and they are culturally more likely to award it if you are already the primary care giver which for obvious reasons means it's easier for the mum


----------



## Thora (Mar 19, 2012)

Das Uberdog said:


> I think that in most cases things are infinitely more complicated than that, and would also say that ultimately you - as the mother - are the one with the veto on any decisions made around the primary carer. if, on the basis of your initial maternity leave, you decided you wanted to continue there would really be very little your partner could do about it. what if your partner wasn't able to get flexible hours or work from home? what if he worked in a factory or a shop or a conventional workplace, as most do?
> 
> in practice the cultural attitudes of both sides does play a significant role, undoubtedly - but as i've said there are all kinds of issues which sprout from the issue of maternity rights/pay which institutionalise our present division


Maybe things are changing then - from the friends I have who had a baby at the same time as me (within the last couple of years) no one is doing the full time working dad/full time at home mum set-up.  Everyone is working shifts, reduced hours, compressed hours, from home so that work and childcare is juggled between the two of them.  And yes, that is in shops, hospitals and offices.


----------



## Thora (Mar 19, 2012)

Das Uberdog said:


> a very recent development made in the last few years, and a positive one.
> 
> but the laws around flexi-time are not equal. your employer has the right to refuse it, and they are culturally more likely to award it if you are already the primary care giver which for obvious reasons means it's easier for the mum


Mothers and fathers have the same right to apply for it.  Why would employers be more likely to award it for a primary carer?  That's hardly a business reason.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Mar 19, 2012)

i've noticed the same thing but mainly from professional couples, not from prolier sorts


----------



## Das Uberdog (Mar 19, 2012)

Thora said:


> Mothers and fathers have the same right to apply for it. Why would employers be more likely to award it for a primary carer? That's hardly a business reason.


culturally speaking its the given thing, and also it's legally more supportable in the event of a legal dispute if the claim can be made that the request was made on the basis of childcare provision


----------



## Thora (Mar 19, 2012)

I don't know any professional couples, but don't they usually work full time and hire a nanny?


----------



## Thora (Mar 19, 2012)

Das Uberdog said:


> culturally speaking its the given thing, and also it's legally more supportable in the event of a legal dispute if the claim can be made that the request was made on the basis of childcare provision


Is it?  I was under the impression employers could only refuse for business reasons, and "men don't do childcare" isn't a business reason as far as I'm aware.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Mar 19, 2012)

i've read sociological studies which would suggest it's a very real phenomenon


----------



## trashpony (Mar 19, 2012)

It's around 60/40 women/men at school drop off where I live. In most of the families, both parents work but they both work part time or flexibly. There are some mums I never see at drop off and some I never see at pick up.

A mother has no more right to dictate her family set up viz her going back to work than a man does. It's negotiated between the parents isn't it, so that it makes most sense for them as a family? And if it isn't, it should be.


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 19, 2012)

Citizen66 said:


> Careful now. They might contact urban's advertisers.


 
Well I'm gonna lol at this. An audience of one, laughing at his own joke.


----------



## Grandma Death (Mar 19, 2012)

trashpony said:


> But where are the men's organisations lobbying for greater paternity leave? I don't see F4J doing it. It's absolutely something that needs to be looked at - it should be about parental leave after the first six months (assuming we support exclusive breastfeeding for the first six months) but men's rights groups are not terribly vocal on the subject which is really mind-boggling to me. If you want to look after your children should your relationship break up, look after them when you're still together.
> 
> I have no doubt in your situation GD, that were you and your partner to split up, you would probably be given 50/50 custody. But a lot of men aren't interested in doing all the grunt work of the early years (which is considerable) and then have a hissy fit when their partner gets awarded custody. The courts should definitely be more transparent - I think our family court system represents a travesty of justice in a lot of cases - and because we are never told, we have no idea of the scale of it. But what is important is *what's best for the child.* And I suspect that, even if there were a good deal more transparency, the courts would still award primary care to mothers in the majority of cases because they have been the ones doing all the early years care.


I agree trash.  I don't ever recall F4J supporting the plans put forward by labour to split mat leave for parents nor do I remember them being so vocal when those plans were shelved.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Mar 19, 2012)

here's an interesting article, pre-dating Labour's maternity shake-up, which corroborates what i was saying flexible working hours:

http://www.demos.co.uk/blog/thebattleforgenderequalityinthehome

'Firstly, the division of parental leave entitlements is currently grossly unequal. While mothers are guaranteed six weeks of maternity leave, paid at 90 per cent of their earnings, followed by 33 weeks paid at the statutory rate, fathers are entitled to only two weeks of paid birth leave, paid at the statutory rate. From April this year, new regulations introduced by Labour mean that up to 26 weeks of leave that is not taken by the mother can be transferred to the father. Although this is a welcome improvement, such a transfer is only possible if the mother is eligible for statutory maternity pay and has already returned to work. Passporting paternity leave entitlements through the mother in this way perpetuates the assumption that mothers are more appropriate carers for their children from birth onwards.
 Secondly, fathers are much more likely to work long hours than either mothers or childless men. Flexible working – either in terms of hours or location - is an important means of supporting parents to juggle their professional and parenting responsibilities effectively and has also been found to have a positive influence on parenting style. The Labour government introduced a right to request flexible working for all parents of children aged up to 16. However, employers are under no obligation to accept requests, and research has found that fathers are not benefiting from this policy as much as mothers. Fathers are less likely than mothers to request flexible working arrangements, and less likely to have their request accepted. Research has also found that more fathers than mothers are concerned that making such a request might have a negative effect on their career prospects. Employers therefore have an essential role to play in supporting working fathers, as well as mothers, to identify flexible working arrangements that can fit around their childcare commitments.
 Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, there continues to be a significant gender pay gap of 15.5%. This is both a cause and effect of mothers’ continuing hegemony over family life. 67 per cent of parents polled by Demos agreed with the statement that they were their child’s main carer because it made better financial sense. If men continue to be paid more than women, it will _always _make better financial sense for mothers, rather than fathers, to take the greater proportion of parental leave, to restrict their working hours or to take a career break when they have a child. When these individual choices are aggregated across the economy, remunerating women fairly and promoting them to senior positions does, of course, look like a greater business risk than doing the same for men. Addressing the gender pay gap and making employment and family policy equally supportive of male and female carers are both, therefore, essential parts of the process for achieving greater gender equality and genuine choice in family life.'


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 19, 2012)

Thora said:
			
		

> Obviously there is an issue that due to the society we live in, women are more likely to be paid less. But this isn't a given.


 
It's also worth noting that the gender pay gap is less for full time work, is declining for younger workers, and, crucially, that a considerable chunk of the pay gap is itself down to women being forced out of the paid economy for years on end after giving birth. A young woman in a relationship where it is decided early that her partner will be primary caregiver is statistically amongst the least effected by the gender pay gap.


----------



## weepiper (Mar 19, 2012)

It's worth noting here that women _need_ to have maternity leave for I'd say at least two or three months after giving birth, whether or not they are the ones actually doing the looking after of the baby, because pregnancy and birth take some physical getting over/recovery. Your hormones and sleep patterns and brain power take a good while to settle down. that's not to say it shouldn't be easier for men to take time off work for childcare reasons.


----------



## coley (Mar 19, 2012)

Anybody know if legal aid is still available for people involved in these scenarios?


----------



## trashpony (Mar 19, 2012)

Das Uberdog - agree. The patriarchy is shit for men as well as women, squeezing us into gendered roles whether we like it or not #

Nigel - I know that's true statistically but as someone who was childless until her early 40s (and single to boot!), being told I didn't deserve to be paid as much as a colleague because he 'was going to have to support a family one day' really irritated the fuck out of me (and this was in the 1990s so not immediately after the war or anything )


----------



## Termite Man (Mar 19, 2012)

Das Uberdog said:


> so in the first 6 months of the child's life (presuming at least one of the parents wants to be a part of its development and they aren't just going to pay for childcare which is out of the reach of most people) one has to take 6 months to a year out of work. only one parent has the right to do this with pay or partial pay. at the end of this period you think it's just easy to switch back around?


 

not true!


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 19, 2012)

trashpony said:


> Nigel - I know that's true statistically but as someone who was childless until her early 40s (and single to boot!), being told I didn't deserve to be paid as much as a colleague because he 'was going to have to support a family one day' really irritated the fuck out of me (and this was in the 1990s so not immediately after the war or anything )


 
No disagreement there. Discrimination still happens and is still a contributing factor to the pay gap.


----------



## Winot (Mar 19, 2012)

Thora said:


> I don't know any professional couples, but don't they usually work full time and hire a nanny?



How are you defining professional?

Not the case amongst most of the career couples I know. Usually one of them (and usually the woman) works part time.


----------



## fractionMan (Mar 19, 2012)

Das Uberdog said:


> i've read sociological studies which would suggest it's a very real phenomenon


 
It depends on your boss and where you work.  All they have to do is consider it, they can invent any reason they like to turn you down.  I can totally see the studies supporting the idea that women are more likely to be granted flexible hours, and I expect the reasons are cultural/sexist.

Anecdotaly I can say that I've got flexible hours btw.  So some men do get it.


----------



## albionism (Mar 19, 2012)

The reason F4J types can't see their children is largely
because they have been fucking horrible bastards to them.
My wife and i fought for 5 years to ensure our children
were safe from their abusive biological "father". The
family courts do not make "no contact" orders lighty, if
anything they are more inclined to allow an abusive parent
to continue contact, as was our case for years until the 
boys got big enough and brave enough to just refuse to go any more.


----------



## coley (Mar 19, 2012)

albionism said:


> The reason F4J types can't see their children is largely
> because they have been fucking horrible bastards to them.
> My wife and i fought for 5 years to ensure our children
> were safe from their abusive biological "father". The
> ...


 
You cant generalise on your personal circumstances, you are saying most of  those in F4J fit this particular characterisation? hardly


----------



## 1927 (Mar 19, 2012)

rover07 said:


> No.
> 
> The father should withold his anger for the sake of his child and future amicable contact with the mother.
> 
> Why should she put up with constant abuse every time she drops off her child. No wonder she is finding spurious reasons to withold contact.


 
Which came first the chicken or the egg?


----------



## 1927 (Mar 19, 2012)

trashpony said:


> No one has said that have they? What they have said is that it's probably not conducive and really unfair *on the children. *
> Given you were the one who said how distressing you found it when your parents used you a pawn in their power games, I'd think you'd appreciate that.
> 
> No one should scream and shout in front of their kids if they can help it, and certainly not around issues of access, however frustrating it is. It's a great way to make kids feel really fucking shit about themselves.


You assume that the shouty angry behaviour took place in front of the kids!


----------



## albionism (Mar 19, 2012)

coley said:


> You cant generalise on your personal circumstances, you are saying most of those in F4J fit this particular characterisation? hardly


So you are saying most of the women who withhold contact do so out of spite? Hardly.


----------



## 1927 (Mar 19, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> If you have evidence of a social worker doing that, you need to make a complaint. That is serious malpractice and would constitute gross misconduct.


i am currently involved in formal complaints with cardiff City Council, and the child commisioner for wales.


----------



## 1927 (Mar 19, 2012)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Look, in all seriousness, you shouldn't be sending stuff directly to your ex or even to her solicitor. That's your own solicitor's job.
> 
> What were you hoping to achieve by sending those documents to her? You aren't going to convince her of your point of view. You need to convince whatever the relevant authority making whatever decision you are contesting is, not the person on the other side.


 
I was acting as an LIP as I couldnt afford a solictor and had every right right to respond to false allegations from her solicitor.

before castiagting me in future please take some time to actually ascertain the facts of my case.


----------



## 1927 (Mar 19, 2012)

albionism said:


> So you are saying most of the women who withhold contact do so out of spite? Hardly.


 
i think you need to do some reading up on the subject if you dont believe that happens frequently.


----------



## albionism (Mar 19, 2012)

I have done, and i know it does occur, but i doubt
it's the case for the majority of mothers who withhold contact.


----------



## 1927 (Mar 19, 2012)

coley said:


> Anybody know if legal aid is still available for people involved in these scenarios?


 
Yes, but there is a requirement that they attempt mediation first. My ex's solicitor proposed it, i accepted, turned up and paid all the fees, she didnt turn up!


----------



## CRI (Mar 19, 2012)

Regarding the Fathers 4 Justice campaign, this is their latest "advert" (although not clear whether it will be in the press or where it will go,) which is extremely disturbing and generally weird. I hesitate to give it bandwidth, but here goes. http://fathers4justiceadvertising.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/mumsnet-ad2.jpg?w=580&h=752

It's disturbing because it appears to give screen names of people who post on the Mumsnet message board. I think there would be much wailing and gnashing of teeth if screen nicks and out of context quotes from urbanites featured in say, some far-right, religo-loon or anti-drugs campaign.

It's weird because it seems to be all random words and phrases with no context. I mean who knows what a person was talking about when they said "Dickheads" or "Fuckwits?"  (But it's actually fun just to see those words writ large on a poster!)

What's both weird and disturbing is the advert seems to be titled "Rape. Male." WTF is that supposed to mean?


----------



## 1927 (Mar 19, 2012)

albionism said:


> The reason F4J types can't see their children is largely
> because they have been fucking horrible bastards to them.
> My wife and i fought for 5 years to ensure our children
> were safe from their abusive biological "father". The
> ...


 
I am not a member of any fathers groups but i sympathise with tehir casue, am I therfore a horrible bastard?
We arent talking no contact orders from courts, we are talking contact orders from courts that are broken and not enforced, that is the biggest problem.


----------



## Ted Striker (Mar 19, 2012)

CRI said:


> Regarding the Fathers 4 Justice campaign, this is their latest "advert" (although not clear whether it will be in the press or where it will go,) which is extremely disturbing and generally weird. I hesitate to give it bandwidth, but here goes. http://fathers4justiceadvertising.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/mumsnet-ad2.jpg?w=580&h=752
> 
> It's disturbing because it appears to give screen names of people who post on the Mumsnet message board. I think there would be much wailing and gnashing of teeth if screen nicks and out of context quotes from urbanites featured in say, some far-right, religo-loon or anti-drugs campaign.
> 
> ...


 
 It does come across as a torrent of abuse to F4J though...Who by their promotion of such an ad can only justifiably be labelled as such.


----------



## Thora (Mar 19, 2012)

CRI said:


> Regarding the Fathers 4 Justice campaign, this is their latest "advert" (although not clear whether it will be in the press or where it will go,) which is extremely disturbing and generally weird. I hesitate to give it bandwidth, but here goes. http://fathers4justiceadvertising.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/mumsnet-ad2.jpg?w=580&h=752
> 
> It's disturbing because it appears to give screen names of people who post on the Mumsnet message board. I think there would be much wailing and gnashing of teeth if screen nicks and out of context quotes from urbanites featured in say, some far-right, religo-loon or anti-drugs campaign.
> 
> ...


They're nuts aren't they?

I assume all those quotes are in response to F4J trolling Mumsnet - rather than women's opinions on "men and boys"


----------



## weepiper (Mar 19, 2012)

Thora said:


> They're nuts aren't they?
> 
> I assume all those quotes are in response to F4J trolling Mumsnet - rather than women's opinions on "men and boys"


 
Fucking hell it's really quite offensive to (women? Mothers? Single mothers? not sure exactly) that they think we cannot hold those opinions about certain men without simultaneously loving, admiring and being grateful for the_ positive_ men in our kids' lives.


----------



## Ted Striker (Mar 19, 2012)

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/316172/20120319/fathers-4-justice-naked-protest-marks-spencer.htm


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Mar 19, 2012)

"Fathers for Justice" are generally, ime, very dodgy people. Whilst no-one could disagree with their general overarching message, one does have to raise some serious concerns about both their underlying motivations and their methods. I've found them to be bullying aggressive types who are often exactly the kind of people who use their children as weapons, and I don't use that language lightly. I know how frustrating family law and issues of contact/residency can be a right royal pain to deal with, but I wouldn't want to associate with F4J or their distorted take on "the truth" of family breakdown.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 19, 2012)

1927 said:


> I was acting as an LIP as I couldnt afford a solictor and had every right right to respond to false allegations from her solicitor.
> 
> before castiagting me in future please take some time to actually ascertain the facts of my case.


 
Acting as a Litigant in Person is, in my view, a very bad idea in any prolonged or complex set of proceedings. Even more so in family law matters than in other ones, because almost nobody is possessed of the kind of superhuman self-control it takes to prevent yourself from acting emotionally in a dispute over family breakdown. I'm not too familiar with the legal aid set up in England, why was it not available to you?

Without knowing any more of the details, I suspect that unless your ex-partner's solicitor wrote to you asking you for a response, the appropriate people to respond to are generally the authorities investigating those allegations rather than your ex-partner's representatives.


----------



## albionism (Mar 19, 2012)

1927 said:


> I am not a member of any fathers groups but i sympathise with tehir casue, am I therfore a horrible bastard?
> We arent talking no contact orders from courts, we are talking contact orders from courts that are broken and not enforced, that is the biggest problem.


In my case, we were forced to break contact orders, as many are, because the children were so traumatized that they would
barricade themselves into their bedrooms when their "father" arrived. When we did manage to get them onto a train for a contact visit,
they would try to jump off at every stop with the intention of jumping in front of a train rather than spend time with their father.
Sometimes people have no choice but to break contact orders. I have every sympathy for parents who cannot see their children through
no fault of their own, but i don't think the majority of broken court orders are broken out of spite. I can't imagine that too many people would risk losing their children
and/or going to jail just to make a point.


----------



## trashpony (Mar 19, 2012)

1927 said:


> I am not a member of any fathers groups but i sympathise with tehir casue, am I therfore a horrible bastard?
> We arent talking no contact orders from courts, we are talking contact orders from courts that are broken and not enforced, that is the biggest problem.


You might not be talking about 'no contact' orders, that may not be the case for members of f4j. The founder was an alcoholic who was stopped from seeing his kids outside of a contact centre. When he stopped drinking, he was, and still has, unsupervised contact. Not all men are good fathers, just like not all women are good mothers. I think you could do a lot better than aligning yourself with them tbh.


----------



## 1927 (Mar 19, 2012)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Acting as a Litigant in Person is, in my view, a very bad idea in any prolonged or complex set of proceedings. Even more so in family law matters than in other ones, because almost nobody is possessed of the kind of superhuman self-control it takes to prevent yourself from reacting emotionally.
> 
> More importantly, unless your ex-partner's solicitor wrote to you asking you for a response, the appropriate people to respond to are generally the authorities investigating those allegations rather than your ex-partner's representatives. They obviously weren't expecting you to send them anything directly, or they wouldn't have made allegations of harassment against you for doing so (and would have looked ridiculous for making those allegations, something solicitor's firms tend not to like).


 
Well on the basis that I came out of every court hearing with more contact than I expected and having conceded less than I ever was prepared to, and on the fact that I have had custody since last september and a residence order since last december, and have successfully argued that his mother should not have anything other than supervised access,for very good reason, and have been supported by CAFCASS in all proceedings I think I have done pretty fucking well as an LIP!


----------



## Grandma Death (Mar 19, 2012)

CRI said:


> Regarding the Fathers 4 Justice campaign, this is their latest "advert" (although not clear whether it will be in the press or where it will go,) which is extremely disturbing and generally weird. I hesitate to give it bandwidth, but here goes. http://fathers4justiceadvertising.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/mumsnet-ad2.jpg?w=580&h=752
> 
> It's disturbing because it appears to give screen names of people who post on the Mumsnet message board. I think there would be much wailing and gnashing of teeth if screen nicks and out of context quotes from urbanites featured in say, some far-right, religo-loon or anti-drugs campaign.
> 
> ...



If I was a single dad fighting for custody of my kids I would feel incredibly uncomfortable with an organisation like this as being associated with or being the mouthpiece for fathers in a similar position.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 19, 2012)

1927 said:


> Well on the basis that I came out of every court hearing with more contact than I expected and having conceded less than I ever was prepared to, and on the fact that I have had custody since last september and a residence order since last december, and have successfully argued that his mother should not have anything other than supervised access,for very good reason, and have been supported by CAFCASS in all proceedings I think I have done pretty fucking well as an LIP!


 
You may well have done well as a litigant in person, presumably because you had a very strong case.

But as a general rule, acting as a litigant in person is a sign of budding, if not full blown, insanity in lengthy or complex proceedings. And in family cases in particular, you have the additional emotional stresses. And family law litigants in person have something of an additional bad reputation, as it's a favoured approach of a disproportionate number of father's rights nutcases (of the particular variety who tend to think that the judiciary, lawyers and their ex-wife are all in it together).

The point is not that being a litigant in person dooms your case. It's simply that it unnecessarily makes it harder to win.

(There can be good reasons to be a litigant in person, by the way, but they are limited).


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Mar 19, 2012)

Nigel Irritable said:


> You may well have done well as a litigant in person, presumably because you had a very strong case.
> 
> But as a general rule, acting as a litigant in person is a sign of budding, if not full blown, insanity in lengthy or complex proceedings. And in family cases in particular, you have the additional emotional stresses. And family law litigants in person have something of an additional bad reputation, as it's a favoured approach of a disproportionate number of father's rights nutcases (of the particular variety who tend to think that the judiciary, lawyers and their ex-wife are all in it together).
> 
> ...


Objectivity being one good reason not to be if at all possible, ans well as a proper understanding of the law inre: "the best interests of the child" as it stands, rather than a subjective, "i'm their dad/mum and i deserve XYZ", which is unfortunately how many people approach such cases as LIP's.


----------



## coley (Mar 19, 2012)

albionism said:


> So you are saying most of the women who withhold contact do so out of spite? Hardly.


To a fairly large degree? yes, spite generated by a huge variety of reasons, though most would disagree with the term 'spite' they would cover their actions with euphinisms such as "the childs welfare comes first" which at first glance is unarguable but in far too many cases the the real reasons are the mothers percieved (and often justified) sense of hurt, or betrayal
Separation and divorce are often very messy affairs and often the woman feels the only lever or weapon she has is the children and sadly many have no compunction in using them.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Mar 19, 2012)

coley said:


> To a fairly large degree? yes, spite generated by a huge variety of reasons, though most would disagree with the term 'spite' they would cover their actions with euphinisms such as "the childs welfare comes first" which at first glance is unarguable but in far too many cases the the real reasons are the mothers percieved (and often justified) sense of hurt, or betrayal
> Separation and divorce are often very messy affairs and often the woman feels the only lever or weapon she has is the children and sadly many have no compunction in using them.


and men don't do that at all i suppose in your gender neutral society?


----------



## weepiper (Mar 19, 2012)

coley said:


> To a fairly large degree? yes, spite generated by a huge variety of reasons, though most would disagree with the term 'spite' they would cover their actions with euphinisms such as "the childs welfare comes first" which at first glance is unarguable but in far too many cases the the real reasons are the mothers percieved (and often justified) sense of hurt, or betrayal
> Separation and divorce are often very messy affairs and often the woman feels the only lever or weapon she has is the children and sadly many have no compunction in using them.


 
Stop fucking tarring us all with the brush of your limited experience eh.


----------



## coley (Mar 19, 2012)

1927 said:


> Yes, but there is a requirement that they attempt mediation first. My ex's solicitor proposed it, i accepted, turned up and paid all the fees, she didnt turn up!


My son is in exactly that position now, she claims she has legal aid, which(I thought had been abolished for these kind of cases) whereas he has to pay £180 an hour for a solicitor to rebuff whatever farcial allegations she chooses to make.


----------



## coley (Mar 19, 2012)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> and men don't do that at all i suppose in your gender neutral society?


Usually women end up with custody, now I am not saying that men wouldnt do the same but you care to do the maths?


----------



## coley (Mar 19, 2012)

weepiper said:


> Stop fucking tarring us all with the brush of your limited experience eh.


limited? you pychic or what? and who is this "us" you speak of?


----------



## trashpony (Mar 19, 2012)

coley said:


> To a fairly large degree? yes, spite generated by a huge variety of reasons, though most would disagree with the term 'spite' they would cover their actions with euphinisms such as "the childs welfare comes first" which at first glance is unarguable but in far too many cases the the real reasons are the mothers percieved (and often justified) sense of hurt, or betrayal
> Separation and divorce are often very messy affairs and often the woman feels the only lever or weapon she has is the children and sadly many have no compunction in using them.


Anecdata is no grounds for sweeping statements


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 19, 2012)

trashpony said:


> Anecdata is no grounds for sweeping statements


god first coley's at it with 'euphinisms', now you're saying 'anecdata is', when it should of course be 'anecdotes are' 

i don't expect any better of coley but frankly, trashpony, you've let the board down, you've let the thread down and most of all you've let yourself down 

don't let me see it happen again


----------



## coley (Mar 19, 2012)

trashpony said:


> Anecdata is no grounds for sweeping statements


Anecdata? LOL


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 19, 2012)

coley said:


> Anecdata? LOL


euphinisms 

you're in no fucking position to have a laugh at someone else.


----------



## trashpony (Mar 19, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> god first coley's at it with 'euphinisms', now you're saying 'anecdata is', when it should of course be 'anecdotes are'
> 
> i don't expect any better of coley but frankly, trashpony, you've let the board down, you've let the thread down and most of all you've let yourself down
> 
> don't let me see it happen again


 
I wasn't sure if it was plural or singular. Data *is*, anecdotes *are*. Anecdata is a made up word in which anecdotes are submitted as evidence ie data to prove or disprove something.

So you reckon it's plural?


----------



## coley (Mar 19, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> god first coley's at it with 'euphinisms', now you're saying 'anecdata is', when it should of course be 'anecdotes are'
> 
> i don't expect any better of coley but frankly, trashpony, you've let the board down, you've let the thread down and most of all you've let yourself down
> 
> don't let me see it happen again


Pleased I havent disappointed you, however I feel TP deserves whatever punishment you feel inclined to impose.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 19, 2012)

trashpony said:


> I wasn't sure if it was plural or singular. Data *is*, anecdotes *are*. Anecdata is a made up word in which anecdotes are submitted as evidence ie data to prove or disprove something.
> 
> So you reckon it's plural?


the singular of data is datum, so i think that - if a word such as anecdata was in any way meaningful - it would be plural.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 19, 2012)

coley said:


> Pleased I havent disappointed you, however I feel TP deserves whatever punishment you feel inclined to impose.


a slight admonishment and sent on her way with a box of chocs. you, on the other hand, deserve quite different treatment.


----------



## coley (Mar 19, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> euphinisms
> 
> you're in no fucking position to have a laugh at someone else.


I,m not? sorry, I will settle for a wee grin


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 19, 2012)

coley said:


> I,m not? sorry, I will settle for a wee grin


you'll settle for remedial courses in manners and english.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Mar 19, 2012)

coley said:


> Usually women end up with custody, now I am not saying that men wouldnt do the same but you care to do the maths?


and why do most kids in separated relationships end up with mum? is it because all those nasty single parents spread malicious rumours about those abusive dads, or is it because most blokes clear off and leave the mum to bring up the kids, cos they wouldn't contemplate taking this on full-time? as someone who has personal and professional experience of this, i would suggest to you that the latter is far more likely an explanation (if you want to generalise grossly) than the former.

i don't disagree with the notion that family law courts and disputes could be handled much better, i completely agree that children benefit greatly benefit from active involement with both parents (and extended family) wherever possible following separation, but i certainly don't agree that any presumption of "shared care" (however you want to define that) should be a guiding principle of such arrangements. nor do i agree with a group of quasi-misogynist evangelists, who have repeatedly been shown to be of quite dubious natures,


----------



## smmudge (Mar 19, 2012)

So fathers 4 justice reckon that tonight there has been an 'attack' on women members of the facebook page by mumsnet members.

Seems a bit..paranoid, no? 

http://www.facebook.com/Fathers4Justice (<-- probs need a facebook account to see)

(I love internet drama)


----------



## coley (Mar 19, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> you'll settle for remedial courses in manners and english.


My grammar and spelling are possibly in need of improvement, my manners however are impeccable.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 19, 2012)

coley said:


> My grammar and spelling are possibly in need of improvement, my manners however are impeccable.


if you really believe that you are in greater need of the courses i proposed than i thought


----------



## quimcunx (Mar 19, 2012)

Even if when together both people are perfectly good parents, when people split things sometimes get bitter, spiteful and embattled and sometimes one or both will use/fail to resist using/feel justified in using one or more of a range of 'weapons' at their disposal. Sometimes that's about kids and access. If women more often get main custody of kids then it would perhaps look like restricting access of the NRP to the kids is 'something women do' rather than men because they have more opportunities to do so. There is no reason that I know of to believe that men would be more or less likely to do so with the same opportunities.


----------



## weepiper (Mar 19, 2012)

smmudge said:


> So fathers 4 justice reckon that tonight there has been an 'attack' on women members of the facebook page by mumsnet members.
> 
> Seems a bit..paranoid, no?
> 
> ...


 
they are batshit. And they need to grow up.


----------



## smmudge (Mar 19, 2012)

quimcunx said:


> Even if when together both people are perfectly good parents, when people split things sometimes get bitter, spiteful and embattled and sometimes one or both will use/fail to resist using/feel justified in using one or more of a range of 'weapons' at their disposal. Sometimes that's about kids and access. If women more often get main custody of kids then it would perhaps look like restricting access of the NRP to the kids is 'something women do' rather than men because they have more opportunities to do so. There is no reason to believe that men would be more or less likely to do so with the same opportunities.


 
And it's not as if family courts haven't heard it all before.

Actually there is a very interesting history of why women are favoured when it comes to who gets custody, and it has nothing to do with who the courts 'side' with, except that they side with the _children's best interest_.


----------



## smmudge (Mar 19, 2012)

weepiper said:


> they are batshit. And they need to grow up.


 
innit. There are some good groups out there who genuinely help fathers when they need it, for court hearings etc. F4J need to realise that they risk them all getting tarnished with the same brush when they go on these pointless crusades, and it may actually put some men off asking those sorts of charities for help.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Mar 19, 2012)

it's also worth pointing out that ~90% of people sort things out between themselves, without recourse to lawyers and family courts. the 10% of people currently who do resort to family courts and cafcass often have a vast range of background factors that influence and affect the decisions made in court, for better or for worse. laws and policy should be formulated on the good of the majority, not the knee-jerk reactions of a vocal (and often hysterical) minority, imo.


----------



## quimcunx (Mar 20, 2012)

smmudge said:


> And it's not as if family courts haven't heard it all before.
> 
> Actually there is a very interesting history of why women are favoured when it comes to who gets custody, and it has nothing to do with who the courts 'side' with, except that they side with the _children's best interest_.


 
I don't envy them when they have to untangle accusations and counter accusations and try to get to the truth of it all in those cases where it does come to that.


----------



## scifisam (Mar 20, 2012)

Christ. I've never been a huge fan of Mumsnet but F4J are making them seem like saints in comparison. 



smmudge said:


> So fathers 4 justice reckon that tonight there has been an 'attack' on women members of the facebook page by mumsnet members.
> 
> Seems a bit..paranoid, no?
> 
> ...


 
WTF is that 'evidence of hatred' link about with a nothing profile of a supposed woman saying she hates all women, phrased in a very obvious jokey way? That's evidence of an attack against fathers for justice?


----------



## redsquirrel (Mar 20, 2012)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> "Fathers for Justice" are generally, ime, very dodgy people. Whilst no-one could disagree with their general overarching message, one does have to raise some serious concerns about both their underlying motivations and their methods. I've found them to be bullying aggressive types who are often exactly the kind of people who use their children as weapons, and I don't use that language lightly. I know how frustrating family law and issues of contact/residency can be a right royal pain to deal with, but I wouldn't want to associate with F4J or their distorted take on "the truth" of family breakdown.


My opinion too, backed up by the fact that when members of F4J turn up on Urban they generally turn out to be utter pricks. (IIRC one was banned for being a misogynistic arse).

Also just wanted to say excellent posts by CRI, Nigel, Weepiper and trash pony (and probably some others I've forgot).




			
				Pauli Tandoori said:
			
		

> but i certainly don't agree that any presumption of "shared care" (however you want to define that)


Totally agreed, there clearly are problems with the family court system but the idea that the above assumption should be placed above the best interests of the child is one of the reasons why I think F4J are group I'd advise anyone against joining.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Mar 20, 2012)

if you don't assume shared care then you don't even begin to solve this problem of disappearing Dads. on even the most basic level the first step towards changing a cultural norm is expecting a different kind of behaviour. frankly i think that alot of the anti-Dad assumptions expressed mainly by the blokes on this thread are rather odd. i am thankfully nowhere near having sprogs, but if i were i would surely be reassured to know that in the event of a messy breakdown in the relationship with my partner the legal system wouldn't display a severe institutional bias against me.

genuinely can see no reason why any potential Dad would think otherwise, other than through a mistaken presumption that inside every woman there is some kind of angel who is immune to irrational rage, malice, jealousy or just confusion. a biased law in the hands of anyone with any single one of these qualities is a dangerous thing.

play the F4J bogey card all you like, the logic of a few of the arguments on here is downright circular, not to mention speculatory and presumptuous.


----------



## Jackobi (Mar 20, 2012)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Firstly, and this is important to remember, the single biggest "non compliance" problem faced by the Family Courts is not primary carers screwing with access rights, but father's avoiding paying maintenance.


 
Family Court does not adjudicate maintenance issues (in England), in fact, the court takes a dim view on parents who use lack of maintenance as a reason to withhold contact.


----------



## Grandma Death (Mar 20, 2012)

Das Uberdog said:


> frankly i think that alot of the anti-Dad assumptions expressed mainly by the blokes on this thread are rather odd.


 
Can you give any examples of anti dad assumptions that are being posted here?


----------



## Santino (Mar 20, 2012)

Grandma Death said:


> Can you give any examples of anti dad assumptions that are being posted here?


I enjoyed the insinuation that some dads deserve less contact with their children because they have failed to challenge the predominating employment culture in which women are assumed to be primary carers.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 20, 2012)

Mikey77 said:


> You can make your excuses. It is pretty sick that women with those views who are also parents can go on an internet forum and post that kind of stuff. But defend the website if you must.


 
Good old Mikey. Still finding it impossible to admit that he might be wrong.


----------



## Grandma Death (Mar 20, 2012)

Santino said:


> I enjoyed the insinuation that some dads deserve less contact with their children because they have failed to challenge the predominating employment culture in which women are assumed to be primary carers.


 
Thats hardly 'anti dad' is it?


----------



## Santino (Mar 20, 2012)

Grandma Death said:


> Thats hardly 'anti dad' is it?


No, but I was just reminded of it now because I missed the opportunity to respond to it when it was first posted.

There's been a lot of poor arguments on both sides here.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 20, 2012)

xes said:


> so, basically, according to the posts above (baring 2, Quimmys and Garfs post) No, you are not allowed to show anything other than pure love to the one who is fucking with you in every way that she can, just to hurt you, just to be vindictive. To do anything else means that it's all your fault and you're an unfit parent. Sorry, but urbanz has spoken.


 
Thing is, if you *know* it can be used against you, then you *need* to swallow it, if not for your own sake, then for the sake of the children. It doesn't do kids any good to be exposed to any sort of naked anger, even when it isn't aimed at them, by either of their parents.  *It's not fair and it's not "right"*, but realistically, it's the current operational climate: Get angry in a way that can be reported on to the Family Court and you *will* pay for it, so exercising a bit of self-control then working the anger off in a gym or summat when you're alone pays dividends.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 20, 2012)

xes said:


> 1927 hasn't said anything about getting angry infront of his kid/s. That's been added by people here. They've basically said "no, you have no right to be angry" which is fucking bullshit. He has every right to be angry, he's been lied about in court, and his kid is being used as a pawn against him. I'd say that those saying that it's all his fault, and no wonder she doesn't want to drop the kids off to him, are talking out of their arses with no experience of what he's going through.


 
No-one has said that he has no right to be angry. They've said that you shouldn't manifest that anger where the kids can see it, because it's damaging to them, and he shouldn't manifest it where his ex-partner can see it, because she'll be able to use it against him.  Perfectly rational things to say, and nothing at all like "he's got no right to be angry".


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 20, 2012)

coley said:


> Aye, it a pain being human, more spocks needed.


 
What's amusing is that the gender stereotypes urge us to believe that it's only women who can't control their emotions, and yet here we have loads of men almost crying out for the "right" to be able to show theirs!


----------



## spirals (Mar 20, 2012)

When Mr spirals ex's kicks off about him seeing his little un we just have to grit our teeth and remain calm, polite and reasonable. We were getting frequent threats about withholding access/visits which only stopped when we asked her to attend mediation. We were warned by our solicitor to expect false allegations from her (as that happened during the last access hearing). Some people can't see past their own hurt/anger/ feelings to see the impact their behaviour has on their children but as an adult, whatever sex you are, you need to focus on what is best for your little un.  Two days after mr spirals ex kicked off big time about me, we had to attend a meeting about his little un with her there. You just grit your teeth and remember who you are there for and try not to let it get to you.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 20, 2012)

CRI said:


> Regarding the Fathers 4 Justice campaign, this is their latest "advert" (although not clear whether it will be in the press or where it will go,) which is extremely disturbing and generally weird. I hesitate to give it bandwidth, but here goes. http://fathers4justiceadvertising.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/mumsnet-ad2.jpg?w=580&h=752
> 
> It's disturbing because it appears to give screen names of people who post on the Mumsnet message board. I think there would be much wailing and gnashing of teeth if screen nicks and out of context quotes from urbanites featured in say, some far-right, religo-loon or anti-drugs campaign.
> 
> ...


 
What struck me is male and female posters here used similar words to describe F4J members back in the "Batman" days, which heralded the arrival of batboy, keen to defend his fellow-dads.
Of course, there's no mileage in an advert that shows posters, a majority of whom are male, calling F4J members such names, is there?
Whoa, pressure group being opportunistic!!! There's a surprise!

BTW, I take "Rape. Male" to mean that rape is males-only pursuit, that women don't/can't/won't rape.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Mar 20, 2012)

Well, F4J have certainly done a terrific job here of reinforcing the idea that they're much more concerned with publicity-seeking and "confronting anti-male bigotry" than, say, family law issues.


----------



## fractionMan (Mar 20, 2012)

Santino said:


> I enjoyed the insinuation that some dads deserve less contact with their children because they have failed to challenge the predominating employment culture in which women are assumed to be primary carers.


 
Who said that?


----------



## kabbes (Mar 20, 2012)

Thora said:


> I don't know any professional couples, but don't they usually work full time and hire a nanny?


No.  Not "usually", if by "usually" you mean "more often than not".


----------



## kabbes (Mar 20, 2012)

In fact, of the dozens and dozens of professional couples with kids that I know, not a single one has hired a nanny.


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 20, 2012)

CRI said:


> What's both weird and disturbing is the advert seems to be titled "Rape. Male." WTF is that supposed to mean?



It means: "Take A Look At This Shocking Advert Everyone!!!!1!"


----------



## coley (Mar 20, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Thing is, if you *know* it can be used against you, then you *need* to swallow it, if not for your own sake, then for the sake of the children. It doesn't do kids any good to be exposed to any sort of naked anger, even when it isn't aimed at them, by either of their parents. *It's not fair and it's not "right"*, but realistically, it's the current operational climate: Get angry in a way that can be reported on to the Family Court and you *will* pay for it, so exercising a bit of self-control then working the anger off in a gym or summat when you're alone pays dividends.


Very good point, I spent half an hour on the phone last night to No 1 child explaining the degree of importance attached to remaining calm, reasonable and amicable when trying to discuss visitation/shared custody, bit awkward skirting around the fact I had learnt all these lessons from dealing with his mother.


----------



## Santino (Mar 20, 2012)

fractionMan said:


> Who said that?


 


CRI said:


> Just a thought, but maybe if fathers pushed harder to have more paternity leave and flexible working, voted with their feet and hands by taking on a bigger share of child-rearing responsibilities, then if a relationship splits, there would be a stronger case to argue that shared care WAS in the best interests of the child.


 
As I said, an insinuation rather than a flat out apportionment of blame. But that's the way I read it, as someone with no particular dog in this fight.


----------



## trashpony (Mar 20, 2012)

Santino said:


> I enjoyed the insinuation that some dads deserve less contact with their children because they have failed to challenge the predominating employment culture in which women are assumed to be primary carers.


 
I'm not sure how you managed to deduce that ^^^ from what CRI said. It's not about blame or deserving. It's about doing what's best for the child. If a child is largely looked after by its mother before a divorce, then it is better that the status quo is maintained. If the child is mainly looked after by its mother, it's better that the status quo is maintained.

It's not punishment for 'failling to challenge the predominating employment culture'.


----------



## Santino (Mar 20, 2012)

trashpony said:


> I'm not sure how you managed to deduce that ^^^ from what CRI said. It's not about blame or deserving. It's about doing what's best for the child. If a child is largely looked after by its mother before a divorce, then it is better that the status quo is maintained. If the child is mainly looked after by its mother, it's better that the status quo is maintained.
> 
> It's not punishment for 'failling to challenge the predominating employment culture'.


 
A clear suggestion is made that one reason why Dads aren't given equal care rights is that they haven't done enough to change the employment arrangements for paternity leave.

"Just a thought, but maybe if fathers pushed harder to have more paternity leave and flexible working... there would be a stronger case to argue that shared care WAS in the best interests of the child."

eta: To clarify, it is clearly being suggested as a contributing factor.


----------



## trashpony (Mar 20, 2012)

Santino said:


> A clear suggestion is made that one reason why Dads aren't given equal care rights is that they haven't done enough to change the employment arrangements for paternity leave.
> 
> "Just a thought, but maybe if fathers pushed harder to have more paternity leave and flexible working... there would be a stronger case to argue that shared care WAS in the best interests of the child."
> 
> eta: To clarify, it is clearly being suggested as a contributing factor.


Oh I see. I didn't read it like that at all. I read it as if you were working flexibly and had shared paternity/maternity leave, then you would be more likely to get shared care, which is true.

I do see why you thought that but I suspect that even if you're walking up and down with placards and starting e-petitions all over the shop campaigning for equal care rights, if you're out of the house for 50 hours a week while your partner cares for the child, very few courts are going to agree that there is a good reason to share care.


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 20, 2012)

trashpony said:


> Oh I see. I didn't read it like that at all. I read it as if you were working flexibly and had shared paternity/maternity leave, then you would be more likely to get shared care, which is true.
> 
> I do see why you thought that but I suspect that even if you're walking up and down with placards and starting e-petitions all over the shop campaigning for equal care rights, if you're out of the house for 50 hours a week while your partner cares for the child, very few courts are going to agree that there is a good reason to share care.



Which is a bit nuts because its working long hours which often enables the stay at home partner to stay at home.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Mar 20, 2012)

trashpony said:


> Oh I see. I didn't read it like that at all. I read it as if you were working flexibly and had shared paternity/maternity leave, then you would be more likely to get shared care, which is true.
> 
> I do see why you thought that but I suspect that even if you're walking up and down with placards and starting e-petitions all over the shop campaigning for equal care rights, if you're out of the house for 50 hours a week while your partner cares for the child, very few courts are going to agree that there is a good reason to share care.


but this is equally problematic within a society where it's expected that you should spend 50 hours a week at work to cover the cost of your live and the lives you're responsible for...

It's like saying well slave we know you're compelled by the whip to work the hours we dictate but by doing so you have proved you are not fit to have children... 

Last time I checked and my personal hatred aside for what having kids does to most people sense of reasoning and rationality we kinda need kids so they'll be adults in later life... 

ultimately the child raising care issues are ones of longer working hours and less quality time with the children this informs and feeds in to all aspects of life in the UK and by extension the west.  Once Maggie T and her lot decided being a stay at home mother wasn't a valid career any more and to be a valid human being you needed to be employed outside of the home in order to be a valid member of society this has greatly impacted on womans equality, child rights and the society effect of having the majority of parents now unable to care and raise their children by virtue of the working hours they now face.  

What all people need to do in order to address: child care, falling standards of common decency in society, riots, health care, education and the majority of the problems with society as well as the level of aggression is work less.  Not for less pay as this is already below what is reasonable to be a living wage for the majority.   but fewer hours.

It's the only way long term we can resolve the issue of feckless parents, feckless kids, bad societal cohesion, let people take the time to be with their families and raise reasonable, responsible people not looking constantly for the quickest solution to resolve an issue because they don't have time to deal with it....

Here watch tv, I can't deal with that now
here's your microwave meal I'm too busy to make something
Cook for yourself I've got to go to work etc etc etc.

We want responsible reasonable parenting and children we need to first create a society where this is possible.

At present I don't think it is without significant and unreasonable compromises being made which ultimately impact on the life of the child being raised and then as a result on the wider society they then inhabit...


----------



## Das Uberdog (Mar 20, 2012)

when i referenced the anti-dad attitudes i was talking more imediately about Paulie Tandoories post above mine where he argues against a presumption of equal care - but there have been quite a few instances on the thread which are fairly easy to see.

at a risk of opening a whole new debate based on Garfield's post above, i think its interesting that the present debate over parenting is all about devolving more and more responsibility onto parents for the well-being of their child, which historically is a reversal of the position the left has had. tradaitionally, we would have argued for more social childcare arrangements, broadening the sphere of childcare responsibility outside of the realms of the immediate nuclear family unit. wonder where that focus went?


----------



## CRI (Mar 20, 2012)

Santino said:


> A clear suggestion is made that one reason why Dads aren't given equal care rights is that they haven't done enough to change the employment arrangements for paternity leave.
> 
> "Just a thought, but maybe if fathers pushed harder to have more paternity leave and flexible working... there would be a stronger case to argue that shared care WAS in the best interests of the child."
> 
> eta: To clarify, it is clearly being suggested as a contributing factor.


Just to clarify - you absolutely read what I said wrong, utterly wrong.  I still fail to see how you got the idea that I was advocating children's access to their fathers be restricted because fathers in general hadn't changed employment culture.  Sheesh!

It's about what is in the best interest of the CHILD that matters here, right?  When parents split, that has to become the priority, and one way to limit the upset for them is to keep things as consistent as is practically possible.


----------



## eoin_k (Mar 20, 2012)

smmudge said:


> "BoysAreLikeDogs"


 
The logic of boys being like dogs is that they need walking twice a day.  Which makes sense apart from the implication that you can just leave your daughters at home.  I guess they can entertain themselves playing house or having a tea party


----------



## 5t3IIa (Mar 20, 2012)

edit, oop


----------



## Santino (Mar 20, 2012)

CRI said:


> Just to clarify - you absolutely read what I said wrong, utterly wrong. I still fail to see how you got the idea that I was advocating children's access to their fathers be restricted because fathers in general hadn't changed employment culture. Sheesh!
> 
> It's about what is in the best interest of the CHILD that matters here, right? When parents split, that has to become the priority, and one way to limit the upset for them is to keep things as consistent as is practically possible.


I haven't for a moment said anything that remotely begins to challenge the principle that the interests of the child should be put first.

What did you mean by the words 'Just a thought, but maybe if fathers pushed harder... etc."? Was the 'just a thought' bit ironic or not? Do you think there's a link between a perceived silence from fathers (which fathers?) on paternity rights and the argument for shared care in any individual case?


----------



## smokedout (Mar 20, 2012)

1927 said:


> That may sound fanciful to you, you may well hold Uk justice in high regard, but as someone who has gone thru it I can assure you that it is the case.


 
as someone who has gone through it twice (on both sides) I can assure you it isn't


----------



## London_Calling (Mar 20, 2012)

Only 13 pathetic pages in over a day - is this what Urban is reduced to?


----------



## savoloysam (Mar 20, 2012)

Good Lord, the thread title itself reads like an episode of Tom and Jerry. I'm sorry but I have nothing else to add.


----------



## Grandma Death (Mar 20, 2012)

Well mumsnet fb page have stopped all discussion on their page though not looked at the site.  Seems they are just batoning down the hatches.  A lengthy discussion on the page of Rights for Fathers (a more moderate group)  has been deleted as well as some other stuff relating to the spat.  F4J on the other hand have ramped up the rhetoric accusing mumsnetters of attempting to hack their page and also steal the identity of a female supporter to set up a false fb page.  It really is extremely paranoid ranting.  They will only allow views on their fb page that concur with theirs so there appears to be no counter debate with F4J themselves.  Rights for Fathers page I mentioned earlier in that debate they've now deleted admitted F4J only allow views that concur with F4J.  F4J have also had a letter from M&S regarding their complaints and protests.  Still on the F4J fb page and worth a gander.  As expected no backdown from M&S and even a veiled legal threat to F4J if they continue to use their logo on protest material.  Another victory for F4J then


E2A Fathers Rights not Rights for Fathers


----------



## CRI (Mar 20, 2012)

Santino said:


> I haven't for a moment said anything that remotely begins to challenge the principle that the interests of the child should be put first.
> 
> What did you mean by the words 'Just a thought, but maybe if fathers pushed harder... etc."? Was the 'just a thought' bit ironic or not? Do you think there's a link between a perceived silence from fathers (which fathers?) on paternity rights and the argument for shared care in any individual case?


Let's keep this simple.

- Decisions on residency and access after a split MUST be made in the best interests of the child.
- If one parent was the primary care giver before the split, drastic changes to this (except where there are child protection concerns) aren't likely to be in the best interests of the child.
- Therefore, if a father provides closer to an equal share of care-giving before a relationship ends, it will be in the child's best interest to continue this after a breakdown.  
-  Also, fathers and organisations that represent their interest COULD do more to push for family-friendly working arrangements and insist on taking the opportunities that are available.  

If you haven't got it now, I give up.


----------



## Santino (Mar 20, 2012)

CRI said:


> Let's keep this simple.
> 
> - Decisions on residency and access after a split MUST be made in the best interests of the child.
> - If one parent was the primary care giver before the split, drastic changes to this (except where there are child protection concerns) aren't likely to be in the best interests of the child.
> ...



So you're just ignoring my actual questions. Your insinuation was fairly clear, and this wriggling only confirms it.


----------



## CRI (Mar 20, 2012)

I don't think this is case of you not understanding what I'm saying.  Others here have understood perfectly well.  It seems to be a case of you not WANTING to understand.  You call it wiggling.  I call it the shimmy shimmy shake.  Bye bye.


----------



## quimcunx (Mar 20, 2012)

How do courts decide who provides most care for the children?  Do they just take into consideration which parent spends most/least time at work?


----------



## coley (Mar 20, 2012)

quimcunx said:


> How do courts decide who provides most care for the children? Do they just take into consideration which parent spends most/least time at work?


Irrespective of gender, does this 'care' include the amount of work done by a parent to provide for the family?


----------



## redsquirrel (Mar 20, 2012)

Das Uberdog said:


> when i referenced the anti-dad attitudes i was talking more imediately about Paulie Tandoories post above mine where he argues against a presumption of equal care


But why would you ever make that the basis of determining residency/contact/etc rather than what is in the childs interest.

And presumption that you want the law to make is a perfect example of 


Das Uberdog said:


> the present debate over parenting is all about devolving more and more responsibility onto parents for the well-being of their child, which historically is a reversal of the position the left has had. tradaitionally, we would have argued for more social childcare arrangements, broadening the sphere of childcare responsibility outside of the realms of the immediate nuclear family unit. wonder where that focus went?


----------



## Grandma Death (Mar 21, 2012)

coley said:


> Irrespective of gender, does this 'care' include the amount of work done by a parent to provide for the family?




Not as far as I'm aware.  It's based on the amount of time spent with a child iirc


----------



## kabbes (Mar 21, 2012)

A fair summary of this Internet Drama seems to be:

F4J butthurt, try to be an hero, end up causing lulz.


----------



## coley (Mar 21, 2012)

Grandma Death said:


> Not as far as I'm aware. It's based on the amount of time spent with a child iirc


Bit unfair that one parent can be penalised because their work limits the amount of time they spend with their children?


----------



## ska invita (Mar 21, 2012)

GarfieldLeChat said:


> but this is equally problematic within a society where it's expected that you should spend 50 hours a week at work to cover the cost of your live and the lives you're responsible for...
> 
> It's like saying well slave we know you're compelled by the whip to work the hours we dictate but by doing so you have proved you are not fit to have children...
> 
> ...



I heard someone make the case that one of the unintended negative consequences of feminism was much of what you describe in that once women entered the workplace those couples who both work (and maybe have no kids) become dominant and have more spending power, and the cost of living shifts to take their combined extra profits - house prices/rents for example are predicated on at least two working people in them.

Having a society where one parent can work (or equivalent hours between both parents) and it can be enough for a family to live on is now the dream... want to write more, and better, but have to go!


----------



## trashpony (Mar 21, 2012)

coley said:


> Bit unfair that one parent can be penalised because their work limits the amount of time they spend with their children?


It's not about what's fair for the parents, it's about what's fair for the children


----------



## kabbes (Mar 21, 2012)

ska invita said:


> I heard someone make the case that one of the unintended negative consequences of feminism was much of what you describe in that once women entered the workplace those couples who both work (and maybe have no kids) become dominant and have more spending power, and the cost of living shifts to take their combined extra profits - house prices/rents for example are predicated on at least two working people in them.
> 
> Having a society where one parent can work (or equivalent hours between both parents) and it can be enough for a family to live on is now the dream... want to write more, and better, but have to go!


That was me, making that case.  In this thread here.

Nice to know that people remember it!


----------



## coley (Mar 21, 2012)

trashpony said:


> It's not about what's fair for the parents, it's about what's fair for the children


A rather trite and overworked cliche that, the childrens welfare and happiness depends on a lot of variables not least of is one parents work
commitments, a day out in legoland (for instance) dont come cheap


----------



## killer b (Mar 21, 2012)

for the lower orders, women have always worked.


----------



## trashpony (Mar 21, 2012)

coley said:


> A rather trite and overworked cliche that, the childrens welfare and happiness depends on a lot of variables not least of is one parents work
> commitments, a day out in legoland (for instance) dont come cheap


I think parents can still provide for those things even if they aren't living with their children 24/7 can't they?


----------



## Grandma Death (Mar 21, 2012)

coley said:


> Bit unfair that one parent can be penalised because their work limits the amount of time they spend with their children?



In the face of it... It would appear unfair.  In my opinion however the child's welfare comes first.  If a father provides a greater financial contribution because they are the main breadwinner or work longer hours but the mother provides primary childcare that should continue in normal circumstances.  It's not the child's fault or doing that the father or mother is in that position.  What does matter is there is continuity in primary child care and that continues.  Of course there are lots of other factors to consider which is why I've always maintained the starting point should always be the child's welfare.


----------



## coley (Mar 21, 2012)

trashpony said:


> I think parents can still provide for those things even if they aren't living with their children 24/7 can't they?


 


Grandma Death said:


> In the face of it... It would appear unfair. In my opinion however the child's welfare comes first. If a father provides a greater financial contribution because they are the main breadwinner or work longer hours but the mother provides primary childcare that should continue in normal circumstances. It's not the child's fault or doing that the father or mother is in that position. What does matter is there is continuity in primary child care and that continues. Of course there are lots of other factors to consider which is why I've always maintained the starting point should always be the child's welfare.


 
The point I am trying to make is that one parent who is working and providing for their child/children is often penalised because they are not able to provide the level of care that the non working partner can provide even if the limited level of care would be of a higher standard and more beneficial to the children.
An example would be someone who is working but who could arrange for grandparents to 'cover' while they are at work, it wouldnt matter, in this case the courts would invariably award custody to the non working parent.


----------



## Red Cat (Mar 21, 2012)

coley said:


> The point I am trying to make is that one parent who is working and providing for their child/children is often penalised because *they are not able to provide the level of care that the non working partner can provide* even if the limited level of care would be of a higher standard and more beneficial to the children.


 
Et voila.


----------



## coley (Mar 21, 2012)

Red Cat said:


> Et voila.


And so? keep it in English eh?


----------



## Red Cat (Mar 21, 2012)

And so.... you've answered your own question.


----------



## ska invita (Mar 21, 2012)

kabbes said:


> That was me, making that case. In this thread here.
> 
> Nice to know that people remember it!


As I pointed out on your 2009 thread (post #57), I did the original thread on this in 2007 http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/feminism-has-led-to-greater-worker-exploitation.134754/


----------



## Grandma Death (Mar 21, 2012)

coley said:


> The point I am trying to make is that one parent who is working and providing for their child/children is often penalised because they are not able to provide the level of care that the non working partner can provide even if the limited level of care would be of a higher standard and more beneficial to the children.
> An example would be someone who is working but who could arrange for grandparents to 'cover' while they are at work, it wouldnt matter, in this case the courts would invariably award custody to the non working parent.



There are LOTS of things that appear unfair about how the chips fall with parental care that aren't just limited to high earning/hardworking dad's.  Blame societal expectations and pressures etc.  Doesn't change the fact that key to all this is the child's welfare.


----------



## albionism (Mar 21, 2012)

Exactly. This 50/50 stuff is bullshit. Child may not _want _to spend 50%
of their time with non custodial parent.Why make a child unhappy because you
think it's your "right" to have 50% of their time? More about you
than them is it not? More about _your _rights than their emotional welfare.


----------



## kabbes (Mar 21, 2012)

ska invita said:


> As I pointed out on your 2009 thread (post #57), I did the original thread on this in 2007 http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/feminism-has-led-to-greater-worker-exploitation.134754/


Bah


----------



## coley (Mar 21, 2012)

Grandma Death said:


> There are LOTS of things that appear unfair about how the chips fall with parental care that aren't just limited to high earning/hardworking dad's. Blame societal expectations and pressures etc. Doesn't change the fact that *key to all this is the child's welfare.*








albionism said:


> Exactly. This 50/50 stuff is bullshit. Child may not _want _to spend 50%
> of their time with non custodial parent*.Why make a child unhappy because you*
> think it's your "right" to have 50% of their time? More about you
> than them is it not? More about _your _rights than their emotional welfare.





kabbes said:


> Bah


 
Ok, so what if the child wants to live with the working parent?


----------



## albionism (Mar 21, 2012)

Then the working parent is going to have some hefty child care bills.
Child will sadly spend more time with a stranger.


----------



## coley (Mar 21, 2012)

albionism said:


> Then the working parent is going to have some hefty child care bills.
> Child will sadly spend more time with a stranger.


But if thats what the child/children want? and dont forget grandparents................and one of the greatest causes of strife 'the new partner'  Child care doesnt have to involve strangers.


----------



## Santino (Mar 21, 2012)

I think children are our future.


----------



## coley (Mar 21, 2012)

Santino said:


> I think children are our future.


Naff song though


----------



## 1927 (Mar 21, 2012)

albionism said:


> Then the working parent is going to have some hefty child care bills.
> Child will sadly spend more time with a stranger.


 
Or his hard working father will get up before 6 every morning to dress and feed himself before getting the child out of bed, dressing him, dropping him to grandparents who will give him breakfast and take him to nursery, collecting him later and giving him lunch and take him out for the afternoon before dad returns from work at 530 after working ten and a half hrs and picks up little man to take him home , feed & bath him, read him stories etc etc etc, before feeding himself and collapsing into bed absolutely fucking exhausted.

But I wouldnt change it for the world!


----------



## coley (Mar 21, 2012)

1927 said:


> Or his hard working father will get up before 6 every morning to dress and feed himself before getting the child out of bed, dressing him, dropping him to grandparents who will give him breakfast and take him to nursery, collecting him later and giving him lunch and take him out for the afternoon before dad returns from work at 530 after working ten and a half hrs and picks up little man to take him home , feed & bath him, read him stories etc etc etc, before feeding himself and collapsing into bed absolutely fucking exhausted.
> 
> But I wouldnt change it for the world!


 
And then along comes mumsy who for various reasons has decided she wants the bairn back and lo and behold after telling the court she is in a position to offer 24 hr care and has cleaned her act up she then gets custody.


----------



## Santino (Mar 21, 2012)

coley said:


> And then along comes mumsy who for various reasons has decided she wants the bairn back and lo and behold after telling the court she is in a position to offer 24 hr care and has cleaned her act up she then gets custody.


Your little fantasies aren't relevant here.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 21, 2012)

Santino said:


> Your little fantasies aren't relevant here.


they're interesting to students of abnormal psychology tho


----------



## trashpony (Mar 21, 2012)

1927 said:


> Or his hard working father will get up before 6 every morning to dress and feed himself before getting the child out of bed, dressing him, dropping him to grandparents who will give him breakfast and take him to nursery, collecting him later and giving him lunch and take him out for the afternoon before dad returns from work at 530 after working ten and a half hrs and picks up little man to take him home , feed & bath him, read him stories etc etc etc, before feeding himself and collapsing into bed absolutely fucking exhausted.
> 
> But I wouldnt change it for the world!


I'm glad you added that last bit 

Me neither


----------



## coley (Mar 21, 2012)

Santino said:


> Your little fantasies aren't relevant here.


Wish it was fantasy, happened to my nephew 12 years ago and I know of similiar that has happened recently


----------



## petee (Mar 21, 2012)

killer b said:


> for the lower orders, women have always worked.


beat me to it. my mother and all her sisters were born 1904-1914, and every one of them was working before WW2, the older ones already in the 1920s. this was routine in my corner of the world (irish emigrants). in the old country women did backbreaking work, essential to the economy of the farm, and it had been so for centuries, or millenia, and on farms in every corner of the world.


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 21, 2012)

And looking after children, even your own, is working as well. Albeit for less financial recompense.


----------



## coley (Mar 21, 2012)

Citizen66 said:


> And looking after children, even your own, is working as well. Albeit for less financial recompense.


But much more rewarding in other ways


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 21, 2012)

coley said:


> But much more rewarding in other ways



It certainly is. However, i was challenging the notion of paid employment = work; from the earlier comment about women have always worked then using examples of paid employment to back it up. It gives the impression that raising children isn't actual work. Which it is.


----------



## coley (Mar 21, 2012)

Citizen66 said:


> It certainly is. However, i was challenging the notion of paid employment = work; from the earlier comment about women have always worked then using examples of paid employment to back it up.


Fair enough, i can remember my mother putting a canny shift in bringing me and my four brothers up


----------



## killer b (Mar 21, 2012)

No it doesn't. It was obvious from the context that it meant paid employment.

You really don't need to tell me that looking after kids is hard work.


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 21, 2012)

killer b said:


> No it doesn't. It was obvious from the context that it meant paid employment.
> 
> You really don't need to tell me that looking after kids is hard work.



Perhaps you worded it badly then. But a lot of people do actually think along those lines.


----------



## killer b (Mar 21, 2012)

I didn't word it badly. You read it badly.


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 21, 2012)

i was responding to the post below. Kind of obvious as my post followed it. Not sure why you thought it related to what you said? 



petee said:


> beat me to it. my mother and all her sisters were born 1904-1914, and every one of them was working before WW2, the older ones already in the 1920s. this was routine in my corner of the world (irish emigrants). in the old country women did backbreaking work, essential to the economy of the farm, and it had been so for centuries, or millenia, and on farms in every corner of the world.


----------



## killer b (Mar 21, 2012)

Fair play. Thought you'd quoted me for some reason.


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 21, 2012)

killer b said:


> Fair play. Thought you'd quoted me for some reason.



No your statement is right and applies to both paid and unpaid labour.


----------



## trashpony (Mar 21, 2012)

coley said:


> But much more rewarding in other ways


Like anything, it's rewarding if you have a choice. If you've been doing it 5-6 days a week 12 hours a day without a break for several years because it doesn't make any sense financially for you to go back to work, it can feel like a bloody hard slog.


----------



## Frances Lengel (Mar 21, 2012)

SpookyFrank said:


> The name 'mumsnet' just fills me with rage tbh.
> 
> Not to say I have any sympathy with F4J or their methods.
> 
> I just fucking hate the name 'mumsnet'. If you're creating a resource for parents of both genders, don't pick a divisive name like mumsnet. If you're a bunch of retrograde anti-feminist idiots who want to perpetuate gender stereotypes then you should by all means call your website mumsnet.


 

Nailed.


----------



## coley (Mar 21, 2012)

trashpony said:


> Like anything, it's rewarding if you have a choice. If you've been doing it 5-6 days a week 12 hours a day without a break for several years because it doesn't make any sense financially for you to go back to work, it can feel like a bloody hard slog.


 
Aye being a Granda or uncle is much less stressful


----------



## 1927 (Mar 22, 2012)

coley said:


> And then along comes mumsy who for various reasons has decided she wants the bairn back and lo and behold after telling the court she is in a position to offer 24 hr care and has cleaned her act up she then gets custody.


 
This is what scares me. She gave him up, said she never wanted to see him again, had her mum go into their house over a weekend and completely remove any trace of little 27. she could then concentrate on her hdeonistic lifetsyle with new partner.

I had to write to CAFCASS and request that the act to try and get her to see her son. Now that she has lost her partner, her home, her job and is sat in a refuge with fuck all, she probably regrets ever giving him up. He is happy now, away from the absue he was suffering, but in the back of my mind is the fact that she may well tuen up one day and say she is his mother and she wants him back. She will then use the fact that I work fulltime and she doesnt as a reason why she can give him a better life than me. And it does happen.


----------



## coley (Mar 22, 2012)

1927 said:


> This is what scares me. She gave him up, said she never wanted to see him again, had her mum go into their house over a weekend and completely remove any trace of little 27. she could then concentrate on her hdeonistic lifetsyle with new partner.
> 
> I had to write to CAFCASS and request that the act to try and get her to see her son. Now that she has lost her partner, her home, her job and is sat in a refuge with fuck all, she probably regrets ever giving him up. He is happy now, away from the absue he was suffering, but in the back of my mind is the fact that she may well tuen up one day and say she is his mother and she wants him back. She will then use the fact that I work fulltime and she doesnt as a reason why she can give him a better life than me. And it does happen.


 
The mistake my nephew made was in not formalising the arrangement, when she went he just got on with it, what he should have done was to get the court to award him custody but he didnt and a couple of years later she turned up with a solicitor and a court date, she got custody even though she had only seen their son six times in the time since she had left


----------



## 1927 (Mar 22, 2012)

coley said:


> The mistake my nephew made was in not formalising the arrangement, when she went he just got on with it, what he should have done was to get the court to award him custody but he didnt and a couple of years later she turned up with a solicitor and a court date, she got custody even though she had only seen their son six times in the time since she had left


 
I do atleast have a court order giving me residence and she is only allowed supervised access.


----------



## trashpony (Mar 22, 2012)

1927 said:


> I do atleast have a court order giving me residence and she is only allowed supervised access.


I think in that case, it is extremely unlikely she will be allowed residence. They don't give out supervised access orders lightly


----------



## 1927 (Mar 23, 2012)

coley said:


> The mistake my nephew made was in not formalising the arrangement, when she went he just got on with it, what he should have done was to get the court to award him custody but he didnt and a couple of years later she turned up with a solicitor and a court date, she got custody even though she had only seen their son six times in the time since she had left


 
See this is a major downfall in the governments argument that cases should be kept out of court at all costs if possible. Its a very harrowing experience, but necessary imho. Even once I had custody I couldnt have slept at night without a court order knowing that legally I did not have a court order granting me custody. Its all very well being amicable and reaching agreement between yoursleves, but without the piece of paper, as you have seen, the mother will always be seen as the rightful parent to have custody. Once I had custody, by agreement, the court even asked me if I wanted to drop proceedings as he was now in my care, I dont think "too fucking right I do cos we are dealing with a fucking nutter here" is acceptable language in a court room, but its what I wanted to say!


----------

