Fathers for Justice

[General Ludd]

Well you are either a feminist or a mysoginist

Really? I know lots of women who are neither.

 

[nosos]

I know I am probably sounding overly simplistic, but surely you either want equality or you don't

Yeah, that's true in a purely abstract sense. I just think it's important to bear in mind that it's more complex than one or t'other. Feminist and mysoganist are just two labels, used in a number of ways by many different people. While it's true that they are mutually exclusive, they're only mutually exclusive in terms of each other. The categories break down because not everyone falls neatly into them.

 

[HarrisonSlade]

Maybe the complete ignoring of my point was something to do with the fact that you guys want to cat fight about who's the biggest sexist and whether or not feminism is evil or inverted sexism is blah blah blah. The fact of the matter is that however we feel that we are being hard done by, whatever gender we may be, that this whole thread is not about issues, it is about what is best for a child. When I mentioned feminist, I used the pretext of cod, as in my opinion, it is not a mothers right to have full power of her child, but it is half her responsibility to look after it. Just as it is half the fathers too. A real feminist believes in equal rights for women and fights for them, end of. (By the way, Germaine Greer wrote a couple of books about her gender issues, in a career of which she has also given as probably more into into other affairs than she has with wimmin. Writing a book about gender issues should not automatically give you a label, would you do the same if it were a man? Germaine Greer is more a conservative intellectual snob than gender activist)
That aside, it is important to point out that most people who have written about custody have shown great support for the system. No one seems to care whether it fucks with a kids head or not, just as long as they win the argument. What the hell is wrong with giving both parents custody, and allowing the kid to sleep eat and do his or her homework where or when he or she pleases, just as long as it is with either parent? Both parents had the kid, surely it is both their responsibilities to look after it; and it's not the kids fault that mummy and daddy have broken up, so why should junior be punished by being told by the parent that some tosser in a white wig has given carte blanche over?
Why not just completely get rid of custody laws and let the kid be brought up by who he or she wishes, more than likely both? or is it more important to keep up this cruel game of political egos that seriously damage children?

 

[LilMissHissyFit]

What the hell is wrong with giving both parents custody, and allowing the kid to sleep eat and do his or her homework where or when he or she pleases, just as long as it is with either parent? Both parents had the kid, surely it is both their responsibilities to look after it; and it's not the kids fault that mummy and daddy have broken up, so why should junior be punished by being told by the parent that some tosser in a white wig has given carte blanche over?
Why not just completely get rid of custody laws and let the kid be brought up by who he or she wishes, more than likely both? or is it more important to keep up this cruel game of political egos that seriously damage children?

Nothing so long as neither parent acts in a way which is going to fuck up their childs head even more.
Not all parents sadly can act in that way and put their kids interests first, it seems those who have to use the courts to try and make sure their kids interests do come first get tarred with the same brush by you, were all evil were all ego maniacs then we just cant win can we?

I went to court to stop my kids being told that their father was going to come round and stab me in the middle of the night ( amongst other things after assaulting me on handovers) hardly seems fair or productive to allow him to carry on doing that to them? Trying to run we over in the car? that ok by you? having his family meet me and set his sister onto me the second I stepped out of the car to collect the children after an overnight visit ( a visit Id offered him repeatedly and arranged to suit him and his demands)
All this while I had to ask over and over for him to take an interest in his children rather than me, god forbid he should have all three art the same time, they were just too demanding, he couldnt possibly have managed so he didnt want the responsibility did he? That my fault too I suppose becuase Im a woman????
I'll argue to the end of time that I did put my kids first and I have it down in black and white about that point and its exactly how I was judged by the court welfare officer and that was what was in the report.

 

[HarrisonSlade]

Nothing so long as neither parent acts in a way which is going to fuck up their childs head even more.
Not all parents sadly can act in that way and put their kids interests first, it seems those who have to use the courts to try and make sure their kids interests do come first get tarred with the same brush by you, were all evil were all ego maniacs then we just cant win can we?

I went to court to stop my kids being told that their father was going to come round and stab me in the middle of the night ( amongst other things after assaulting me on handovers) hardly seems fair or productive to allow him to carry on doing that to them? Trying to run we over in the car? that ok by you? having his family meet me and set his sister onto me the second I stepped out of the car to collect the children after an overnight visit ( a visit Id offered him repeatedly and arranged to suit him and his demands)
All this while I had to ask over and over for him to take an interest in his children rather than me, god forbid he should have all three art the same time, they were just too demanding, he couldnt possibly have managed so he didnt want the responsibility did he? That my fault too I suppose becuase Im a woman????
I'll argue to the end of time that I did put my kids first and I have it down in black and white about that point and its exactly how I was judged by the court welfare officer and that was what was in the report.

That is completely unfair and totally contrary to everything I have said. I find what has happened to you horrific, and find offence that you would say that I condone anything that occured.
I will point this out and then continue without replying to your personal experience. I have never condemned Mothers or Fathers from putting court injunctions on criminally dangerous ex spouses. This, I believe, goes without saying. I have in fact said that it is not the right of any parent to control their childrens life, but it is their responsibility to look after them. The choice is with the child whether they want to stay at one house or t'other.
With respect to the amount of horror in your life and I am truly sorry that you went through what you did, I do have to say that I take offence at you bringing me into the picture, by insinuating that I would believe that any of it would be your fault because of your gender. It is gender politics, of which I am trying to side track this whole issue against. I completely condemn an action group called fathers4justice, believing that they are, themselves, drawn up in the very same battle of egos.

 

[bfg]

Getting back to the thread, I have an active member of F4J in this room with me. Anybody have any questions they'd like to ask?

 

[Orang Utan]

Do you think dressing up as super heroes and behaving like overgrown schoolboys is going to endear you to the public and make the the courts see you as responsible fathers?

 

[TopCat]

Ignore the witterings of that dysfunctional idot Fat Hamster. The stupid and regressive view that men should be more careful where they put their sperm reminds me instantly of the religous right arguing that contraception and abortion are wrong and unnecessary as Girls "can always keep their knickers on you know"...

She is just a bitter fool who thankfully represents a tiny fraction of the population, a throwback to the worst days of seperatism.

Having two loving parents is very important to children whoever they live with.

I consider the main point made by that fathers group, that contact orders are never enforced in the face of obstruction by bitter mothers to be a truism and this situation should change. I can feel the dilemmma that the family courts are in however. It is not generally in the childs best interest to have the mother jailed for needlessly obstructing contact.

Some women exploit that reluctance to impose sanctions and as a consequence many children lose contact with their fathers leaving many men to become bitter with regard to the (rather biased towards women) legal system that we currently have.

I doubt that the actions of F4J will enhance the chance of any of it's present members gaining regular contact. Where I see hope for the future is that by carrying out their somewhat extreme and often bizarre protests, they have started something of a debate which is long overdue.

I just wish that people would carry out the oft repeated premise that they would "put the children first", many don't and at the end of the day this is detremental to the children. I would hope even the most bitter parent (and breakups make people bitter) would consider mediation rather than play stupid, evil games.

 

[bfg]

Do you think dressing up as super heroes and behaving like overgrown schoolboys is going to endear you to the public and make the the courts see you as responsible fathers?

To some factions of the public, yes. To the courts, possibly not. But remember, its an issue thats affected a lot of children for decades now. Previous pressure groups have lobbied in a more conservative way and achieved absolutely jack for their efforts and made no progress at all with bringing the issue to the public conscience. Non-violent direct action may not impress many judges at all, but ways have making a favourable impression on them have been tried and ignored, so more radical actions are more liely to provoke debate on the issues surrounding the family courts.

Also be aware that wanting to be a father, and being denied that for often very petty reasons, inspires very powerful human emotions. Some of the members involved with this group have been in this position for many years, and in a lot of cases being denied the chance to see your kids is similar to being bereaved. It doesn't take long for a parent to become desperate. Some of the people taking part in the actions discussed are very desperate men who, due to reluctance of anyone (apart from family solicitors more than willing to make a fortune out of their misery) to take any interest in them, now have nothing to lose. More events are planned this month, so keep an eye on the news.

If you don't approve of the methods being used to gain attention, well, bearing in mind nobody was listening before, what do you suggest as a means of provoking debate?

 

[LilMissHissyFit]

That is completely unfair and totally contrary to everything I have said. I find what has happened to you horrific, and find offence that you would say that I condone anything that occured.
I will point this out and then continue without replying to your personal experience. I have never condemned Mothers or Fathers from putting court injunctions on criminally dangerous ex spouses. This, I believe, goes without saying. I have in fact said that it is not the right of any parent to control their childrens life, but it is their responsibility to look after them. The choice is with the child whether they want to stay at one house or t'other.
With respect to the amount of horror in your life and I am truly sorry that you went through what you did, I do have to say that I take offence at you bringing me into the picture, by insinuating that I would believe that any of it would be your fault because of your gender. It is gender politics, of which I am trying to side track this whole issue against. I completely condemn an action group called fathers4justice, believing that they are, themselves, drawn up in the very same battle of egos.

Interesting you say that but in your post you accused people of being in a battle of egos and you also advocated the abolition of the laws which now protect my children from any further abuse of their parents power.Its the very custody laws and court process that you condemned which protected my children, Injunctions failed them, the family courts failed them until he tried to kill me
THATS why I asked you the questions and argued my point. You generalised far too much, something many people in this thread seem to be doing. Simply trying to show that the law does have its uses, that whats at stake is far more than a battle of Egos. Believe me if it was as simple as a battle of Egos once youve been through the court system a few times and been knocked back or not got a satisfactory result on behalf of your children if you are a genuine parent who believes there are issues concerning your children you are ready to throw in the towel completely.

 

[LilMissHissyFit]

.

Also be aware that wanting to be a father, and being denied that for often very petty reasons, inspires very powerful human emotions. Some of the members involved with this group have been in this position for many years, and in a lot of cases being denied the chance to see your kids is similar to being bereaved. It doesn't take long for a parent to become desperate. Some of the people taking part in the actions discussed are very desperate men who, due to reluctance of anyone (apart from family solicitors more than willing to make a fortune out of their misery) to take any interest in them,?

HMM petty reaons???? Do you not think that allowing fathers who admit to a history of violence and harrassment ( such as the one featured in the article) to join you you are simply sending the wrong message to society about F4J's aims and objectives and diluting your position.???
The one in the article was breaching a court order which was imposed to protect the child and yet its presented by F4J as legitimate in order to gain access to the child ( something it seems he was denied for good reason)

 

[reallyoldhippy]

The one in the article was breaching a court order

I've breached court orders, LHMF. The courts don't always (often) get it right. It sounds as if you've had a pretty lousy time and are very angry. I wouldn't try to belittle that. But I feel you're trying to belittle the anguish and pain felt by fathers and by the children who feel deserted. The present court system is (notwithstanding some very unpleasant evidence to the contrary) biased in favour of mothers. I was accused of all kinds of shit, none of which was true, which was initially believed by the courts. I accept that sometimes children are used by fathers to get at their exes. But to think that doesn't also apply to mothers is plain blinkered.

 

[LilMissHissyFit]

If you go back and read my posts Ive said that that can happen with both sexes.
Ild also like you to go back to the original article and read what was said. The father in breach of a court order was in breach of an injunction.
If you knew just HOW hard it is to get a court to grant an injunction then you would see where Im coming from.You cant simply saunter into court and say that man is upsetting me ( how its been presented by the father) I want an injunction. You have to show real long term evidence of continued harrassment and evidence of harm being caused by that person before they will limit a persons freedoms ( the European convention on human rights serves as a pretty stringent safeguard these days)
The way its been presented is as if he sent one text and the mother has had his contact stopped. Its hughly unlikely that that is the truth and thats why I posed the question to BFG who says he has someone with him from F4J
You havent ( maybe you cant) answer my original question about people like that diluting their cause.


I know full well there are parents on both sides ( as Ive already said) who use their children and ( again as Ive said) Im aware that there are parents who are denied access without good reason by irresponsible parents ( again of both sexes)
Im arguing that abolishing the children act in regards to access and custody would be an archaic move, something harrison slade said would be for the good of children) and Im asking what purpose it serves allowing men such as the one featured in the article to join protests where the court simply wont have got it SO wrong.I know the amount of evidence you need to even make some sort of mud stick in these sort of cases, it takes far far more than "hes not seeing them" weve also seen a case quoted in this thread where a mother attempted to fabricate evidence and the courts saw through her and awarded the father custody.

What does it achieve for F4J allowing these men to share the same platform as men who have unfairly been denied custody/access and who are trying to protest about legitimate issues with the system????

 

[bfg]

Reet, me F4J pals gone home now, but i'll have him back on here on thursday nite if you can wait til then for answers.

I feel lilmisshissyfits focussing too much on one case study, to be honest. Yes, there will be ppl joining F4J to use it as a platform even though court orders are made for very good reasons. But its wrong to just focus on the minority. When an allegation is made against a father, its not something thats easy to disprove. We all know it happens in real life, but the courts don't see this. Injunctions can, and have been given based on very flimsy n dubious evidence, and are hard as fuck to overturn.

I'm being persuaded to join. Its an issue where I can turn round and say, 'well, i'm alrite actually mate' if i want to, cos i'm one of the lucky ones who got parental consent sorted for me kids in the event of a break-up, and still have a good relationship with their Mum, so I get me kids several nites per week. However, i see a lot of me mates who spend their saturdays, or second sundays of the month, trying to keep a relationship going with their kids, and feeling pretty powerless to improve their chances of getting any more intervention than that. In some cases, they are better parents than some of the mothers (it really does vary from case to case). Inside I know it affects them, and the grandparents involved, and siblings, too, not to mention the kids concerned. They tend to see me as a pretty lucky bastard in this department, and, F4J is something they're only just becoming aware of. i see it is something thats gonna grow. Whether I join, I don't know yet, I probably will but i'll draw the line at painting meself purple + blocking traffic (for now!)

 

[editor]

Ignore the witterings of that dysfunctional idot Fat Hamster.

Bang out of order personal abuse.

(Editor's hand hovers over yellow card pocket)

 

[RubyToogood]

(Read page 1 Mike)

 

[TopCat]

Bang out of order personal abuse.

(Editor's hand hovers over yellow card pocket)

Whilst I respect your view Mike, I have to ask, have you read this thread? I feel in context of the thread and comments made by FH that what I posted was accurate, reasonable and to the point.

Any way life is too short etc etc...

 

[Mrs Magpie]

I think you were both out of order (FH and TC)

 

[fat hamster]

I expressed the opinion that "fathers are generally selfish, immature and egotistical", and wrote:

"In my long experience, most women are more mature, grounded and just plain better better at the long, slow, demanding job of bringing up children than are most men.

"In the experience of most of the women I know, having the father around causing problems and making demands is far more unhelpful."

What I said may be contentious - I may even be mistaken! - but it hardly constitutes personal abuse.

FWIW I've also described, later in the thread, the considerable effort I went to to ensure that both my children maintained contact with their reluctant fathers.

 

[RubyToogood]

I don't feel that personal abuse is acceptable, but I don't think you can post what you did at the start of this thread without expecting to get some comeback.

 

[freethepeeps]

- but it hardly constitutes personal abuse.

Nah, it came across as an attack on all men.

 

[Mrs Magpie]

I agree, your initial posts came over as 'all men are callow shiftless bastards' and 'all women are shining paragons'........

 

[bmd]

Do you think dressing up as super heroes and behaving like overgrown schoolboys is going to endear you to the public and make the the courts see you as responsible fathers?

No but that wasn't about the courts, they weren't trying to get the attention of a judge when they were dressed as spiderman sat at the top of a crane they were trying to get some publicity and it seems to have endeared them to a certain section of the public.

 

[fat hamster]

I agree, your initial posts came over as 'all men are callow shiftless bastards' and 'all women are shining paragons'........

Well, that is absolutely not what I said. I don't believe that to be the case, and I've never said it.

 

[MysteryGuest]

Do you think dressing up as super heroes and behaving like overgrown schoolboys is going to endear you to the public and make the the courts see you as responsible fathers?

Breast cancer charities have organised a marathon walk where the women partaking wore plastic breasts. I didn't see anybody complaining about that being "childish".

imo some people (of either gender) are very ready to use accusations of immaturity towards men, and are overly ready to accuse them of "self-pity" if they make any statements of emotional upset. It is a very gender-specific thing - you really don't get women being accused in this specific way.

Incidentally, in a letter to the Guardian a few weeks back a (female) member of F4J wrote to point out that 25% of their membership consists of women.

I'm absoutely sure that many members of S4J are dodgy, but here again we get a problem that's similar to an extent to that found in Sparkling's "magistrate" thread. Wouldn't it be changed for the better if more decent men and women joined?

 

[HarrisonSlade]

Interesting you say that but in your post you accused people of being in a battle of egos and you also advocated the abolition of the laws which now protect my children from any further abuse of their parents power.Its the very custody laws and court process that you condemned which protected my children, Injunctions failed them, the family courts failed them until he tried to kill me
THATS why I asked you the questions and argued my point. You generalised far too much, something many people in this thread seem to be doing. Simply trying to show that the law does have its uses, that whats at stake is far more than a battle of Egos. Believe me if it was as simple as a battle of Egos once youve been through the court system a few times and been knocked back or not got a satisfactory result on behalf of your children if you are a genuine parent who believes there are issues concerning your children you are ready to throw in the towel completely.

I advocate abolition of a law of which one parent is allowed to dictate terms to their child. Though I do believe that policing of injunctions ought to be a lot more efficient.
I do agree that my language had generalised all situations as one. However, I still believe that anyone who stops their child from seeing the other parent is wrong to do so. This does, of course, not apply to parents who want to see their child who wishes not to see them. The choice is with the child. In all cases of separation, the child must be allowed to completely dictate terms of who he or she sees or stays with at all times.
You still seem to think that I am siding with one parent or another. I'm not. At the end of the day the choice comes down to your child, not you or your partner.

 

[sparkling]

I've read bits of this thread and just want to start by saying the bleeding obvious which is that many of our opinions are based on experiences so if FH's experiences both personal and second hand are that fathers are a waste of space then thats her experience and her point of view.

What generally happens though is that people acknowledge that the opinion is based on subjectivity rather than a proven point backed up with evidence. In a way its okay to be prejudice so long as you acknowledge it to be so.

My own experiences are that my Dad was brilliant as a father, way beyond his years. He shared the child care with my mum and he also did all the emotional stuff as well.

I have always tried to get my sons father to take his share of responsiblity but its not always easy. He has felt pressurised and pulled by the demands of society upon him. He has sometimes seen his main role to provide money and emotionally it was easier for him to not be available for the boys. I have always tried to encourage the boys to see beyond this in the hope that they will act differently when they become fathers.

I have also known friends who in times of crisis have used their children as pawns in unhappy relationships and seen it as a victory when the children apparently want to be with mummy more than daddy. I even have a friend who admits she cant bear not to be needed by her children.
Troubles of parents visited on children -we all just do our best.

 

[white rabbit]

if FH's experiences both personal and second hand are that fathers are a waste of space then thats her experience and her point of view.

It's the extension of that product of her experience to this pidgenholing of all men that people find so offensive.

I'm not surprised it's provoked the hostility it has, tbh.

 

[sparkling]

It's the extension of that product of her experience to this pidgenholing of all men that people find so offensive.

I'm not surprised it's provoked the hostility it has, tbh.

I agree which is why I put the second bit about people generally acknowledging their prejudices.

 

[General Ludd]

In a way its okay to be prejudice so long as you acknowledge it to be so.

Really? That line of argument justifies rascism if people acknowledge that they're rascist and I don't find 'rascist and proud' any more palatable than anyother form of rascism.