Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact
  • Hi Guest,
    We have now moved the boards to the new server hardware.
    Search will be impaired while it re-indexes the posts.
    See the thread in the Feedback forum for updates and feedback.
    Lazy Llama

Fathers for Justice

fat hamster said:
On the contrary, with both fathers I was the one who made the effort to ensure that they stayed in touch with their daughters over the years. Maybe men should be a bit more careful where they put their sperm, innit?

I didn't set out to get pregnant with either of my children, though in both cases - once I had got over the shock - I was delighted.

well if that's the case i certainly had completely the wrong impression of your personal circumstances from your posts on other threads along this theme, and so what i wrote was offensive and unwarranted if applied to you, so i apologise profusely. my mistake. :oops:

i still think that your view of fathers is offensive and rather sad if applied to the whole of society (obviously what you think of your own daughters' fathers is your own business), and i don't believe for a second that you don't know any number of happy families that have both children and their fathers in the picture, but that's just a stalemate waiting to happen, so never mind.

fat hamster said:
If that's where you think I'm coming from with this, you're a lot stupider than I thought, l_k.

so you already thought that i was stupid, but now just think that i'm stupider?! very subtle! :D

oh well, i never claimed to be brain of britain so i can't really complain, but OUCH all the same! lol :D
 
Random said:
I agree. But assuming that women will be able to do all the work won't move us on. If F4J are claiming a right to %50 of access this should also be taken as a move towards men taking %50 *responsibility*, which is a good feminist aim.
Good point.

If there are ways to force men to grow up and accept real responsibility for themselves and the product of their sperm, then I'm all in favour.

However when I told him I was pregnant father number one blanked me for six weeks and then rang and ranted at me for half an hour about what a difficult time he was having because I was pregnant. So I dumped him. Easier IMO to take full responsibility from the word go than to try and knock him into shape. He remained out of contact for the next ten years, basically until Bam Bam! wanted to know who her dad was so I tracked him down for her.

Father number two had such a tendency to throw crockery and furniture at the walls that I was frightened he'd do the same to the baby, so I ended up doing 95%+ of the childcare.
 
laptop said:
One Sandra Laville has done the obvious thing and gone to talk to their exes. A mixed bag and obviously the lawyers have been over the piece with a fine-toothed comb... http://society.guardian.co.uk/children/story/0,1074,1222323,00.html

For example:



Messy, complicated...

I know of one father who's suing for access and responsibility now, having been so slack at picking the child up from daycare that the kid was about to lose the place. The mother's been advised he'll probably get access - unless he's actually jailed for assault first.

I know of one who vanished in stages - got slacker and slacker about arrangements and stopped seeing his kid at all when his new wife had hers. That, I think, is a far commoner problem.

This is where I think F4J have got it tits up and arse backwards.By supporting this man and allowing him to stand up and say this is wrong they are legitimising his abusive behaviour and the means by which he want about it ( the same as my ex... through his continued contact with the mother via the child)
Sorry but this man should not be allowed to hide behind the access issue, if he has been harrassing and physically assaulting the mother then I think that there are very strong evidence and reasons to refuse contact and that that has happened in the best interests of the child. No child should have to be caught up in violence whatever the sex of the abusive parent.

This is where my sympathy for F4J fails completely, when the issues are muddied. IF thses fathers were all good parents then I believe they would have every right to stand up and figh for access and equal rights and equal parenting in the courts but to say that this father has suffered an injustice is wrong becuase its in the childs best interests not to have to witness or be involved in the shit that his father is doling out.
Injunctions with powers of imprisonment dont get handed out by courts like till reciepts at a checkout. You have to go through some serious and continuious abuse before judges hand that stuff out.
If the father has then chosen to ignore that injunction and text his son he gets whats coming to him. Before getting to that stage he would have been warned and warned and warned to stop his behaviour. he chose not to and he chooses to involve his child.
You cannot seperate the two issues becuase his behaviour impacts upon his child and he shouldnt be allowed to ruin his childs happiness in order to achieve his own, whatever rings his bell in terms of control of the mother
 
fat hamster.. what if this was a thread about how some white person had been mugged twice, both times by black people, or some black person had been mugged twice, both times by white people? Would they be justified in saying "in my experience all black/white people are lowlife scum"?
 
fat hamster said:
Good point.

If there are ways to force men to grow up and accept real responsibility for themselves and the product of their sperm, then I'm all in favour.

However when I told him I was pregnant father number one blanked me for six weeks and then rang and ranted at me for half an hour about what a difficult time he was having because I was pregnant. So I dumped him. Easier IMO to take full responsibility from the word go than to try and knock him into shape. He remained out of contact for the next ten years, basically until Bam Bam! wanted to know who her dad was so I tracked him down for her.

Father number two had such a tendency to throw crockery and furniture at the walls that I was frightened he'd do the same to the baby, so I ended up doing 95%+ of the childcare.


This pisses me off so much.

So because you were such a bad judge of character and don't like to take responsibility for contraception men are wankers. What did you expect from two such utter knobheads? You chose them and now you're saying that this has helped mould your view of fathers. Get a fucking clue.
 
fat hamster said:
Nope, but then I haven't said anything of the sort about fathers.

I don't think the metaphor would have worked if the mugging victims thought of black/white people as more of a hindrance than a help when it came to raising to children. It was more of a comment on a crass generalisation rather than a direct comparison, and you know that full well.

I guess we don't need to ask you the daddy or chips question!
 
LilMissHissyFit said:
I reserve judgement on the Fathers for justice mob Im afraid. There are other fathers groups who dont resort to these tactics and before we hand them sympathy and support we need to realise that these are fathers protesting who have been refused contact in many cases by a court which generally needs evidence of a pretty good standard to refuse contact.

Ive been on the opposite side of this argument as a mother who had good grounds for opposing contact but even with police evidence, statements, previous injunctions which has power of arrest attached after both me and the kids suffered domestic abuse and yet even with all this evidence they courts awarded contact, not just once but at several hearings where he appeared regularly trying to force the issues, harrassing me using legally aided lawyers every few months to get more and more contact ( even though CAFCASS had said they didnt believe more contact was in the childrens best interests)

My experience showed me that even with evidence from statutory bodies my ex was still awarded contact, despite using contact handovers to physically assault me.
Im now very sceptical about these claims that courts favour the mother, the experience of friends of mine and other mothers who had been in refuges with me has been very similar. When I see these men I wonder whether they hide behind the confidentiality aspects of the family court to claim they are victims and hard done by when the court may have seen overwhelming evidence of abuse by these people and decided that they should place the childs interests first and that meant no direct contact with dad ( which was what my ex was eventually awarded after beating me and trying to run me over when collecting the children- witnessed by neighbours of mine and the children who were in the car)

Things arent always as clear cut as they seem and we have no way of checking whatever claims of injustice these men claim becuase of the court imposed confidentiality ( whihc is quite correct, they should be private)

I lived through simular situations, though i was the child.

what worrys me about all this 'fathers rights' 'mothers rights' stuff of late, is that many argue the toss about the rights of the parents without really saying much on the right of the child.

I witnessed horrific violence towards my mother by father and lived in a couple of 'womens refuges' for a time, but at some point whilst i was growing up i remember feeling hate directed towards my mother simply for the fact that my dad wasnt around. An evil shit he may have been but at that point whilst i was still young i still loved him because he was my dad. I didnt have the advantage of the ''grownups'' to be able to make some sort of understanding of what was going on, so i grew up for a while being very scared, angry and confused.

My father fought for access and gained a weekend visit every two weeks, and like LilMiss's experiences, he used that to continue the harrasment, so i ended up convinced it was my fault. It all went back to court and the access was stopped, my involvment in this big life changing moment was being stuck in a room with 2 very old male social workers and my mother and being asked directly who i wanted to live with 'mommy or daddy?', i cant remember anything but crying through out the whole thing, its probably the most awfull question you can ask a kid going through the seperation of their parents, especially with one of those parents present. where is the justice for the thousands if not millions of kids who are put through the same situations week in week out?

Parents make a choice when they have a child, that child doesnt choose to be born, but that child has the right to grow up in a safe warm loving environment (that can be provided by just the one parent). Not all cases are the same, so whilst were all sat around arguing over the rights of the parents, make sure the kids get some to, it saves a lot of heartache in the long run. Not all kids are going to understand that its safer if one parent doesnt have contact, but most kids are going to feel the effects of that family splitting up for years to come. Its the duty, not only of the parents, but of everyone to help those kids understand whats going on. It makes me wonder if little Johnny knows why daddys up a crane dressed like superman, and why shouldnt he know why, after all the whole things about him isnt it?
 
fat hamster said:
I said most fathers ...

For the sake of argument, there are around 6bn people in the world. If we work on the basis that there is a roughly 50:50 split between men and women, 3bn will be men. Let's assume that around 2bn of those are fathers, and 'most' encompasses 1,000,000,001 at least. You are therefore saying that your empirical observations of at most a few hundred fathers suddenly qualifies you to say that over a billion people are selfish, immature, and egotistical. I've known good fathers (including my own) and bad fathers, but I would never presume to make such a massive generalisation based on such a miniscule sample of people. Especially given that you are probably more likely to become aware of something which is going sour than something which is going okay.

peace.gif
 
Kidda said:
It all went back to court and the access was stopped, my involvment in this big life changing moment was being stuck in a room with 2 very old male social workers and my mother and being asked directly who i wanted to live with 'mommy or daddy?', i cant remember anything but crying through out the whole thing, its probably the most awfull question you can ask a kid going through the seperation of their parents, especially with one of those parents present. where is the justice for the thousands if not millions of kids who are put through the same situations week in week out?

Heartbreaking.

And the heart of the problem. If anyone can think of a way of finding out what the children involved want - given that asking a direct question is clearly often as stupid as it was in your experience - please send a postcard to the Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss (head of the Family Division, last time I looked), soonest.
 
I should have made this a poll.

I do find comparisons between this group and others (not just those made on these boards) interesting though. A lot of people seem to point to the fact that other groups don't use these tactics as a criticism of F4J. Said people are then utterly unable to articulate quite why this a virtue.

If something isn't working, then try an alternative ffs.
 
laptop said:
Heartbreaking.

And the heart of the problem. If anyone can think of a way of finding out what the children involved want - given that asking a direct question is clearly often as stupid as it was in your experience - please send a postcard to the Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss (head of the Family Division, last time I looked), soonest.

ive actually thought a lot about this and i did some voluntary work in a domestic violence unit last year and found that if you actually have ''informal formal'' chats with these kids you can actually find out a lot of whats going on in their head. There were councellors/case workers in the unit who used to have a kick about with the kids in the garden and slowly ask a set of questions over the course of a couple of hours or so. Many of these kids arent stupid and do have opinions about whats happening to them, its just finding the way of getting that opinion without worrying them to much or scaring them shitless.
 
Kidda said:
ive actually thought a lot about this and i did some voluntary work in a domestic violence unit last year and found that if you actually have ''informal formal'' chats with these kids you can actually find out a lot of whats going on in their head. There were councellors/case workers in the unit who used to have a kick about with the kids in the garden and slowly ask a set of questions over the course of a couple of hours or so. Many of these kids arent stupid and do have opinions about whats happening to them, its just finding the way of getting that opinion without worrying them to much or scaring them shitless.

This is progress.

Of course, as a smart suspicious kid who hated any kind of decision, if it'd been me in that position it might have taken weeks. But still.

And if anyone had gone to that trouble and I'd been asked to make a formal statement of what I wanted I'd probably have turned around and denied everything. I guess. I'm lucky that I have to guess.

At least two remaining problems for our legal system:
  • How to present "hearsay" evidence from said person who's just spent two hours (or more) with the kid(s)
  • How to allow said person to be alone with the kid(s) - clearly you don't want either parent, or any authority figure, there, from their point of view

The whole thing's fundamentally unsuited to an adversarial legal system. I can't remember why, but it occurred to me a while ago that family court cases should be shipped off to tribunals in Denmark or somewhere*. They'd make mistakes, but probably fewer and less painfully.


* Different legal system. It was a German/Greek friend who, after I'd explained what "jury service" meant, exclaimed "You let who decide? We have trained professionals to do that!" Though I'm sentimentally attached to juries, I see her point too...
 
Hmmm, we're talking here of a failed relationship between the mother and father, and the kids who get caught in the crossfire.

Not surprising that theres animosity between the parents, and that it so often ends up with the child being used as a weapon to cudgel the other with, is it?

One thing that hasn't been raised so far is the issue of child support, and the additional strain that can put on both parents, and their new partners in many cases. Might save the treasury money, but the CSA is able to wreak a lot of havoc in peoples lives, and in a comsumerist, litigious society it means that fathers can't just walk away as easily as they did before.

And before that it was virtually impossible for either parent to walk away - in the days when divorce was virtually a no no.

I find FH's take on it a bit alarming though, and I have certainly met mothers who are "generally selfish, immature and egotistical." So, what else is new?

It needs to be taken on a case by case basis, and in the majority of cases, I believe that it IS in the interests of the majority of children to maintain a relationship with the father and mother.

As to the DA stuff, I reckon F4J have managed to fuel a debate - and hopefully that will move the issue on.

With such a high divorce rate, we need, as a society, to find better ways of dealing with the fall-out.

Many men can, and do take responsibility for their kids, sometimes they're denied the opportunity to do so.
 
freethepeeps said:
The decisions about kids are not made by juries.

I know. I started on a definition of "adversarial legal system" and it all got too complicated so I went for a metaphor thingy.
 
ChrisFilter said:
I don't think the metaphor would have worked if the mugging victims thought of black/white people as more of a hindrance than a help when it came to raising to children. It was more of a comment on a crass generalisation rather than a direct comparison, and you know that full well.
I didn't say all fathers are "lowlife scum". I said they are generally selfish, immature and egotistical. Those were the words Deb Orr used in her article. I think they are good words to describe some of the characteristics of most of the fathers I've met - but in my view that's because most fathers are damaged people who have not attained anything like their full human potential. It makes them a burden on a great many women, but it doesn't make them "lowlife scum". :(
 
fat hamster said:
I didn't say all fathers are "lowlife scum". I said they are generally selfish, immature and egotistical. Those were the words Deb Orr used in her article. I think they are good words to describe some of the characteristics of most of the fathers I've met - but in my view that's because most fathers are damaged people who have not attained anything like their full human potential. It makes them a burden on a great many women, but it doesn't make them "lowlife scum". :(

So, in FHland, men are damaged and don't achieve their full potential, and women aren't damaged and do reach their full potential?

Anyone remember when Deborah Orr signed up on U75 using her real name?

:eek:
 
lyra_kitten said:
well if that's the case i certainly had completely the wrong impression of your personal circumstances from your posts on other threads along this theme, and so what i wrote was offensive and unwarranted if applied to you, so i apologise profusely. my mistake. :oops:
Apology accepted and appreciated.
i still think that your view of fathers is offensive and rather sad if applied to the whole of society (obviously what you think of your own daughters' fathers is your own business), and i don't believe for a second that you don't know any number of happy families that have both children and their fathers in the picture, but that's just a stalemate waiting to happen, so never mind.
Innit.
so you already thought that i was stupid, but now just think that i'm stupider?! very subtle! :D

oh well, i never claimed to be brain of britain so i can't really complain, but OUCH all the same! lol :D
Soz! Profuse apologies from my direction now, l_k - that wasn't what I meant but I can see now that's how it could be taken - I don't think you're stupid at all - ouch indeed. :oops: :oops:
 
fat hamster said:
I didn't say all fathers are "lowlife scum". I said they are generally selfish, immature and egotistical. Those were the words Deb Orr used in her article. I think they are good words to describe some of the characteristics of most of the fathers I've met - but in my view that's because most fathers are damaged people who have not attained anything like their full human potential. It makes them a burden on a great many women, but it doesn't make them "lowlife scum". :(
Radical Feminists, eh?

I guess any idea can make sense when you shut yourself off enough.

And that's what Radical Feminism is about, isn't it? Exclusivity.

There be monsters ...
 
freethepeeps said:
women aren't damaged and do reach their full potential?
Did I say that? :eek: Mush be shome mishtake shorely ...

IME women tend to mature faster and further - particularly when they realise how trapped they are as mothers by the way our society is organised - but I don't think any of us gets near to fulfilling our potential.
 
fat hamster said:
Did I say that? :eek: Mush be shome mishtake shorely ...

IME women tend to mature faster and further - particularly when they realise how trapped they are as mothers by the way our society is organised - but I don't think any of us gets near to fulfilling our potential.

Hmmm........

And who socialises these girls and boys?

:confused:
 
fat hamster said:
I didn't say all fathers are "lowlife scum". I said they are generally selfish, immature and egotistical. Those were the words Deb Orr used in her article. I think they are good words to describe some of the characteristics of most of the fathers I've met - but in my view that's because most fathers are damaged people who have not attained anything like their full human potential. It makes them a burden on a great many women, but it doesn't make them "lowlife scum". :(

again, 'lowlife scum' was relative to the metaphor..
 
Nemo said:
but I would never presume to make such a massive generalisation based on such a miniscule sample of people.
Never studied statistics, Nemo? :confused:

Of course, I can only fairly generalise for the particular cultures and social strata in which I've lived, but from everything I hear and read the attitudes, expectations and behaviour of men in most other cultures are even worse ...
 
fat hamster said:
See post '78 above, fbm.

I note that in post 78 you qualify your use of the phrase about 'most fathers' by stating that those were the words used by the journalist. Fair enough, but you should have done that at the start, because without such a qualification the statement appears to come from yourself and is profoundly offensive - it did surprise me to read you posting that to be honest.
 
fat hamster said:
Never studied statistics, Nemo? :confused:

Of course, I can only fairly generalise for the particular cultures and social strata in which I've lived, but from everything I hear and read the attitudes, expectations and behaviour of men in most other cultures are even worse ...
Sounds like the standard rationalisation of a bigot.
 
Back
Top Bottom