Fathers for Justice

[Monkeygrinder's Organ]

30+ years as a highly socially mobile community activist? I've met many, many thousands of fathers.

And I've taught stats at Uni too, mate, so watch it!

And you'd fail anyone who tried to argue a point the way you have as a statistical argument, wouldn't you?

 

[fanta]

<shakes fanta so hard his top blows off and all his bubbles and sticky sweet stuff splatter across the thread>

Hey keep your hands to yourself you cheeky flirt!

 

[ChrisFilter]

That's because I find them boring and silly.

Now now, don't be lazy.

 

[Nemo]

That's because I find them boring and silly.

And I find your 'arguments' boring and silly but that's not the point, you said it, you have to back it up (or admit that you're being massively unfair to a very large number of people you've never met).

 

[General Ludd]

30+ years as a highly socially mobile community activist? I've met many, many thousands of fathers.

But the people you're arguing against have also met large numbers of fathers, certainly enough for their (generally positive) experiences of fathers to be statistically significant. If your hypothesis was true then that would not be the case.

 

[pennimania]

If feminism equals denying kids a relationship with their fathers, then something has gone very wrong.

Men are beginning to see that they can be involved in the care of their children, and that should be something that feminists welcome.

This is a good point. I call myself a feminist fwiw, and I don;t think that men should be excluded (unless of course they have been abusive but I assume that's taken for granted so let's leave that out).

The thing is many men now see for themselves that patriarchy actually did not allow them to be actively involved with their kids and they now are waking up and wanting more from their lives. I think that must be a positive thing and I DO welcome it.

But the world does not change overnight and progress will be slow. we can all only hope to try and make things better for the next generation if we can.

fh you know I support you in most other things - I am interested to know what you would hope for in a perfect world. I really don't think you would leave men out - would you?

 

[TeeJay]

Dontcha just love it when men tell women how to do feminism.

Which is probably why "feminism" (as a word) is an anachronism and "gender equality" sums it up much better. Gender equality rejects *all* oppressive gender roles, supports every individual's right to choose how they lead their life and recognises people's rights as parents and as children.

You seem to be giving yourself more rights than both the children and the father, and justifying this by your own subjective view of the father and of what is best for the child. Isn't this just what a male-dominated society has been doing to women and children for centuries - treating them as virtual proppertyy with no rights of their own, and justifying it by saying that it is the wisest and best-informed decision and made in the best interests of everyone? Doesn't adopting this way of thinking make you just as oppressive?

 

[TeeJay]

...as a white person I know so little about how race is defined. But then, wouldn't it be tempting to generalise and say that's the case for most white people?...

A slight sidetrack, but in fact the current "racial categories" have their origins formly in European culture. The whole concept that there are different "races" of human being, and that one of them is "white" is primarily a european concept that has been foisted on the rest of the planet. It is worth noting that "Europe" constitutes 0.5 billion people, and non-Europe 6.5 billion people. It is also worth noting that separate "races" don't exist and are an entirely bogus concept, but sadly one which people - and the media - still seem happy to parrot and use to label other people.

 

[chrissie]

I don't know if I have anything to add to this debate. I just have this jumble in my head. I don't know what sense to make of it.

Our society doesn't encourage men to be the sort of parents that it expects mothers to be; this often leads to:
- mothers being treated like they have some sort of moral high ground
- mothers being expected to be better human beings than is sometimes fair
- fathers being treated like they are wankers
- fathers being treated like they can't be trusted with their own kids

It lets bad mothers off sometimes simply because they ARE mothers.
It takes childcare away from good fathers

I can't say I blame any parent - mothers OR fathers - for expressing, in anti-social ways, the pain they feel at being separated from their kids. Until you have felt the pain (and I have) you have NO idea how crippling it is. No wonder it turns some people into urban guerrillas. If society is going to hurt you that bad, then how can it expect you feel sociable about it for gods' sake?

Just a thought: how does the article read when you substitute mother for the word father? How does it read when you put 'parent' in for father instead?

It has been demonstrated fairly convincingly that a child need to knows BOTH its parents - and here's the rub - no matter how piss-poor they are (with the only exception being extremes of sexual or physical violence to the child) as a parent.

I believe we have to give the rights to the growing child, and that will mean giving rights to whichever non-cohabiting parent needs to see their kids, even if they aren't too good at it. IMO we should bus the absent parent in rather than risk psychological damage to a child by letting that parent miss its kid's childhood.

And I'm sorry for stepping on the toes of any person out there who used to wait for their absent parents to visit them as promised, often week after week, only to have that parent not turn up, and who now believes they'd have been better off never seeing that parent at all. I really am sorry. No one can factor in for the person who will never mature, parent or no.

 

[moose]

The thing is many men now see for themselves that patriarchy actually did not allow them to be actively involved with their kids and they now are waking up and wanting more from their lives.

Yes. In the 60's and early 70's, when single parent familes were a small minority, the single parent was almost always the mother. Few men demanded access or custody, because even if the notion of becoming full-time fathers occured to them, there were no structures in place which would provide them with the opportunity to either give up work or find daytime childcare. In only 40 years, the pendulum has swung - it's now possible (generally) for either parent to earn enough money, for either parent to look after the kids. But the legal mechanisms have not responded quickly enough to the changes in society.

However, there's another element to this: those products of the early one-parent familes, the children, are now becoming parents themselves. Having been brought up in homes in which the male parent was most often the absent one, and bearing the hurt/bewilderment/yearning/resentment (as described in many posts here) of that situation, how can they turn their thinking around to accept that the father of their own children could be a capable parent in his own right?

 

[maldwyn]

What a difficult thread.

Although I don’t support Fat Hamster’s generalisations about men and their abilities to be good fathers. I do believe there’s an awful lot of truth in what she’s saying.

I can only be anecdotal, but I watched my Dad beat my Mum enough to make her flee for her life, and then lose access to her kids on grounds of abandonment. My Dad was shit as a main carer, drunk and abusive (though we still loved him), the only support we kids had was a 10 minute, bimonthly, sit-in-the-car-and-chat, visits from a Social worker - telling us to count to ten before running away from home.

I never ‘forgave’ my Mum for leaving us with a violent Dad. I still feel it’s the Mothers responsibility to ensure her children are safe, and if that involves ditching the farther, so be it.

 

[chrissie]

Which is probably why "feminism" is an anachronism and "gender equality" is where its at? Gender equality rejects *all* oppressive gender roles, supports every individual's right to choose how they lead their life and recognises people's rights as parents and as children.

Feck, TJ, I am an anachronism! Cool.

Still a feminist, you know. Still think it a cool thing to be.

Like all labels, it can cover many things. As a feminist the funniest book I ever bought (and partially read) was by feminist lesbians separatists who wrote about how to avoid bringing up boy children. Great stuff.

Incidentally, before any feminist lesbian separatists have a go at me; my favourite poet was one and she cheerfully brought up two BOYS without a crisis.

Labels probably mean less than we think they do - until someone else applies them to us!

(Sorry, I think I may have just written one of those posts that make no sense to anyone but me! Ignore me, eh?)

 

[General Ludd]

I still feel it’s the Mothers responsibility to ensure her children are safe, and if that involves ditching the farther, so be it.

No-one's said that children shouldn't be safe. Dunno why it's the mother's responsibility though. Surely it's the father's responsibility as well? And the rest of society's responsibility whilst we're at all, as something like the Climbie case shows. How is the mother elevated to a special role?

 

[chrissie]

However, there's another element to this: those products of the early one-parent familes, the children, are now becoming parents themselves. Having been brought up in homes in which the male parent was most often the absent one, and bearing the hurt/bewilderment/yearning/resentment (as described in many posts here) of that situation, how can they turn their thinking around to accept that the father of their own children could be a capable parent in his own right?

And what if the child is a boy - and is going to be the father?

I really fear for my young grandson whose own father has disappeared and intends to stay disappeared too.

In order not to believe it is hisfault will he have to believe it is his father's? Will that make him think fathers are wankers?

If so, how will that make him feel about himself as a father later? How much faith can he have in his own ability to be father?

Shite! That's why I know his dad - tosser that he is - being there as a poor example would be better for him than he is at the moment by not being there at all. At least he'd serve as a model of what not to be. The absent can't serve as a model for anything except a damn hole. A hole in the heart. And I am afraid that my grandson is going to inherit that, no matter what great male role model walks into his life in years to come.

 

[chrissie]

What a difficult thread.

Although I don’t support Fat Hamster’s generalisations about men and their abilities to be good fathers. I do believe there’s an awful lot of truth in what she’s saying.

I can only be anecdotal, but I watched my Dad beat my Mum enough to make her flee for her life, and then lose access to her kids on grounds of abandonment. My Dad was shit as a main carer, drunk and abusive (though we still loved him), the only support we kids had was a 10 minute, bimonthly, sit-in-the-car-and-chat, visits from a Social worker - telling us to count to ten before running away from home.

I never ‘forgave’ my Mum for leaving us with a violent Dad. I still feel it’s the Mothers responsibility to ensure her children are safe, and if that involves ditching the farther, so be it.

I am sorry because this happened to me. I was the mother who left. Was told she had abandoned her kids. Was told not to say anything about being raped the night she was running away in case the judge thought I was immoral when I went for custody.

I eventually got my kids back though (and more by accident than justice) - but I am not sure I would have survived if I hadn't. I tried suicide when he first took them from me - but know I would have tried again and would have succeeded if I had lost custody. I don't know, even now, if I could have survived handing my kids back each week after access. Weak, I know. Human? Or a failing? Don't know.

Can I ask? How old are you? What happened to your mum after she lost custody?

 

[moose]

That's kind of what I meant, Chrissie - although I didn't put it very well.
It does apply to either gender of child. And it is the apportioning of blame which is the problem, as you point out in the case of your grandson.

My own father left because he decided he didn't like children, which left me feeling responsible (at 4) for my mother's pain as well as my own. My husband's father left before his birth and he spent his childhood suffering to his mother's rantings about the fecklessness, brutality and inadequacy of men. No wonder we're not having kids of our own!

 

[LilMissHissyFit]

No-one's said that children shouldn't be safe. Dunno why it's the mother's responsibility though. Surely it's the father's responsibility as well? And the rest of society's responsibility whilst we're at all, as something like the Climbie case shows. How is the mother elevated to a special role?

Thats something F4J seem to be placing very much on the back boiler while they allow people who have been denied contact after displaying a history of violence to campaign at the supposed 'injustice' they have suffered thorugh the family courts. Especially in the case of the father featured in the artile who went to prison for defying an order to not contact the family.
Things need to get to near fatal incidents before the courts will decide that a father should be subjected to those measures. believe me Ive been thorugh it. He had to try and run me over with the children in the vehicle at the time after beating me up with them there before I was able to protect my children.

What about starting a new organisation... Justice for CHILDREN. Thats who matters in these case. Not either parent.
F4J seem intent on getting their own way no matter what the father does to the mother in front of the children. How can that be right or fair to the chidlren involved?

 

[chrissie]

That's kind of what I meant, Chrissie - although I didn't put it very well.
It does apply to either gender of child. And it is the apportioning of blame which is the problem, as you point out in the case of your grandson.

My own father left because he decided he didn't like children, which left me feeling responsible (at 4) for my mother's pain as well as my own. My husband's father left before his birth and he spent his childhood suffering to his mother's rantings about the fecklessness, brutality and inadequacy of men. No wonder we're not having kids of our own!

I am sorry you have to face this. I can't help feeling that my generation, and that of my parents is responsible. What the hell did we do that left our kids and grandchildren inheriting this mess? We thought in the 60s and 70s that we were creating some sort of freedom - sounds like a cliché but I really did think I knew better than my parents. Maybe we didn't realise that we had forgotten responsibility too. I don't know. Maybe every generation thinks it has the answers.

You put the point really well, which is what sparked me off. How do you cope? Do you and your partner want kids at all?

 

[moose]

I am sorry you have to face this. I can't help feeling that my generation, and that of my parents is responsible. What the hell did we do that left our kids and grandchildren inheriting this mess? We thought in the 60s and 70s that we were creating some sort of freedom - sounds like a cliché but I really did think I knew better than my parents. Maybe we didn't realise that we had forgotten responsibility too. I don't know. Maybe every generation thinks it has the answers.

You put the point really well, which is what sparked me off. How do you cope? Do you and your partner want kids at all?

No, we don't! That was the first thing we found we had in common.
The funny thing is that my father decided later that kid's weren't so bad after all - and made contact with me and my mother when I was 35. We had a couple of hideously uncomfortable meetings in which he completely glossed over the 31 years he'd not be in touch, and has just invited me to go and stay with him in Florida where he lives! My husband's father knows where his son is, but hasn't bothered, which is perhaps as well

 

[Nigel Irritable]

The father's rights people include some men who have genuinely suffered a grievance. They also include a huge number of outright misogynists.

The first thing to remember is that the single biggest problem facing the family law system is not fathers who are desperate to play a role in their children's lives but are prevented from doing so. It is fathers who refuse to play any role at all, or to take any responsibility for their children financial or otherwise. The "father's rights" movement get publicity and media attention far greater than the attention focused on the problems facing women who have been left to raise their children alone.

The second thing to remember is that the assertion that "the courts favour women" is just that, an assertion. The in camera rules mean that it is very difficult indeed to come by hard evidence on this. Anecdotal evidence from practitioners in the field (family law barristers and solicitors) consistently suggests that (a) the overwhelming majority of fathers do not seriously seek to become the primary custodion of their children and (b) the tiny minority who do so in practice have as good a chance of winning such custody as women.

Now father's rights activists would no doubt tell us that such anecdotal evidence is meaningless, coming as it does from people who are part of the very system they are attacking. What they won't tell us is that the large majority of judges are male and that in so far as any do have the view that "the children's place is with their mother" they are categorically not expressing pro-woman or feminist points of view. They are simply expressing the flipside of the patriarchal notion that "the mother's place is in the home".

The father's rights movement is littered with such confused attitudes. Spending some time browsing their large number of websites is a genuinely scary experience. The fathers movement is closely linked to a larger "mens rights" movement, which is nothing other than a misogynist backlash against feminism. You will find that their arguments and wider political agendas are infused with a reactionary reverence for "the family", conceived as a nuclear unit. Feminism is seen as an attack on "the family" and thus all anti-father sentiments are confused with feminism.

These people are often very fucking nasty indeed but they get a huge and broadly sympathetic press by portraying fathers as put upon by a vast conspiracy of judges and feminists. If you are going to deal with them be very careful indeed.

 

[maldwyn]

Can I ask? How old are you? What happened to your mum after she lost custody?

I'm now 35, I was 9, the oldest of five children. She didn’t see me again until I was 17. After leaving she had a complete breakdown, spent a year in a mental hospital. She’d spy on us on our way to school and when we did meet again she had nine years worth of birthday/Christmas cards/presents.

We became very close, and she did get us all back eventually. She accepted my inability to ‘forgive’ and we both moved on. She died this January, of a heart attack.

 

[chrissie]

Thats something F4J seem to be placing very much on the back boiler while they allow people who have been denied contact after displaying a history of violence to campaign at the supposed 'injustice' they have suffered through the family courts. Especially in the case of the father featured in the ar who went to prison for defying an order to not contact the family.
Things need to get to near fatal incidents before the courts will decide that a father should be subjected to those measures. believe me Ive been thorugh it. He had to try and run me over with the children in the vehicle at the time after beating me up with them there before I was able to protect my children.

What about starting a new organisation... Justice for CHILDREN. Thats who matters in these case. Not either parent.
F4J seem intent on getting their own way no matter what the father does to the mother in front of the children. How can that be right or fair to the chidlren involved?

I know what you mean. At least I think that I do. The biological parent of my children (see, I have trouble with the word father after it was the second husband brought up our kids) beat me too.

So what society has to do it work at (with?) these damaged parents to make them more social and reasonable - if it can. What it does in fact is stick them in an adversarial situation where either they or the other parent can win - but not both - and thus, not sadly, the children.

You are SO right that it is the CHILDREN'S rights which need promoting.

It might be so that the damaged parent will never change and so will have to be banned from contact, in which case sitting on a lamppost and disrupting London's traffic will earn him not a jot of sympathy, - but wouldn't it have been better for you if someone could have tried to make your father see what a dangerous tosser he was and helped him change? If he had, YOU would have gained.

Instead, our current system allowed him to be the wanker he was and you lost a parent.

Hell, please don't think I don't, in some way, understand your pain, though. My own kids went through what you did and I watched (hard for a parent) - but I was able to pay to help my bastard first husband be some sort of (inadequate) father to them, and at least they knew him, and in some respects they know aspects of themselves that he gave them and have come to terms with it (and in some cases even liked the good aspects - the aspects of him that they made good in themselves).

But I know there is a cut-off point where you just have to say - NO MORE. My former best mate whose old man put her on the streets to keep him in heroin is the case in point. There isn't a court anywhere except in Hell which would have given him access to his kids.

I hope your kids are as great as mine - must be, eh? We love them, how could they be anything else, faults and all? We may wish the best for our kids, but sometimes we have to accept that life happens in spite of ourselves. Hope your kids knew that as well as mine did. Mine, bless them, forgave me for my faults. (And now they have kids of their own they are learning how to forgive themselves!)

 

[General Ludd]

What about starting a new organisation... Justice for CHILDREN. Thats who matters in these case. Not either parent.

I'm pretty sure there are plently such organisations, FTP linked to one earlier in this thread I think. But F4J was created to address what they see as a particular injustice they face as fathers, so that they organise as fathers isn't surprising or wrong, you see the same thing with women's right, anti-rascism things and so on.

F4J seem intent on getting their own way no matter what the father does to the mother in front of the children. How can that be right or fair to the chidlren involved?

For 2 years after my parents split up every time my dad came to pick me and my sister's up they would shout and scream at each other for half an hour and my mum would be very upset for the next couple of days. (as would my dad as it happened) The worst thing that could have happened, for me at least, would have been to have stopped me from seeing my dad because seeing him upset my mum. It is always going to be painful seeing your ex-partner again, doesn't mean it doesn't need to be done. (Clearly if it's not just verbal abuse but physical abuse then it's a very different matter.)

 

[LilMissHissyFit]

But thats not what happens in life. thats why the family courts force mothers hand over children to their fathers even where there is a history of abuse ( somethines involving the children)This happens over and over. I have no sympathy with F4J's members who have their contact terminated. I believe they hide behind the confidenitality of Family court decisions to allow them to say whatever they like and minimise their involvement.
If you believe that what F4J say is true then youre pretty misguided becuase mothers are threatened with imprisonment for not handing over their children to violent men.

Only they dont climb bridges, throw powder over the PM etc to highlight their cases

 

[chrissie]

I'm now 35, I was 9, the oldest of five children. She didn’t see me again until I was 17. After leaving she had a complete breakdown, spent a year in a mental hospital. She’d spy on us on our way to school and when we did meet again she had nine years worth of birthday/Christmas cards/presents.

We became very close, and she did get us all back eventually. She accepted my inability to ‘forgive’ and we both moved on. She died this January, of a heart attack.

PM-ing you!

 

[Nigel Irritable]

Exactly there are two big "grievances" highlighted by the father's rights movement:

1) That it is harder for men to become the primary custodian of the children after a break up. I've dealt with this issue in the posting above.

2) That some fathers are entirely denied access. The point here is that for the courts to completely deny access to a father, there has to be very clear evidence that he is dangerous to the children. It isn't done on a whim.

 

[LilMissHissyFit]

But F4J want people to believe that they are devnied access on a whim. that women are the evil party who get their own way ( this is not accurate or correct) and that they are victims of miscarriages of justice ( unlikely given how far my ex was able to go before his access was denied, regular beatings on contact and changeover times and police advice to not allow contact

 

[Nigel Irritable]

Not only do they want people to believe that they are denied access on a whim, it's actually worse than that. They want people to believe that they are denied access because feminists and uppity women in general are trying to do them down.

 

[pennimania]

But F4J want people to believe that they are devnied access on a whim. that women are the evil party who get their own way ( this is not accurate or correct) and that they are victims of miscarriages of justice ( unlikely given how far my ex was able to go before his access was denied, regular beatings on contact and changeover times and police advice to not allow contact

I'm not denying there does seem to be something dodgy about F4J - I heard one of them speaking on the radio a while ago (before this latest incident) and he seemed a snivelling guilt tripper if nothing else. Just like my oldest son's dad in fact.


But I still bit the bullet and let them see each other because he wanted to see his dad. It has been a huge relief to me since he has been an adult and I have finally been freed of any reason to be in contact with the wanker. I used to really try not to say anything negative about him in front of the kid and god! it was hard.


But i stand by what I said. Not all men are violent abusive bastards, a lot of them are quite nice in fact. We should applaud men who want to take an active role not slag them off.

And another thing - this thing about 'feminists' (odious word but you know what Imean) not wanting any contact with men. What a bore that line is - and enough to put a lot of young women off. Surely this is only a tiny minority of women? Even the lesbian mothers I know allow their kids to see their dads- and even have a friendly relationship with them, and in the particular case I am thinking of, are delighted to have some free and reliable babysitting.

 

[LilMissHissyFit]

I agree with you, Children should have a right to two good parents. Sadly thats not always possible.

This isnt about slagging off all men for me. Its about Fathers for Justice and their efforts.
Im just sorry that FH's views seem to have dominated this thread and it turned into more of a for V's Anti men argument as parents which is uneccesssay.
Families need fathers manage to produce productive and decent discussion without resorting to direct actions.