Just what the hell's going on in London?

Mr. Tea

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
matt b said:
that's just a huge over-simplification. my dad didn't fit into either and friends who have kids and have seperated from the mother of their child don't either.

nor is the 'system' biased against fathers in the way you describe- fathers' lack of payments is a much bigger deal

the issue is not about fathers, its about wider social breakdown
Click to expand...

1) I never said this describes every instance of family break-up that happens. Someone I know was brought up by her dad between the ages of 13 and 18 after her mum left and it was extremely difficult for her dad to claim child benefit for her, because the assumption is that that kids are going to stay with the mum - which brings me on to my point about the bias in the system. If a separated/divorced mother wants to stop her ex seeing their kids, there's damn near nothing he can do about it within the law; given how rancorous divorces often are, this unfortunately allows kids to be used as a weapon by one partner against the other.

2) I don't know how you can quantify the relative sizes of the two problems here, they're both bad and (reasoned, sensible) attempts to remedy both of them can only be a good thing.
 
Last edited:
N

nomadologist

Guest
Ha, Eden. That took me a second, I hate to admit...

Well, I'll feel sorry for all of those oppressed fathers who are kept from being the wonderful parents they'd love to be by their evil baby mamas on the cold day in hell when the government is harder on men who owe alimony and aren't paying up.

At least, the American ones.
 
Mr. Tea

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
I'm just talking about the situation in Britain, where there is a large body of public feeling that a lot of men are being unfairly denied access to their own kids. Of course there are lots of useless, deadbeat dads too.
 
N

nomadologist

Guest
Mr. Tea, you can't run a system based on the few exceptions to a rule that may slide through the cracks, unfortunately. In a perfect world, you could, but this world isn't perfect; the defects in the law that keep a good father from having custody are unfortunately in place only to keep bad/abusive fathers from abusing children. If a few good men have their children on fewer weekends, but it keeps one more man from beating his kids, or worse, molesting them, then I have to say: keep the law in place.
 
N

nomadologist

Guest
Mr. Tea said:
I'm just talking about the situation in Britain, where there is a large body of public feeling that a lot of men are being unfairly denied access to their own kids. Of course there are lots of useless, deadbeat dads too.
Click to expand...

This is really happening? How do they deny them access?
 
matt b

matt b

Indexing all opinion
Mr. Tea said:
I'm just talking about the situation in Britain, where there is a large body of public feeling that a lot of men are being unfairly denied access to their own kids. Of course there are lots of useless, deadbeat dads too.
Click to expand...

that's a feeling based on the publicity gained by husbands who would rather dress up in lycra and stand on tall buildings, rather than spend time with their kids.

the reality is somewhat different
 
Mr. Tea

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
nomadologist said:
Mr. Tea, you can't run a system based on the few exceptions to a rule that may slide through the cracks, unfortunately. In a perfect world, you could, but this world isn't perfect; the defects in the law that keep a good father from having custody are unfortunately in place only to keep bad/abusive fathers from abusing children. If a few good men have their children on fewer weekends, but it keeps one more man from beating his kids, or worse, molesting them, then I have to say: keep the law in place.
Click to expand...

Jesus Christ, there you go again with this man-bashing crap! Why not lock up ALL men, just in case, because some of them are rapists, eh? No-one has mentioned child abuse in this thread, and I fail to see the relevance of it to the discussion, vis a vis, the fact that (in the UK) court orders made to ensure that a man has the right to see his kids are very often not enforced, and that there is at present very little he can do if his ex-partner decides to play tricky and deny him access.

The idea that, at some point in the future, I may be denied access to my own children on the basis that I'm a man and therefore likely to rape them at the drop of a hat is enough to make want to run out and sterilise myself right now...
 
Mr. Tea

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
matt b said:
that's a feeling based on the publicity gained by husbands who would rather dress up in lycra and stand on tall buildings, rather than spend time with their kids.

the reality is somewhat different
Click to expand...

Er, hello? They're doing that because they're being PREVENTED from spending time with their kids. As ridiculous as the whole campaign may seem, it's just their attempt to attract publicity to their plight.
 
N

nomadologist

Guest
Mr. Tea said:
Jesus Christ, there you go again with this man-bashing crap! Why not lock up ALL men, just in case, because some of them are rapists, eh? No-one has mentioned child abuse in this thread, and I fail to see the relevance of it to the discussion, vis a vis, the fact that (in the UK) court orders made to ensure that a man has the right to see his kids are very often not enforced, and that there is at present very little he can do if his ex-partner decides to play tricky and deny him access.

The idea that, at some point in the future, I may be denied access to my own children on the basis that I'm a man and therefore likely to rape them at the drop of a hat is enough to make want to run out and sterilise myself right now...
Click to expand...

Who said you should be "denied access" to anyone? Child abuse is relevant to the way the law was written (in the U.S. at least) because historically women and children have had a very hard time getting away from abusive spouses/fathers, because of their economic dependence on them. What is "man-bashing" about referring to the unfortunate fact that many fathers (like many mothers) are abusive?

Sorry, but if there are unpleasant realities in life, it's not my fault.
 
N

nomadologist

Guest
In the U.S., custody laws and custody decisions made by courts are enforced very strictly.
 
Mr. Tea

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
What's man-bashing about it is that you brought up the spectre of abusive fathers in a discussion in which they are not (as far as I can see) relevant. I was talking about two things that need to change to improve the role fathers play in post-divorce families - one of which involves trying to encourage bad fathers to be good ones, and the other of which involves trying to help men who really want to be good fathers but are being thwarted by an uncooperative ex and an unsympathetic legal system. This has been a big new topic in Britain for the past couple of years, maybe it's not so big in America? Anyway, all I'm saying is it's a real problem that needs to be addressed and not dismissed, or chalked up to some nebulous paedophilia threat.
 
N

nomadologist

Guest
Matt, in the 90s, there was an outcry by conservatives about this "bias" against men in custody hearings re: mothers being granted "automatic" primary custody based on their being women and thus, its thought, "naturally" better caregivers.

I tended to agree that women need not be seen as biologically destined to be mothers or caregivers, while men are lost when it comes to raising children because they don't have estrogen in abudance.

But even though think this is unfair in theory, in practice, I can anecdotally refer to almost any example of a two-parent family I can think of, and across the board, I see that the mother has done the majority of the child rearing, and thus, probably knows her children better, is more in touch with them, and might be able to do a more thorough job of raising the kids. This is a social issue, really, but until we change quite a few social attitudes, unfairness is going to abound in terms of custody battles.
 
N

nomadologist

Guest
Mr. Tea said:
What's man-bashing about it is that you brought up the spectre of abusive fathers in a discussion in which they are not (as far as I can see) relevant. I was talking about two things that need to change to improve the role fathers play in post-divorce families - one of which involves trying to encourage bad fathers to be good ones, and the other of which involves trying to help men who really want to be good fathers but are being thwarted by an uncooperative ex and an unsympathetic legal system. This has been a big new topic in Britain for the past couple of years, maybe it's not so big in America? Anyway, all I'm saying is it's a real problem that needs to be addressed and not dismissed, or chalked up to some nebulous paedophilia threat.
Click to expand...

You're very lucky, Mr. Tea, to be able to see paedophilia as a "nebulous" threat. It's a really concrete reality, and the numbers are staggering.

Beyond that, child abuse (and I wasn't just referring to sexual abuse up there) in general may not pertain to how the law is written in the U.K.--in the U.S., the governing bodies are definitely trying to correct years of inadequacy where men were favored/privileged in the eyes of the law and abusive men were allowed to continue abusing their children. Hell, women would have to stay with abusers because they weren't allowed to work or have financial indepedence, so they'd have two options: 1) keep getting hit or 2) be homeless.
 
Mr. Tea

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
OK, I guess we're arguing at cross purposes here slightly, I wasn't aware of the US situation and you naturally won't have heard so much about the development of the debate over here.

By 'nebulous' I didn't mean to imply that paedophilia doesn't exist, of course - I just meant that it seems like the worst sort of preventative measure to deny a man access to his kids simply on the basis that he *might* be abusive. And as you say, it's not unknown for women to commit abuse (sexual or otherwise) or at least collude in abuse committed mainly by someone else.

In response to Matt's link to the Guardian article, those cases are obviously horrible, and I should hope the courts' reactions to them are aberrations rather than the rule. However I don't think it inherently invalidates the point being made by F4J, despite what I think about their attempte to gain public attention/sympathy (a plot to kidnap Tony Blair's son - I mean, what can you say?) - I've also noticed that the Guardian has been antagonistic towards the group since it started out.
 
N

nomadologist

Guest
Who exactly is getting denied access to their children? I'm very curious. I can't imagine that happening here. You'd get sued for all you were worth if you wouldn't let your ex-husband see his children during the court-awarded custodial times.
 
Mr. Tea

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
I don't have any figures to hand, but I can only assume that the problem must be big enough for men to get upset about it to the point of dressing up as superheroes and trying to storm Parliament, with support from a fair number of guys who feel themselves to be in the same situation. You don't do that because you've had a bad day at the office.

I'm further prepared to go out on a limb here and assume that this isn't just a covert operation by some home-grown version of NAMBLA...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top