Advanced search

fathers for justice

(22 Posts)
namelessposter Tue 14-Jun-16 07:20:39

Can anyone help me with directions to well-written/ properly referenced 'neutral' news & information sources about why FFJ are anti-women & political activists, and not just a bunch of loving, supporting dads trying to stay part of their kids' lives, in the face of mean cash-grabbing lazy mummies and a female biased court system? Two of my separated male friends - both of whom have excellent access to their children - have started posting Facebook posts supporting FFJ, and seem totally unaware of the wider actions/agenda of the group. They seem to think it's a 'standing up for other dads' thing. I'd like to point them in the direction of some informative reading, rather than just post WTF on their news feeds.

OneEpisode Tue 14-Jun-16 07:24:52

There is a "Families Need Fathers" that is a registered charity, if you wanted to suggest an alternative?

Lweji Tue 14-Jun-16 07:42:42

The Wikipedia page is quite neutral.
You can direct them to the parts where they missed the opportunity to review and amend the bills they had been asking for.
And their bullying, threatening and illegal tactics.
There's only a bit about the founder, but maybe Google about other members.

Lweji Tue 14-Jun-16 07:44:43

Or you could ask them for specific and well supported examples of dads that have been hard done by.

Dervel Tue 14-Jun-16 14:38:42

Well you can point him at this post. I am a separated Dad, and been through the courts I cannot report any prejudice against me on account of my gender.

My situation is not what a lot of men experience as I have been hugely involved in the day to day care of my son, and demonstrably so. The bias in the courts is towards what is in the best interests of the children which is precisely where it should be imo.

Groups like f4j want to push for things like 50/50 shared care arrangements by default which I am not convinced is the solution in each and every case.

If as an advocacy group they pushed for cultural change rather than legal ones I'd support them in a hot minute. The change needs to be a wider acceptance of fathers taking primary care roles, and taking the hits to their careers in order to be more involved.

The root of the problem is not on unfortunate relationship break down, it goes back further than that with too many people falling into stereotypical gender roles.

The expectation of a lot of men flying forward in their careers, letting the mother take the financial/career hit and then STILL expecting a split down the middle when it comes to access is blue sky thinking when viewed from the child's perspective.

More men need to take responsibility for the consequences of their choices, and not blame biased court systems. More and more women have entered the workforce to maintain financial independence when relationships break down. The mirroring action for fathers is to take a greater interest in the day to day care of their children to protect their position.

HisNameWasPrinceAndHeWasFunky Tue 14-Jun-16 14:41:12

I've posted it before but this might help:


"The main problem I have with Men’s Rights Activists is that their name really doesn’t do them justice.

They’re Straight Cis White Men’s Rights Activists.

I have NEVER seen Men’s Rights Activists campaign for the inclusion of trans men in their spaces.
I have NEVER seen Men’s Rights Activists campaign to end the social stigma around black fatherhood.
I have NEVER seen Men’s Rights Activists campaign for better pay and equal career mobility for men of colour.
I have NEVER seen Men’s Rights Activists actively campaign for more gay men’s rights.
I have NEVER seen Men’s Rights Activists advise others in their group on how using faggot to emasculate men who aren’t part of their cause is alienating and marginalising other MEN.
I have NEVER seen Men’s Rights Activists campaign, raise awareness of, or support victims of male rape unless it’s in order to derail a discussion around female victims of rape.
I have NEVER seen Men’s Rights Activists campaign, raise awareness of, or support male victims of domestic abuse unless it’s in order to derail a discussion around female victims of domestic abuse.

Men’s Rights Activists are hypocrites and frauds. They’re bitter privileged white men who don’t want to campaign for the rights of men - they want to campaign to keep their privilege unchecked and their ability to discriminate against others.

If you want to be a real Men’s Rights Activist - be a fucking Feminist."

UnderTheGreenwoodTree Tue 14-Jun-16 16:51:34

You only need read their FB page to see that it is very men's rightsy, not all about fatherhood at all.

For example, they have linked to this article: moaning about Glastonbury having a women's only field.

They have also linked to A Voice For Men in the past - which is so misogynistic it can barely be believed.

They have linked to articles about women killing their children - with the sort of tag line "see - women are violent too".

They have linked to men killing their children or family annihilation cases with the tagline "see - this is what happens when men are denied access to their children."

I also take great exception to their "I am a Dad not a Cashpoint" T-shirts, because of course they should pay maintenance for their children.

I agree that family law should put the children's interests as paramount, and aim for a 'continuity of the status quo' for them in a divorce, and definitely not arbitrary 50-50 care. The vast majority of politicians they have approached on this subject have also said that - and won't support F4J - they then get named and shamed as "contact deniers" on their website. Which is not true at all.

In real life, I have only had experience of the family courts through a friend going through a divorce. I would say categorically, based on her case, that father's rights to contact with children is taken very seriously indeed, and only denied for very good reasons.

Steve Stevenson brought Families need fathers into disrepute. Members left after he was found guilty of something like perverting course of justice. If he's still part of the organisation, it could be said to be one to avoid for fear of corruption.

namelessposter Tue 14-Jun-16 19:39:08

Thanks everyone. Really appreciate your ideas. One of chaps is, I think a lost cause, but the other I have always thought of as a decent chap, and in fact is the RP of his 5yr old, so god knows why he's feeling all militant this week confused

UnderTheGreenwoodTree Tue 14-Jun-16 19:56:54

Sometimes men forget how they rule and run most of the world - and fall into the trap of thinking they're discriminated against. Poor old things wink grin

cadno Tue 14-Jun-16 20:50:11


Grimarse Tue 14-Jun-16 21:05:28

I don't think you all realise how tough it is running everything. Ruling, oppressing, keeping The Patriarchy ticking over - it's bloody tiring. No wonder the F4J lads get a bit tired and cranky. Cut them some slack.

Lweji Tue 14-Jun-16 21:09:46

They are clearly missing a trick. Most MPs are already men.
Do they leave children's issues to female MPs?

LittleMissBossyBoots Tue 14-Jun-16 21:13:31

Didn't they disband for a while after it emerged that they'd been plotting to kidnap Tony Blair's 5 year old son?

SmallLegsOrSmallEggs Tue 14-Jun-16 21:16:46

I imagine what they are thinking is wouldn't it be awful of I didn't get to see me kid? When what they should be thinking is thank fuck my child does not have a parent who carries on like that and acts like they are a possession to bicker over, a right to own rather than a privilege to love.

PinkyofPie Tue 14-Jun-16 23:13:43

The wiki page is good, it shows that they're all about intimidating people, seeking attention and pratting about to land in the papers, and less about making changes - they did a very man-like act of insisting changes to a children and families bill, yet when MPs asked them to formerly give feedback they didn't bother, meaning their views weren't reflected in the new bill and they threw their toys out the pram about it. They were also asked to sit on the committee to table amendments to the bill, and they refused. I'd love to hear their exes' sides of the story!

My dad is secretary for a small local charity that helps parents of either sex who are having difficulties coming to satisfactory agreements re contact. He was never involved with the biggest named organisation on this thread, and was part of a mass walk out of another.

They're underfunded, pretty much self funding, helping other parents through their person experiences of the system. Occasionally solicitors volunteer their time.

Since all the changes to legal aid, I really feel sorry for anyone who needs help in this arena.

HisNameWasPrinceAndHeWasFunky Wed 15-Jun-16 10:09:34

Just read the Wiki page.

It's amazing that F4J don't campaign to encourage/legislate for non-RP to maintain a relationship with their children AND pay the legal minimum maintenance!

We know for a fact on MN that the non RP simply walking out of their children's lives and not contributing financially is all too common and can affect children very negatively. F4J don't care about that.

scallopsrgreat Wed 15-Jun-16 12:11:11

I suspect they are thinking about how awful it would be to not have the access control over their children they feel entitled to. Shame, as HisName has pointed out, they don't think about how awful it is for children when money is withheld by the non RP and they are used as pawns. Also a shame that when they are asked to engage they refuse to or ignore it. Does that remind anyone of a particular pattern of behaviour?

LittleMissBossyBoots Wed 15-Jun-16 14:28:24

I used to work with a guy who was in F4J. He was always going on about how hard done by he was as a father and it wasn't fair that he wasn't involved in his child's life. I was like 'WTF???'.

He'd told me that he'd split from his ex when she told him she was pregnant because in his opinion she'd done it deliberately to trap him. He immediately took steps to get his savings out of the country and to set stuff up so that neither her or the child once born could have any claim on his assets. He then denied the child was his for 4 years, ignored all communication from his ex and refused to see the child, until eventually the CSA got a court order for a DNA test. Then suddenly he's in F4J going on about his rights. He wasn't angry about being stopped from being a father. He was angry about being made to behave like one.

UnderTheGreenwoodTree Wed 15-Jun-16 15:09:27

Oh look...


UnderTheGreenwoodTree Wed 15-Jun-16 15:12:50

"Pants to the CSA" - what a worthwhile cause. Not. hmm

Absolute dicks - it just shows they don't give a fig about the children - it's all about their rights, and their money.

Pay maintenance for your kids, guys.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now