Do you think that men are oppressed?

Hey dittany, did we just "whataboutthewomen?"

I am trying to read that document. But I've got as far as where it's saying "expanding the definition of DV is an insult to victims of real DV" and my hackles have just miraculously risen. So nice when men's groups presume to explain to Women's Aid what is and isn't DV.

However I persist.

1 in 4 women are victims of DV
1 in 6 men are victims of DV

How close do those numbers need to get to each other before you regard DV as an issue that affects both men and women?

'I'm a man, and I did press for flexible working to accomodate family commitments and I got it. From that instant it became clear that my career had stopped dead. I wasn't going to get promoted any further. I was also the only one out of my team who got made redundant a year or so later.'

Exactly so men have to make the sacrific because not many women would do the full time work and the extra time instead. I know I wouldnt or any other women I know. I love my husband for it but one of you has to work full time and do the extra regardless of the job they are in. I am just thankful that men do that for women.

I accept less money for pay as I can go off when I want if my child is sick, have days off to go to anything I need to go to etc. Men cant get that and so for that I am happy to take less pay so I can do what I like and have flexibility etc.

LeninGrad, I think that's a fair point. I don't think FNF really considered lesbian parents when they decided on their name. But I do also think there are studies which suggest that where there is both a mother and father on the scene, then the children tend to have better outcomes if both are committed to and involved with their children.

FNF's message works in two directions. One is as a general campaign to the government, family courts etc that fathers should be considered - and, ideally, viewed as equal parents to the mothers - when families split up. But the other message is to the men involved. It's an encouragement to them that they can, and should, remain involved in their children's lives post-separation and to not just drift away and lose touch.

"Why do men need a campaign for more involvement in families. Surely they can negotiate that with the women they are partnered with."

Well, if we assume we live in some magical world where everyone always negotiates in good faith and everyone always works towards solutions that solely hold the child's best interests first then, yes, such negotiations can be guaranteed to work. Back in the real world, however, some people don't/can't do that and that's when it gets difficult.

As for the CSA, you'd have to ask FNF that. I think their stance is that as courts see finances as separate from contact, then as an organisation that is interested in contact issues they don't want to get bogged down in financial stuff. For what it's worth, though, I've never seen any hint from any FNF official statement or member that maintenance should be witheld for any reason.

"I didn't post the link for you, I posted it so everybody else here could be aware of FNF stances."
Gosh, that's a funny way of spelling "Actually, you're right, they don't say that"

ElephantsAndMiasmas, fair enough I didn't explain myself very well. The point I was trying (and failing) to make was that when talking about witholding child contact as a result of DV then the differing versions of what is classed as DV makes a big difference.

Say we've got a man who pushes and shoves his wife. They split up and he applies for contact. That's clearly DV. I'd say he should get no more than supervised contact of his children as someone who believes such behaviour to be acceptable shouldn't be left alone with children.

Say we've got a different man who used family funds to finance a gambling addiction that often left the family desperately short of cash for vital bills. He took out joint loans with her while promising to pay them back but then failed to do so. They split up and he applies for contact. That is, in my eyes and I suspect yours as well, clearly Financial Abuse. In some people's eyes that's Domestic Violence as well. Should such a man get supervised or unsupervised contact with his children?

That was the point I was trying to make and that is also the point that I think the FNF document makes. I wouldn't hesitate to support a mother's desire to prevent a violent ex from unsupervised contact. But a very broad-brush approach to what constitutes DV makes subsequent discussions about child contact in DV situations very complex and liable to misinterpretation.

I did read the link, Dittany, which is why I said what I said. Please feel free to prove me wrong by quoting chapter and verse of where FNF says it thinks violent men should have contact with their children. Because I've looked through that document twice now and I still can't see it.

I do find it sad, though, that in a thread about possible oppression of men in certain areas that even the mention of a pro-fatherhood group is instantly denounced as anti-women and then followed up with the added implication of misogyny. They're called "Families Need Fathers", not "Families Don't Need Mothers".

Tell me, Dittany, are there any groups who campaign for more involvement by fathers in families that are not anti-women in your eyes?

thanks for ref btw :)

Men don't like uppity women. Does that summarise it?

Snorbs that is pretty disingenuous. Financial abuse is not the same as "controlling the family finances" - you make that sound like WA are trying to make a grab for Mr Normal's hard-earned. More often it is the abusive partner taking out huge loans/credit card debts without the knowledge of the other partner, or using the other partner's income without their knowledge (often on nice things like hard drugs) - it is often women whose incomes are being taken away by their partners to spend on unnecessary stuff, while she and the children are left without a pot to piss in. Or a man who is the main earner preventing his wife from having access to the family money to buy the necessaries of life - food, clothes, cleaning stuff, bus tickets, school stuff.

It isn't a load of Carrie Bradshaws moaning about not being able to afford Manolos on sweetie's credit card FFS!

Interesting dittany - do you know what chapter? I am faltering a bit with LD but want to get back into it.

Most men at the top:
oppress women in their lives and people with less money/

Some men at the top: rape / beat up women

Some men at the top: do their best to speak out against sexism where they see it, and try to make things better. They have considerable power to do this.

Most normal-income men: oppress women in everyday ways, sexist comments, acceptance of rape myths etc

Some normal income men: rape / beat up women

Some normal-income men: do their best to speak out against sexism where they see it, and try to make things better. They don't have that much power to do this.

All men benefit from male privilege - in that however bad circumstances are, at least they're not women. Women are always of lower status, especially women of the same or lower socio-economic group.

Dittany, just because you repeatedly say that FNF is an anti-woman organisation it doesn't make it true. FNF welcomes both men and women as members. FNF campaigns for equality.

I am not aware of any FNF campaign that calls for violent men to be allowed unsupervised access to children. Certainly, the document you link to says no such thing.

One big issue when discussing Domestic Violence is that different people/groups have different views of what DV consists of. Some regard it as physical violence, others view many (all?) abusive behaviours as DV. So someone accused of DV might in one person's eyes be someone accused of hitting, whereas in another person's eyes they could be someone who controls the family finances (Women's Aid, for instance, classes such behaviour as financial abuse which they in turn class as Domestic Violence).

ooh ooh over here Snorbs etc: Where are the men's campaign groups?

Families Need Fathers actively campaigns for flexible working and paternity leave.

That being said, I think there is an element of men not wanting to rock the boat too much at work for fear of losing their jobs. If you're the major wage-earner for your family and your wife has just given birth to your child then you don't want to go home and say "Good news; my boss has agreed to give me lots of time off to help look after our baby. Bad news; that's because I've been sacked."

On the other hand, I know that for some men they see looking after children - and, especially, babies - as primarily a woman's role. I'm not saying I agree with that but I think you'll agree that viewpoint is out there. And, indeed, some women would agree with them, too. Look at the number of women on MN who say that a mother has a closer connection to her child than the father does.

Snorbs, yes and I'm the opposite, 5 children city career etc no maternity leave and of course I did well. It's an easy equation that we all know whatever our gender and it's just a pity it's always the women wanting to be at home and rarely the men. My children's father was once told he couldn't have ap ay rise because of what I earned. Also female teachers could leave at all sorts of early hours but never him even though he was the prime carer after the nanny and had to get home by 6 to let the nanny go home but because he was male he was assumed not to have childacre responsibilities and that is even in a school.

I think women should avoid flexible working and if anyone has to sacrifice career let it be the man until we get closer to equality at work between men and women and anyway as most men know housework and childcare is pretty awful and most of us don't want to do many hours of it a day anyway.

I'm sure a lot of people on here know that, Snorbs! Sorry about what happened to you.

Why do you think men don't campaign for equal flexible working/paternity leave rights?

I'm a man, and I did press for flexible working to accomodate family commitments and I got it. From that instant it became clear that my career had stopped dead. I wasn't going to get promoted any further. I was also the only one out of my team who got made redundant a year or so later.

While that stung like hell at the time, in hindsight it wasn't an unreasonable business decision for the company I worked for. As a single parent I could no longer do the overtime I used to do or the weekend working. Having to schedule meetings to coincide with when I was in the office caused difficulties at times. Flexible working isn't without its problems.

I would be interested in research which sent men and women in to claim the same amount of money in negotiations, and compare how the employers reacted to the assertiveness shown by the applicants.

My suspicion would be that women would lose out to men on the grounds that while assertiveness in men is seen as positive, in women it is often seen an unnatural or unfeminine.