to rather intensely dislike Harriet Harman?

[grovel]

Naggy and bossy at the same time. And so tribal.

I suspect that one of the next posts on this thread will 'explain' the low number of male LPs by claiming that the courts are biased against men and always award residency to women.

In the UK it is generally accepted that the best outcome for the child is to reflect -as far as is possible - the arrangements in place before the parents separated. This is to minimise the disruption to the child and provide some sort of emotional stability.

As it is overwhelmingly women who provide most of the childcare in families, this is why it is overwhelmingly women who gain residency.

When more fathers share responsibility at home, we will see far more cases of 50/50 post separation. When more fathers become the primary carer, we sill see more men becoming resident parents in the event of a split.

This is why instead of better access rights men need to campaign for paternity rights and flexible working if they are really serious about having better relationships with their children after divorce.

GingerbreadDAd - yes you can apply it to bad mothers as well. Of the tiny percent of male lone parents who have XPs on the scene - they quite often have the same complaints about their Xs as female lone parents - lack of paying maintenance, lack of interest, using access to play controlling games, etc.

Her comment was:
'"it cannot be assumed that men are bound to be an asset to family life or that the presence of fathers in families is necessarily a means to social cohesion"

She was talking about the attitude that the two parent household is the ideal and should be seen as necessary for the strength of society.

I think that most people would agree that having the father living in the same house as the mother is not necessarily the best thing in every situation. There are thousands of parents who are divorced/separated. A man and woman may be great parents but they are not necessarily a great couple. Having two miserable, arguing parents under one roof is not always better than having two happy separated parents ,who both have good relationships with the child.

How do you think the average employer would react to a male employee that expected their job to fit around their family, instead of the other way round? I think they'd get short shrift, don't you?

Sorry but I still think HH is a man-bashing feminist nutter. Has she ever had a job outside of politics? I imagine not, certainly not in the private sector.

YANBU

Harriet Harperson makes my blood boil. Abolish the Equality Act!!!!!1

It is funny that a more feminist approach to eg maternity leave, childcare and the division of labour would result in many more fathers being awarded joint/sole custody, yet it is feminism that is usually blamed by those who criticise the way family law works in the UK.

If maternity leave was a long paid period that could be split and shared by both parents, if more fathers took jobs on a part time basis or worked hours that fit around childcare, if the cooking/cleaning/washing and looking after the children etc was shared equally then there would be no prime carer for the court to award custody to - or if there was it wouldn't so often be the mother.

I've read about the attitude that a divorced father faced from colleagues when he took 50/50 custody of his child. He changed his work hours so he could leave early to collect the child from nursery on his days and was met by a mixture of disbelief and contempt. Most of them just couldn't comprehend why he would want to take that on. That's a feminist issue. The assumption that the mother takes on less hours and compromises her career to deal with things like drop offs and pick ups and children being home sick. It can hurt men as much as women.

Half of the stuff that is blamed on feminism is actually a result of sexism!

Tarty

do you really think these things or are you trotting out the lamest arguments trying to get a rise?

Women do not 'expect jobs to fit around families'. Any more than men do.

It's just since the majority of childcare is LEFT to women, it looks like it.

I doubt there's a single couple who are happy 24/7 ( or anywhere near it ) - in all relationships you're going to have disagreements/arguments the occasional door slammed, bickering in the car etc - that's married life. My children have seen me argue with their dad - they've heard me call him a boring twit and a thick idiot - but it's resolved quickly and within 10 minutes we're all eating pizza together again - there are times he bores me so much I'd rather be cleaning the oven, and I'm sure he feels the same about me. But we've never once considered splitting up - not once, because we're a partnership and we owe it to our children to give them a stable life. Plus, hiding kids away from all arguments isn't always a good thing, children need to learn that you can have disagreements with people you love -

FilthyFunkProject of course couples argue and make up. That's normal. Children see that and, as you said, learn how healthy relationships work. There are a lot of couples who don't make up though. Or who spend their lives swinging between volatile arguments and passionate making up. Maybe they should never have gotten together in the first place, maybe they grew apart, maybe they are just a really bad personality clash. Should they stay together regardless, even if that has a negative impact on home life? Is it better for the children to grow up with bitter, resentful parents modeling a deeply unhealthy relationship or to accept that some relationships don't work out, but that doesn't mean that both mother and father can't be good parents?

ELNP - all the couples I've known who have split up have left for another woman ( or man ) - people have become very selfish and will leave marriages for reasons that have nothing to do with DV - is it really worth breaking a marriage up because you're a bit bored in bed?

I don't care what couples break up over as long as children aren't involved. Once kids are involved, it should take something MAJOR and unforeseen to split parents up, not just being bored or unsatisfied in bed or whatever.

Or miserable, or unfulfilled, or verbally abused, or deeply unhappy, Doris? You're right - I think the miserable martyr is a great role model for children.

Exactly TD

Welcome the the 1950s, Swallowed...... which is where I think TD and FFP are happily following the government.

There's a happy medium between that and the current situation.

I agree that people can be selfish and often start new relationships before they've actually split. I don't think that being 'a bit bored in bed' is the case for all of those though. I think sometimes it's actually the emotional connection that people leave their partners for, when the relationship hasn't been close or supportive for some time.

Whatever the reason for the split, whether it's a lust relationship that started at work or a total lack of emotional support from their partner or a couple who actually don't like each other any more, you can't police people's behaviour. Yes, the ideal would be that no one ever cheats and couples communicate well and respond to each others needs and they seek counselling if they are having trouble. But life's not like that.

People will end up in relationships that they want to leave and staying together for the sake of the children isn't always for the best, particularly when the end result is an unhappy home environment.

i know that you have all moved on, but this has been bugging me for some time, re: single mothers and how not having a father apparently causes the apocalypse etc etc etc

there was a huge loss of male life due to war and then the influenza epidemics post First World War, leaving a significant (I would assume) number of children fatherless

I would have thought a large number were also left fatherless after the SEcond World War/Blitz

can anyone enlighten me as to whether they all grew up to be feckless yobs as today's fatherless (?!?) children are often claimed to? If not, why not?

Nobody goes about castigating the men, do they?
Are you kidding? On this forum that's all anyone seems to do.

I don't know who Lundy Bancroft is, but I highly doubt her claims.

And I know a lot more women that have had affairs than men. In fact I don't know any men that have left their wives for another woman.

So, what is this 'happy medium' you dream tell of?

is that where women put up with it, because it's better than being lone parents?

can anyone enlighten me as to whether they all grew up to be feckless yobs as today's fatherless (?!?) children are often claimed to? If not, why not?
Kids growing up in the 50s and 60s didn't face the same challenges that kids today (particularly boys) do. There was near universal employment back then and gender roles were clearly defined. Nowadays nobody knows what they are supposed to be doing.

I imagine a lot of women who were widowed during the war subsequently remarried.